James Ainsworth

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

Hi @akbrekka I just wanted to let you know that a fix has been completed for this issue. This fix will be included in one of the next Service Manager updates over the coming weeks. Regards, James

Hi @Lyonel We do have a change in our backlog for deleting multiple attachments from a request. I hadn't considered how a timeline post might look if it had 457 attachments included in the deletion. I will add you to the change and I'll also add notes about the concerns about the timeline. This change isn't currently scheduled so if this is something that you need done soon the change may not be with you in time. Regards, James

Hi @samwoo I've added you to the change which is for providing more search options within the request list. We normally only add one person from each organisation to a change so that we can see the interest based on the number of customers rather then individual users from the same organisation. I hope that makes sense. This change already has a high number of connected customers so we are looking at progressing this as soon as possible. Regards, James

Is it possible that your technicians have too many rights? The locking of the action items can be overridden by a user with a role such as Incident Management Full Access. Regards, James

Hi Mike, I will try to test this out to see if I can come up with a solution. There was a change also added which will provide a global setting for enforcing the closure category selection but this work is not currently scheduled. Regards, James

Hi Mike, Are you comparing the Logged On date to the Resolution Target? The start of the timer for the Resolution Target does not necessarily tie in with the Logged On date/time. This will depend on where you have this in your BPM Workflow. Like in this workflow, it has been set up to fulfil the response first and only after that does the resolution timer start. However, you could have them both start as soon as the request is raised if you wish. Let us know if that helps. Regards, James

Hi @dwalby We do have a change in our backlog which will look at the inclusion of a link to an FAQ in the resolution. I'm hoping that this will help. I'll add you to the change and we will post back here once it is scheduled to be worked on. Regards, James

We have managed to identify a particular scenario within Progressive Capture where on the Services Form, if you have multiple Request Catalog Items available and these are defined against different request types, if a user clicks on more than one of these Request Catalog Items prior to selecting Next, in some circumstances the request type of a previously selected Request Catalog Item is stored and used rather than that last Request Catalog Item selected. A fix has been provided for this particular scenario and will be available in the next update. We can't say yet whether this is the exact same issue that has been reported and if this fix will prevent this from happening again, but it does sound promising. Once this is available we will be interested to hear of any more occurrences of the wrong request type being raised or better yet if you feel that it is no longer happening. Regards, James

Hi @dwalby I'm not sure if this would help, but have a read here. That link also contains a video that describes how Published Known Issue work. We are also working on the ability to show related known issues to a portal user as they are raising a request. Still some time yet for this feature to be completed, but this too may help once it is available. Regards, James

Thanks everyone for all your posts. We have had some great feedback and we understand the need to provide more search options. Because of this we have brought forward some additional improvements which we hope to start work on soon. This will include some new search options within the request list and we are hoping to complete some other work on the Global Search which is currently active. We will keep you posted as this progresses. Regards, James

Hi @Paul Alexander I just wanted to let you know that second part to this requirement for using this with the Place on Hold operation in Service Manager has been completed and is now available in the last update. The image below shows the variable used in the Integration Call and then how it is applied in the Update Request -> Place On Hold operation. Let us know if this helps. Regards, James

Hi @dwalby At the moment the default forms for progressive capture can not be changed. We are looking to have options similar to BPM Operations to provide a bit more flexibility in setting these up. Nothing scheduled at the moment. Regards, James

Hi Martyn, The change for this requirement has been put forward and is in a queue to be moved over to development, but not currently scheduled. Regards, James

Hi @Martyn Houghton No update at the moment. I'll have another look to see what options we have. Regards, James