James Ainsworth

The is now available and the documentation for this feature can be found here...

Hi @Martyn Houghton I just wanted to let you know that the work to include the Service Level and the Service Level Agreement as part of the Get Request Information - Request Details operation has been completed and this will be available in an upcoming update to Service Manager. Read more about the operation on our wiki... Regards, James

Hi @Martyn Houghton No plans at the moment. I will ask if there have been any further thoughts or suggestions within Hornbill. Outside of Document Manager there are no options for managing a file store on a Hornbill instance, and as you mention there may be concerns with software installation packages or large files taking up a lot of space on an instance. For FAQs or Guidance documents we might be in a better position to look at some integration with Document Manager. Regards, James

Hi @Claire Holtham This is in the development queue and lined up to be worked on. I'll let you know once work starts. Regards, James

Hi @Martyn Houghton I have a change in our backlog as a result of a conversation we had. I'll be sure to add the others in the thread to the change. Many thanks, James

Thanks for your posts. We do have some changes in our backlog to add more functionality to the bulletins. I'll see if this can be added as criteria to these existing changes. Regards, James

This for your post @Keith I'm not so sure that the timeline Global Search is going to provide what you need, but as you suggest, reporting on these would be the best way forward. There are a number of potential directions to take which may include custom fields, a UAT stage in a BPM workflow, or using Email Routing for email updates from the customer. This does take us away from this topic about providing more search options. Maybe we could consider a new forum post to discuss and maybe see if other customers have suggestions. Regards, James

Hi Andy, Is there a chance that you can send us this report? It may help us identify or try to replicate your results. Regards, James

Hi Keith, Sorry, there are a number of search options discussed above. Are you referring to the Timeline search or an advanced search on the request list? Admittedly we have continued to run into performance issues with the timeline search. We are continuing to work on this, however it may be worth understanding more about the type of information you are storing about your testing. We may find that other solutions could be considered to help with your requirement. I would also hate to think that once we are over the line with a Timeline search that the outcome is not what you expected and it doesn't give you the information in a way that helps. Regards, James

Hi Giuseppe, Thanks for your post. Are your updates being processed automatically using the Routing Rules? Are you wanting the request to go back to an open status if there is an automatic email update? The challenge might be identifying if the email update is a response to say that there is still an issue, or a Thank you email to say it is fixed. For the routing rules, you are able to set the destination folder if the email is not processed. I'm guessing that yours is currently set to a folder called "unsuccessful update''. Or are you wanting to have multiple destinations for the Target Folder Failure based on different conditions? Regards, James

Hi @Paul Alexander Thanks for reporting this. We have had continual investigation into this. It has been a challenge as the occurrences are rare and there doesn't seem to be any steps that have been found to replicate the issue. I've fed back to the development team that you have posted this. We will continue to look into this. James

Hi @nasimg It looks like the work has been done. Just waiting for the update to go live. It should be with you soon.

We are just concluding the development of these feature. This should be available in the coming weeks as part of a Service Manager update. Keep an eye out for the release notes. Regards, James

Hi @Giuseppe Iannacone It looks like our development have provided a fix for the issue in the resolve operation. This will become available in one of the next few updates to Service Manager. Regards, James

Hi Keith, The External Reference has been added for use on the Charts and should be available in one of the next updates to Service Manager. Regards, James

Hi Martyn, Plans are still there to provide this but no progress at the moment. I'll keep you posted once we see some movement with this. Regards, James

Hi Keith, Thanks for your post. I will talk to the development team to see what we can do. Regards, James

Hi Martyn, We still have a change in the backlog for adding a default Progressive Capture form for capturing the impact and urgency. We are also looking at another option that would allow you to create a custom progressive capture form for Impact and Urgency where you can map your results to the existing impact and urgency fields. It might be the case that the custom field mapping comes first. I'll let you as the progresses. Regards, James

Hi @Paul Alexander I've gone through the code and it suggests that if there are no members available for a team then the request is just assigned to the team without an owner. I hope this helps. James

Hi @Sonali. I wasn't sure if you had any luck with this yet, but I was wondering if you had considered using the Round Robin or Most Available assignment options in the BPM? You could have a Get Info node followed by a decision node, and if no one as been assigned as an owner, you could automatically assign to someone on the team using one of these options. More information on Assignment in the BPM can be found here.

Impact Assessments Capturing the impact of a change, an incident, or any other type of request can be crucial to determining how it is managed. But how do you decide which impact level to select? Service Manager provides a great way of automatically determining the impact level to be applied. Taking the guessing out of the hands of the user, they can be walked through a number of questions where each answer has a weighted value that contributes to the automatic selection of the impact level. The results of the assessment are captured in the request along with the automatic application of the impact level. At any point after the assessment, if things change or a mistake is found, a reassessment of the impact can be completed. The assessments are managed as part of a Business Process which allows them to be presented to a user at any given point within the workflow. When defining your workflow, you can easily select from any number of available assessments that you wish to present.

Hi @dan You are right that in many areas like with standard searches, paging is put in place to manage performance issues caused by returning too many results. Extending this value does give way to other reports causing performance issues, or possibly where APIs have been used to interact with Hornbill. I would also suggest that upping this value on the api.xmlmc.queryExec.maxResultsAllowed setting should be done with caution and keep an eye open for performance issues and adjust the number accordingly. James

Hi @Prathmesh Patel Sorry, not really a response to creating a measure, but I thought that you might be interested in this thread...

Hi @nasimg Having a preview of an email which includes the email template information is a separate change that is in our backlog. This is not in our current 90 Day development cycle but it has progressed through planning and we hope that it will progress before too long. Regards, James

Thanks @nasimg. Good to hear that the Add Connections button is working a bit better now. I believe the suggestion from Martyn was to have a setting that would control if connected users are emailed by default. If that is what you are looking for, I'll investigate our options to add this change. Regards, James