James Ainsworth

Hi Sam, I see that the Active State on this Progressive Capture is set to off. The Updated On field takes the enabling and disabling of the Progressive Capture in to consideration and while you might not have changed the content of the workflow, if this was disabled from the view that you have posted above, the Updated On is most likely reflecting when it was de-activated. Can you confirm that your latest tests were done while this progressive capture was active? If this was disabled when raising a request, the request would have defaulted back to the default progressive capture which is specified in the setting app.itsm.progressiveCapture.newRequest (for Service Requests). If your Test Business Support Progressive Capture was a copy of the original default progressive capture it may give the appearance that you have lost your changes when it might actually be running the original as your new script is not enabled. Let me know if this helps. Regards, James

Hi @Dan Munns Is it possible to provide a screen shot of this? I'm not too sure where the field is that you are referencing. If this is a custom field is being populated from a variable in a BPM workflow then in some cases both ID and Display Names are available. However, this can depend on how the link between the entities are created. Regards, James

Hi @alecwa We add customers as 'Connections' to our changes so that we can track the interest on a particular change. We use this as one of our criteria when it comes to prioritizing changes. You are already a connection on a change that is scheduled to start with development to improve searching. There are a few different areas that have been discussed when it comes to searching. This change that you are connected to will provide a feature, similar to the Supportworks screenshot that you provided. Regards, James

Hi @HHH This was being discussed internally just the other day. I will confirm if this is something that we can provide and update once I have a bit more information. Regards, James

Hi Oscar, We would of course be interested to hear about particular areas that you or your team find frustrating with the number of clicks. I'm sure that there are always areas that we can improve on. While this wont help with reducing clicks within a form, when it comes to quickly navigating around Hornbill and its apps, one of my favourite features to help with this is the Bookmarks which is part of the right and pop-out panel. Any user can create quick links to the areas within Hornbill that they use the most. Here is an example of my own Bookmark bar which I have visible all the time so no matter what I'm doing in Hornbill, these areas are only one click away. There is also a nice little video here that will give a brief overview. Regards, James

Hi @clampj Thanks for your post. The Update Action is typically the default action but it might be that you have a Suspend operation in your BPM that is switching the action. In your case you may have a Suspend and wait for resolution operation in your BPM that is changing this focus. Let us know if this helps. Regards, James

Hi @samwoo Sorting by the template name and an option to filter will be available in the next Administration update. Further investigation and consideration would be needed for column sorting and grouping. Regards, James

Hi @Joyce Assigning a request to someone while it belongs to another team would have a knock-on affect in other areas. If the owner and the team don't match up you may find visibility issues in the request list or inconsistencies in reports. For security reasons we do our best to keep this scenario from occurring so that someone doesn't find themselves working with a team that manage secure data. The suggestion of a default team may help in this scenario, but you may also run into issues where a default team that the request gets assigned to doesn't support the service and again you are left with dependencies in reporting against that service. Do let us know if the suggestions posted above have helped get you to a point where this is working OK for you or if you are still having issues. Regards, James

Hi @Dan Munns We have considered default teams in the past. At the moment in the Administration portal the team configuration comes under the Organisation Groups in administration and all of the apps available in Hornbill can use these teams. The problem with setting a default team here is that a default team required for Service Manager may not be the same default team required for another app. In Administration we have started building out an area for configuring the teams and Service Desks that use Service Manager. This will allow us in the future to provide these types of settings. We have a bit more work to do here before adding the default teams but it is something that we should be able to provide in the future. Regards, James

If you throw in some images you can really start to bring it to life...

Hi @dwalby Unfortunately this isn't available at the moment. I'm not sure how feasible this is or if you think that this would be acceptable, but I was wondering if the first Progressive Capture form could be provided as an introduction to what they are going to need to complete the following steps. Your first progressive capture could look a little like this... There is documentation and a great video here that may give you some more ideas on how you can present this. Regards, James

Hi Samuel, The checklist on an Activity was a very early feature of the activities and was really seen as a simple list of actions that needed to be done in order to complete the task. Once all are checked off the outcome is set to being completed. You mention not having a ''form'' half way through a process. I'm assuming that you are referring to triggering a progressive capture form after a request has been raised? This has been considered before and something that we still may look at implementing. In the meantime I'll continue to think of alternatives for you that you can use now. James

Hi @akbrekka In this post there is a great discussion on two stage closures which includes the re-opening of a request if a customer feeds back that the resolution doesn't work. However, this does not account for your requirement which is to re-open when a customer sends an email. I'm not sure how we would differentiate between an email from a customer that says ''Thanks it is resolved'' from ''Thanks, but it is not resolved'' in order to automate this. While this can be managed on the portals, I'm not so sure about an email. Possibly you are looking for a simple notification to the owner of the request that an email update has been applied which would allow them to manually make the choice of re-opening, closing, or letting it expire? Regards, James

What I have done to overcome this is take a screen grab of my two images and make a new image with the two images combined. It does add some extra steps and prep doing this but it might give you something to work with until there are some more options. I have also found that putting the images together in a single image can make it a little easier when it comes to having different images of different sizes. Regards, James

Hi Kelvin, Thanks for your post. Boards don't have a concept of sorting. Agile Boards tend to work more from the physical drag and drop and placement of the cards on a list to manage the order that something might be looked at. The benefit of not providing ordering is that everyone looking at the board is seeing the same list in the same order. We might look at an idea of filtering where you could filter on priority to see where all of your Severity 1 changes are located on a board. Regards, James

There is a BPM Workflow option for updating linked requests. This is particularly useful when resolving or closing a parent request that it can provide an update to the child request or it can resolve the child requests automatically. As mentioned above, this only applies to the timeline updates and not custom fields. This will of course only allow updates to be applied at set points within the workflow but does not provide adhoc updates on a parent to be added to a child request. We do have a change in our backlog for this and I will make sure you are all added to this change and that the post is updated once this change has started. Regards, James

Hi Alisha, Thanks for your post. I don't believe that there are any options to control the positioning of the images at the moment. There is always the possibility of adding more support for wiki markup in the future. The existing wiki markup has been added to over time and I'm sure that more options will be provided in the future. If you have a particular form that you are trying to configure with multiple images, could you post a screen shot here just to give a reference of what you are trying to achieve. Many thanks, James

Hi Martyn, We do have a change for this in our backlog. I will add you to the change and update this post when some progress is made. This is not currently scheduled. Regards, James

There are some definite benefits to @Victor's suggestion. Where possible, automation can make things easier and remove human error. There are some changes in our backlog to improve this further. One of these is to include the multi-selection option on the request list to but requests on hold. This may also take sub-statuses into account which in themselves can put a request on hold. Sub-statuses, in my view, are a good way to go in place of just having an on-hold/off-hold. Another option might be for us to include a place on hold or change sub-status on the Link Request action on the requests. This way as you are making the links between requests, you can place them on hold at the same time. James

Hi @dwalby At the moment the published known issues are for each individual service and can't be shared between services. We are looking to provide more relationships between Services and this is something that we can possibly look at when we do this. For example you may see your two Services mentioned above as Business Services, but these may be underpinned by a technical service like Exchange Server and an FAQ posted at this level would display on the upper level related services. We do have changes in our backlog to manage these relationship but they are not currently scheduled to be worked on. If you think that this solution would work for you let me know and I'll make sure you are added to the change relating to this so that we can you updated. Regards, James

Hi @dwalby For the report that you mentioned in your post, there is a "Resolved By Team ID" (h_resolvedby_team_id) and "Resolve By Team" (h_resolvedby_teamname) fields on the h_itsm_requests table. This may give you the information that you are looking for for your report. Regards, James

Hi @dwalby There is a table called h_itsm_request_team_assignment that stores assignment information. You may be able to do a count on the request IDs. If a request has been assigned more than once it will be listed multiple times. You would also have to take into account any request that were assigned to a team, but not a user. We do have a change in our backlog which would allow you to specify different criteria for what a First Time Fix (FTF) means for you. Some Service Desks may want a FTF to be completed within a set time frame as well. I will add you to this change. There is also another discussion started here which may be worth watching.

Hi @clampj Thanks for your post. A request displayed in the Global Request Search that belongs to a Service that is set for all teams to support should be accessible. While we are investigating I was wondering if you could do a test on the request list to see if this same request is visible there. From the Team filter can the user select ''All My Services'' and then use the quick filter to type in the request ID or other text to locate of one of the requests that they can't access on the Global Search. Let us know if they are accessible from the request list. Many thanks, James

Thanks for your post Martyn. There isn't anything in our backlog for this at the moment but I'll keep an eye on this and let you know if any planned changes that come up for this. I'm also interested to hear from other customers that might have this same requirement. Regards, James

Hi Martyn, I'll add this requirement to the change that we have in our backlog for having the Service Category on the Services list. I'll see if we can get them done at the same time. Regards, James