James Ainsworth

Thanks for the update @DeadMeatGF. I'd be interested to know what you think about having the Boards Action set as green when the request is associated to a board? It was intended to draw your attention and show that a board has been associated, instead of having to click on the Boards Action to find out if it is or not. Regards, James

Hi @DeadMeatGF I was wondering if you still experience this after doing an update to the latest build of Service Manager? Regards, James

Hi Hayley, I have had a look but I've not been able to replicate this. Am I right in thinking that your screen shot is from the CSV export and displayed in Excel? If not, let me know where you are viewing this result. The screen shot below is taken from the Data Preview option which is under the Data Collection Tab when creating a report. I was wondering if you get the YYYY displayed here too? Regards, James

Document Manager Plug-in for Service Manager One of the great things about apps on Hornbill is the synergy between them. This video has a look at the Document Manager Plug-in that is provided to the different types of requests available within Service Manager. This Plug-in lets you search and link documents which are stored within libraries held in Document Manager. This is ideal for making help documents, instruction manuals, and policy documents available for linking to any request.

Hi Martyn, This should not be the case. The rules are evaluated by three separate actions. The Service Level rules will be evaluated as you mentioned when the response and resolution target timers are started within the BPM. If you change the Service Level Agreement by manually selecting a different SLA from Amend Service Level form that you provided a screenshot, the rules will again be evaluated. There is also a BPM Operation that can be used to automatically re-assess the Services Levels at different points within your BPM. We are working on a 4th method which would change the Service Level automatically when particular fields are updated on a request. If a new Service Level Agreement is selected and none of the Service Levels associated with that SLA are applied, I would assume that none of the rules have matched. Regards, James

Hi Martyn, Thanks for your post. We do have a change in our backlog for this. I'll make sure that you are added to the change. Regards, James

Hi @SJEaton and @Dan Munns Our changes work through a process of being designed and planned to a point where it then goes into a 90-day queue. Once a change is in this queue, we look to have it available within this 90 days. This change has made it to the 90 day queue but development work has not yet started. This suggests that the timeline for this change is to have it available over the next 3 months. We have hundreds of great feature requests and each couple of weeks, we are able to provide new features that are available to everyone. We put a lot of effort into assessing and planning these requests to provide a good spread of new functionality that supports our different customers. As you have done here, please keep active on the forums whether it be suggesting a new features or promoting something that has already been asked for. Regards, James

Hi @katy_palmer You should be able to use the Source field to check the number of requests raised by email. This field is automatically set to Email for requests raised by email, Self Service for requests raised by the portals, and Analyst for those manually raised by your support staff. I not sure at the moment how you can report on requests that have been updated by email. James

Hi There are some changes in the backlog to do more with Priorities, but difficult to say if these changes will cater for these different ways of working with priorities. Looking a your list of priority names, in my opinion these look more like the names of Service Levels. I'm not sure what IRMA and the other abbreviation are representing, but the way the Service Levels are designed in Service Manager these look like they may fit well as Service Levels. We try to provide lots of flexibility in Service Manager as everyone can operate their Service Desks in different ways and we continue to put out new features an options to continue to extend these features. Focusing on what can be done now, and I understand that this might be a change from the way you work... One thing that is the same throughout your priority list that you posted is the High, Medium, and Low aspect of each of these names. The idea behind the priority list is to host these types of common priority names such as Major, High, Medium, and Low and maybe some desks will add None, as an option. The Service Level Targets (response and resolution) are part of the Service Levels. For each Service you can have multiple Service Levels and you can also have Corporate Service Levels to provide common levels of service without having to create duplicates on each Service. If each of your current Priorities are there to support particular response and resolution targets, the idea would be to move these from being a Priority to being a Service Level against the Service that they represent. I'm guessing here, but lets say that IRMA is a Service, you could create Service Levels by these same names under the IRMA Service. Then by using the Service Level Rules Builder you open yourself to having a number of conditions that can determine which Service Level (response and resolution targets) will be applied automatically. This might start with matching up a priority directly to a Service Level, but you can add to this had have things like if priority is medium and the customer is CEO then use the IRMA High Service Level. Another way to look at the Service Levels is to think of them as per service priorities. You could create service based priorities (Service Levels) under an IRMA Service (or using the Corporate SLA) called IRMA High, IRMA Medium, and IRMA Low. Remove all of your current priories but leave just High, Medium, and Low. Create Service Level rules to match up a selected priority on a request with the appropriate service based priority (Service Level). The result would be that support staff only have 3 priorities to pick from (High, Medium, Low) and the service based priority that includes the response and resolution targets (Service Level) is applied automatically. This takes all of the guess work out of the hands of the person raising and managing the requests. I hope that makes sense. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. Regards, James

Hi Ryan, From the above screenshot I'm assuming that you are using something like a Static Drop down Select Box as the field type on your custom Progressive Capture form. I'm going to try to look at options that are currently available to see if there is something that you can use now. Using the conditional fields options in the above video, you should be able to, on a single form in progressive capture, have a field to prompt for the user to enter quote number. This could then be followed by a Yes/No question Would you like to add another? Yes/No. Selecting Yes would display another field for adding another quote number and selecting No would continue to the next question. You can continue this to the maximum number of quote numbers that you want to allow for. You may even want to provide a description saying what the maximum is... or if they reach the maximum, the next thing you display is some instruction on what to do next, such as " you have reached the maximum of X. please raise a new request for any additional quotes" Would that get you any closer to what you are looking for? James

Hi @RyanMesser Thanks for your post. I'm not sure if I'm following exactly what it is that you are looking for, but have a look at this and let us know if this is the kind of thing you are looking for... There is additional information around creating custom forms on our wiki. Hope this helps. Regards, James

A defect has been raised for this issue. I''ll try to post back here once available, but in most cases defects will be available within an update or two so keep an eye open for the release notes. Regards, James

Thanks for your post. I have seen this on my own requests. I'll have development take a look. Regards, James

@chriscorcoran There is also a BPM Operation that lets you update the Service Levels at a set point in the workflow. This is particularly useful when you have a stage at the beginning of your process where an assessment takes place where you get the details you need to allocate a priority or other information that you have tied to your Service Level Targets. Once you have all the information, you use this operation to update the Service Levels. There is a concern with automation when it comes to the Service Level Targets. You may have raised a "Low" priority request that has been open for many days and someone changes the priority to "High" which had a one day target associated to it, and it is an automatic breach as you have already passed that one day target. The manual method of changing a Service Level does protect you somewhat as it will let you know that a breach will occur before you apply the change to the Service Level. The Priority is also only loosely connected to the Service Level Targets via the Service Level Rules where Priority is one of several options that can be used to tie in your Service Level Targets to a request. A use case where this works well is when you have a request that starts off as Low priority, but you then allow for the priority to be increased (possibly using the automated escalations) as the Service Level Target approaches. Something that started as Low, may be a High Priority when it is about to breach. Saying all of this, as Victor mentioned, we do still plan on providing an option that will dynamically look for changes on a request that would require the Service Level Targets to automatically update... just watch out for the breaches! Regards, James

Thanks for your post @samwoo We do have a change in our backlog for this particular feature. I'll make sure that you are added to the change. Regards, James

Hi @Dan Munns We do have a change that is not too far off for adding Cancel to the list of multi-select options. I'll make sure you are added and this post in linked so we can let you know once it is closer to being ready for release. Regards, James

Thanks for your posts. In most cases we use adaptive screen layouts. I will investigate to see what it would take to add here. Regards, James

Hi @Paul, Thanks for your post. While this is very high up our queue to be worked on, it has not yet reached development. Regards, James

Hi @gregmarcroftorc You can bypass the AD authentication and use Hornbill authentication by issuing ?ESPBasic=true in your URL. https://live.hornbill.com/<instance_ID>/?ESPBasic=true This will enforce Hornbill authentication rather than SSO. Regard, James

Project Manager: An Overview of your Project This video introduces Hornbill Project Manager. We start by looking at the Project Overview. For any stakeholder in a project, the Overview gives an encompassing view of the current state that the project is in. From here you can see the progression against a defined process, the status of the current Milestones and Tasks, and your current spending and risks. You are also able to drill down into Milestones and Tasks for easy updating of your projects. An important aspect to all apps on Hornbill is the built-in collaboration. Project Manager provides different levels of collaboration, starting from an overall project perspective, down to providing discussions on individual tasks.

Hi Josh, Something else that you might be interested in is the use of Asset Sub-statuses. There is documentation located here. When viewing the list of Asset Types there is an option at the top to create substatuses. These will coincide with the main Status. You may find that you don't actually need the operational status displayed and hide this as part of the Asset Type configuration. Here is where you enable the substate on an asset type. Let us know if this helps. Regards, James

Hi Dave, Thanks for your post. While we have some changes in our backlog around improvements to attachments within a request, we don't currently have anything to separate out attachments into different sections based on their source. I believe that there may be a few options that we can look at. Providing a source of the attachment does make sense and I can see how this would help. I'll post back once we have looked at some of these options. Regards, James

Thanks for your posts. I will make sure that you are all added to the change. Regards, James

@Dan MunnsAs a temporary measure you could create an "Archive" team and use the multi-select to reassign to this team. This way you can get these out of sight of your users and give you the time to manage them how you would like to. We do have a change in our backlog to allow for the multi-select to include an option for cancelling, provided you have the right to cancel. I'll add you to this change and let you know when we are closer to having this completed. Regards, James

Hi @dwalby Thanks for your post. We do have a change in our development backlog for this requirement. I'll be sure to add you to the change and we will update this post once it is scheduled. Regards, James