James Ainsworth

Hi @Darren Rose Looking at your first screen shot I'm going to assume that the CH is not searching on the Request ID as there is a SR record displayed in your results. SR00000070. It looks like the requests being returned are from the summary where you have "Project Change Request''. I will need to see if the search include the request ID. It might also be that the ID requires a complete ID and not a partial ID. If the ID is not included in the search, we can look to have this added. Regards, James

There was an update a few hours ago that included a fix to the charts. Not sure yet if this is related, but interested to see if the above issue is resolved once the update is automatically applied during your maintenance window. Regards, James

The issue with the drill down has been replicated and we will look to have the fix released in one of the upcoming updates. Regards, James

Hi @Keith At the moment for the grouping, the display is using the ID's of each sub-status to report on rather than the label. ID's are commonly used so that we can also cater for translations on the labels. There may also be valid reasons for keeping a global sub-status separated from a service based sub-status if the same label is used but they are actually two separate items that need reporting on, reporting by label will make this a challenge. We will continue to look into alternatives on how we might work with these charts. We are also investigating the drill down issue that you mentioned. Regards, James

Hi @Keith I'll chase up to see if there has been any progress with this. Regards, James

Hi Martyn, Thanks for your post. I just wanted to check if this is the same requirement as posted here... We do have a change in the backlog for this. It's not currently scheduled but we will continue to review the change. Regards, James

Hi Sam, Yes, if requests have been raised by the customer on Self Service it looks like this may be the case. So, this may only work on requests raised by the support staff. You would have to have a check on the Source and make sure that if the Source is Self Service then don't assign. So possibly not a complete solution for you. I'll have a think about some other options. Regards, James

Hi @samwoo I can see that there are a number of ways that you can tackle your requirement. With functionality that you have already there are options to use assets as your container to manage the software from your 3rd party suppliers. From an asset you can store a number of attributes about the software and from the asset plan changes, use the Timeline for discussions, add attachments, vendor information, link to Services, and more. Assets have the concept of sub-states which could be used for your Business Critical, Important, and General categories. Project Manager, Boards, and workspaces could also play a role. Keeping it within Service Manager does also help with the transition between planning and support. A Service for each of these areas could also be used as a high level container. This would be more of a Technical Service or Supplier Service for your technical staff rather than a Business Service that is more focused on the end users. Lots of options. I would tend to agree with @Gerry that a Product Manager app would be more aligned to someone who is creating and managing the life-cycle of a product rather than managing software that is supplied by someone else. If the idea of using an asset or service for your requirement sparks an interest we can look at helping configure with the current features and look at other additions that might help with managing this. Regards, James

Hi Martyn, I will look at having this reviewed again next week. The change for this is still in our backlog and not yet scheduled. Regards, James

Hi Martyn, Regarding the SLAs in the portals, Is this the post that you are referring to? I'll follow up there if that's OK, to keep the topic together. Regards, James

Hi @Martyn Houghton This feature is moving up the queue but it hasn't reached our development team yet. No timeline set. We have made some significant progress in our change backlog. We've had hundreds of great feature ideas and requests. This particular change is classed as a higher priority change so hopefully it won't be too long before we see this being worked on. I'll keep this post updated as it progresses. Regards, James

Hi Martyn, Thanks for your post. This can be achieved but it is done by first adding the attachment to the request where you can control the visibility and the description text, and then from the email component you can use the Show Associated Files option to send attachments from the request along with an outgoing email. Regards, James

A fix has been completed for the above mentioned issue. This will be available in an update over the next couple of week. Regards, James

Hi @alecwa We have been discussing this internally and we will let you know if we come up with some options or possibly a plan to separate some of these rights. Regards, James

Hi Samuel, I would agree and Product Manager would be the right term for this app. It is something that we have discussed several times here at Hornbill. Defining and managing requirements for a product is almost a precursor to something being done in Project Manager. I can see that this would provide a complete suite of apps for a complete life-cycle of a product, from product ideation, to project, to support and customer management. I'll definitely raise the question internally. Regards, James

Hi Keith, The colour options should be available in a couple of weeks. It appears that they were there in the editor but a defect in the code was stopping this tool bar option from being displayed. I believe that the layout of the FAQs is still being investigated. Regards, James

Hi Sam, I'm not sure if this would be of any help. There is a BPM Operation for setting the owner back to the original person who raised the request. Regards, James

The behaviour of the Team assignment BPM Operation is that it should only assign to a team and not include the current owner. This has been raised as a defect and the fix should be available in a Service Manager update over the next couple of weeks. Regards, James

Hi Jamie, This change is still in our backlog and not currently scheduled. I can say that with the interest by other customers in this thread that it will progress and I'll be sure to update this post once it is closer to reaching the development queue. Regards, James

Hi @Keith I think that there were some internal discussions that may have led Daniel to think that wiki markup was used on the FAQs. However, it is a full editor. So, I'm assuming that you are looking for this control to be added to the tool bar... Regards, James

Hi Darren, Thanks for your post. These were added in order to support some features that we are looking at which may be added in the future. We do sometimes update the database schema ahead of a feature being available in order to help prepare or plan. As this feature is not currently scheduled it is still a good time to have some input into some of the requirements that you might have for these two types of users, business and technical. I would be interested to know how you see these being used? Kind regards, James

Hi Sam, When it comes to saving, do you require the email to be saved in a format that can be later opened again in another email client, or would something like a PDF printout of the email also work? I'm not aware of any plans at the moment for adding the ability to save an email to file from within Hornbill. Regards, James

Hi Sam, We are currently reviewing a change which will look at providing some changes to sizes and types of custom fields. I will let you know as this progresses. Regards, James

Hi @JBasey This ability to end a progressive capture is still something that is in our backlog. I'll add your interest for this feature to the change request. Regards, James

Just to mention as well that emails will automatically be set to Read when they are manually processed as a request using the Raise New Request option. We will look at other ideas to help prevent the raising of duplicate requests for situations where you have two or more users looking at the same email. I'm not sure if it is possible, but it would be nice to be able to disable the Raise Request option on an email if someone else has already clicked on the button. Regards, James