Jump to content

Gerry

Root Admin
  • Content count

    1,632
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    47

Gerry last won the day on January 3

Gerry had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

170 Excellent

3 Followers

About Gerry

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 03/19/1966

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    UK

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.hornbill.com/
  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

1,518 profile views
  1. Resolve by FAQ - Service requests

    @Dan Munns "a lot of work has gone (is going?) into pushing the portal as the best thing for the user since dress down Fridays" superb... I think you have it spot on, any business justification (such as for audit purposed) that gets your users on the portal will ultimately be better for your customers and you, frees your team up to deliver higher value work. Email is the devil when it comes to sucking up time for IT ... its always easier for people who want help from IT, just fire an email and make their problem IT's problem, but allowing that cuts off every possible avenue you have as a service provider to improve the service you deliver - kudos for getting those numbers. You also said, "The above chart is over a 6 month period from July to Dec 2017. Looking at our monthly stats almost (sometimes over) half of all our calls are password resets taken over the phone " so how can we help you automate that, it would be a big win for you guys if we can right? Gerry
  2. Resolve by FAQ - Service requests

    @Lyonel lol "if emails were down for 2 days, most people in the IT department would get the sack! that's why we moved to Office 365" I hear your pain, not every organisation is quite ready to let go of their beloved email treasure I will let one of our SM product team pick up on the FAQ requirement and respond with something that does not include get rid of email... thanks for the clarification Gerry
  3. Resolve by FAQ - Service requests

    If email was down for two days what would happen? Anyone that can send email would reasonably have access to a browser, even if thats on their phone. In my experience, there is always a way of forcing a transition from email to a self-service portal, your organisation just needs the conviction to do it. I wont profess to understand the organisational or political dynamics of each organisation but there is certainly no technical reason in todays world not to abandon email in favour of a portal/self-service, thats a choice each organisation makes (or not) Gerry
  4. Resolve by FAQ - Service requests

    Its been my experience that if you remove email as a channel for logging support requests, users will go to a portal instead. The problem with email is exactly what you say, users like it because its easy for "them" but if you force the issue it is almost always ultimately better for both the customer and the service desk to work in the portal. I think its a leadership challenge as much as it is a product/feature challenge Gerry
  5. Minor frustration with UI

    All, One of our devs has had a look at this and has fixed it. Its currently on our dev stream and will make it through the pipeline over the next 72 hours or so. Gerry
  6. Increased Visibility of Activities

    Hi Tom, I have asked the question internally and we are having a look. I cannot promise anything because the data model is such that it might be difficult without substantially changing the behaviour of the tasks. We will see, I will post when I have an update. Gerry
  7. Minor frustration with UI

    +1 me too... ok I will see what we can do about it Gerry
  8. Increased Visibility of Activities

    Hi Tom, The tasks where never implemented to behave like a "miniature call", they are really designed to be atomic human actions and so the notion of ownership by a group is not something the underlying data model would support. In Service Manager tasks are associated with requests, and requests can be assigned to groups, or individual users. Perhaps rather than being specific about a functional behaviour can you expand more on what you are actually trying to achieve from a business/operational perspective? Gerry
  9. We have added Emoji and Giphy Support

    Hi Tom, I cannot see any reason why not, I am not entirely sure why its not already there, I will raise the question and get it sorted if we can. Gerry
  10. I expect it would be code, rather than the display name Gerry
  11. Share Document to Team as well as individuals

    Martyn, This can be done as Trevor says above, but via libraries. Although one layer of indirection in terms of sharing you get a lot more flexibility using this approach. You can share libraries with roles, groups or individual users. So the idea would be, define your libraries, share your libraries with the teams as appropriate for your structure, then share documents into libraries. Gerry
  12. BPM Add Attachments to Request

    Martyn, Is that for regulatory or commercial reasons? if the former, would the same problem not apply to Hornbill? Gerry
  13. Not so Simple Lists - extra fields

    Martyn, Not sure I entirely understand, could you expand on your use case here? as make simple lists less simple might not be the best solution to your specific needs. Gerry
  14. Hi Keith, Thats a good point and one I think I can answer. First of all, a bit of background for the benefit of others who might read this also. Hornbill has two portals that are fundamentally different, they are called "Customer" and "Service", the "Customer Portal" as the name suggests is for access by external customers (contacts in Hornbill speak), setting the customer aside, the remainder of this content relates to the "Service" portal which is what is of relevance. In the case of the "Service Portal" our platform includes the notion of a "basic user". This type of user is in fact a collaboration user with very restricted system access designed to allow access to limited parts of the system in order to facilitate a self-service capability without the need to be a subscribed collaboration user. However, it is possible for a full collaboration user to also log into the service portal simply because they are the same type of user account with more rights. "In honesty I hadn't considered that having a collaboration license might solve the problem. Essentially yes I am asking for this functionality in the portal, but that wasn't from a perspective of cost avoidance, though of course that is a consideration." I had not made that assumption, I was just checking to see if I was reading correctly what you are looking to achieve. The point about confusion is absolutely valid and I agree 100% with you that this would be a problem. Before I get onto that, lets talk a little bit about the BPM and Tasks on the Platform. Although many of our customers see BPM as an integral part of our Service Management application, the reality is the SM application has been built on top of the BPM. The BPM as a stand-alone feature is a very powerful business process automation and orchestration tool. It is designed to support exactly the type of use case you have here. If you need a structured, repeatable and auditable business process for compliance then the business process capabilities of Hornbill are every bit as good, if not better than the likes of dedicated tools like Oracle BPM, Tibco BPM, Bizagi BPM etc... Hornbill as a business process automation solution is actually a very cost-effective solution because with an application like SM to manage and initiate running processes, the cost of a collaboration user is just a few pounds/month compared with the other dedicated BPM solutions which can run $25 to $75/user/month. If you have people that naturally fall outside of a typical SM user but still need to be in the process automation loop then I would urge you to think about Hornbill as a BPM tool first and foremost with SM built on top of that capability. So back to the Portal then. We have already established that a collaboration user can log into the "service portal" with their collaboration user account and everything would work. You are highlighting a dichotomy we have had since we first implemented Service Manager on the platform. We chose to create a portal because we felt that basic users would benefit from a consumer-like presentation, this was an alternative to giving basic users a limited functional experience in the normal user app. The normal user application has been focused more towards power users rather than end users and the resultant evolution of the portal has created that gap. Your particular requirement can be solved in one of two ways. * We provide basic tasks functionality in the Service Portal to Collaboration users when they log in. This is probably the best short term solution as we could do this quickly for you if this is important. * We change our service portal strategy to replace the Service Portal with an alternative experience in the user app, providing a more consumer-like interface presented within the user app while still providing the power user capabilities where needed. This is probably the best long term solution as the above alternative leads to duplication of functionality and creating second-class citizens for some users. In either case your task users can avail of the Hornbill mobile app which is very geared for easy task viewing and completions. As I said before this has been an ongoing debate amongst our product teams internally and one that we need to bring to a close at some point. The other point you made is that of cost. This does come up a lot, in particular in relation to Service Manager where the IT team sees some approvers as non-customers, don't want those people exposed to the power user interface and don't want to pay for collaboration subscriptions. Our guiding principle for subscriptions and functional boarders comes from the basic premise (in the context of Service Manage) that if an individual is participating in the act of "providing service" then they should be licensed in some way, in the word of Hornbill this means they need to be a "platform" user (as opposed to a basic user or guest), we call these types of users Collaboration Users. Conversely, if the person is only in receipt of service that is being provided then we consider these users a basic or contact user, and no subscription is required. For your requirement I would a suggest that most satisfactory approach would be to use Hornbill as your BPM tool. Your team (as they do today) are the power users who control and manage all of the requests and processes they manage, but all others that are orchestrated by, and participate in workflows would be Collaboration Users. There is a cost involved that you have perhaps not budgeted for but I would encourage you to look at Hornbill as a BPM tool and not simply as an SM tool in this context. Any comparison to other BPM tools, or even task management tools we might otherwise integrate with would be quite a lot more expensive than simply using Hornbill Collaboration users and task management. I hope this gives you a perspective, will be very happy to discuss further with you. Gerry
  15. Under the hood the activity streams do support multiple levels of visibility so its possible. However, the use of the Activity stream from the Service Manager perspective is limited i believe to customer and team so this is something someone in the SM dev team would need to pick up and comment on. @James Ainsworth ? Gerry
×