Jump to content

Paul Alexander

Supportworks Users
  • Content Count

    645
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Paul Alexander last won the day on January 30

Paul Alexander had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

66 Excellent

About Paul Alexander

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,344 profile views
  1. @Steven Boardman That's excellent......thank you. To be honest (and it might have been the beer...) I didn't realise that a 'bulk update' option was going to be available! That's even better news....
  2. Hi @Ehsan Thanks for that....it's not looking like I can achieve what I was hoping for at the moment. Everything is working fine at the moment, so this isn't a huge problem. I'm just trying to save myself some pain when one of the HR reps leaves! I suppose what I'm REALLY hoping for is a way to break out of a BPM, run a little bit of a separate BPM, then jump back in to the original BPM...that way I'd have only one place to make a change if anything DOES need changing. For the time being I'll have to make sure I mark up the BPM so that I can find it again if I do need to change it. thanks....
  3. thanks for the replies... @Logan Graham - I COULD create a new team, but we already have a blanket HR Admin team which is used for assigning the 'general' queries on a Round Robin basis. It's just a few specific requests which need to be assigned to a specific individual, and I think that adding more teams would possibly make things a bit difficult, and would mean that i'd have to go through all our services and add this team as a supporting team to make sure the requests are visible, etc, etc and I think maybe the overhead might be a bit much at the moment. @SimonSheldon - what you're suggesting is exactly what I'm looking for BUT.....although you can assign TASKS to a Role, you can't assign a request to a role: (The Task Assignment DOES have this option): So...could I ask Hornbill to look to see if adding this assignment option would be viable and sensible please? thanks
  4. Hello Is there way of assigning a request in a BPM to a particular ROLE (rather than an individual's name?) The reason I'm asking is that we have pushed Service Manager out to the HR department, and, although they all sit under the same team, they each have their own areas of responsibility for some calls, which are based on which Division the requester works for. So, for instance, one HR rep is responsible for the Facilities division, and another HR rep is responsible for the Fleet department. However, for some requests, either of these HR reps could be assigned the tickets. I've set up a few decision trees in the BPM which assign to the correct HR rep automatically in the requests which need it, and it's working fine. However, one of the HR reps is leaving, and will be replaced by someone else...so I now need to change all of these requests so that they assign to the correct 'new' person. What I was looking for was a way to assign to a specific role, rather than the person. That way I'd only need to change the person assigned to this role, which would save a lot of time and effort in the event that someone else leaves! Is this possible? (I do realise that I'd have to make sure that i had to have only one person per role.....) thanks
  5. Hello At Hornbill Insights last week, I'm sure I saw a 'log on behalf of' option in one of the demos - but I can't seem to find how that was achieved! Is this something that is available now, or is it something which is going to be made available soon? thanks Paul
  6. +1 for this request please.....the ability to just paste a screenshot into a Progressive Capture form would be a real bonus for us... thanks
  7. thanks @Gerry and @Daniel Dekel I think what I'll do for the time being is update the users' Handles to include their employee number on the import. That should help in the short term....but it's nice to know there are other things in the pipeline (as always!)
  8. I'm setting up a BPM where an email is sent asking the requester if they want their request updated (it's for sabbatical leave, the return date of which is set, but the employee doesn't always come back - so we're asking the Line Manager whether this person has returned to work or not) What we'd like to do is send the email, then suspend the call waiting for an update. If there hasn't been a response within a week (measured by setting the 'expiry' on the suspend node) resend the email. What we need though, is to be able to set this to only go round this loop a set amount of times. So, what I'm looking for is a counter (possibly something set up in the integrations node to count how many times this particular node has been 'fired'?) and, once this counter reaches a particular number, to exit the loop. Is this something that's already possible in a BPM? Or, if not, is it something that could be added please? thanks
  9. Dammit @Steven Boardman....thanks for that!! I was sure I'd seen it somewhere, but was looking under the Hornbill section of the integration tool, so couldn't see it. thanks again.....
  10. Hello Would it be possible to add some functions into the integration tool, to allow a date to be calculated based on another date? For instance, I'm creating a Temporary Contract request for our HR department, and they want to be able to automatically put the call on hold until 2 weeks before the end of that contract, when they will double check with the Line Manager as to whether or not to extend the contract. Is that something that's possible at the moment? Orm if not, could it be added as part of the integration tool please? thanks
  11. Hello Is there a way of finding out who the person is who is logging a request (in Live rather than on a portal....so an analyst rather than a customer) and which team they're in? The reason I'm asking is that we now have a few different teams logging requests and each team has different needs as to what information they might need on a request. For instance, our first line IT analysts often get calls from mobile technicians and the information needed for these calls will include name, location, contact phone number, an idea of what the problem is (and, obviously, which Service the call relates to). The HR team also log requests, but the only information they need is name and a brief description (and the Service). We can only set one 'default' progressive capture, and I can't see a way in there of branching off depending on who is logging the request....it would be handy to be able to use a slightly different form for each team. I do understand that each Catalog Item has it's own Progressive Capture but this won't kick in until after the Service has been selected - which is something we do after the 'initial' summary and description form is filled in, and it's this initial form that I'd like to be able to 'branch' into depending on who is logging the request) thanks
  12. Hi I just thought I'd put my tuppence worth on this topic as getting Services 'right' is something we're also struggling with! Much like @chrisnuttsaid, when we initially set Hornbill up it made sense to separate each service according to what functionality was being offered. For instance, we have Services called 'Email', 'Finance', 'Internet and Network Connections' etc which have their own Catalog Items behind them, depending on the specific request required. This was done because primarily because a) it made sense at the time and b) it mirrored the previous Portal we had before turning to Hornbill, and it meant that the end users would have a sense of familiarity when we moved them to this new platform. However, even at that early stage we encountered some problems. For instance, we had a Service called 'Applications and Software' which was used (obviously) to report faults and requests with or about software. We also had a Service called 'Procurement' which would be used when items needed to be procured. We then had to decide where a Catalog Item would be put if someone wanted to procure some software?! One difficulty was the fact that each of these Services had a different SLA (based on the Priority of the service). Procurement was a Tier 3 service (as it wasn't particularly high profile), but, depending on which particular Software a fault had been reported against (using the Software service), some requests should be logged as a higher priority than others. This led us to create new services for high profile Software categories (Finance and CAFM, for instance) which would then have a higher priority due to the importance of these particular items. Obviously this then means that the number of Services very quickly escalated. And this is how it looks now.... Although the end users are getting slightly better at searching for the right Catalog Item, which aren't necessarily in the most obvious place (for instance, if someone wants to log a fault with the finance application, should they go to Applications and Software, COINS and iPortal, or the Report a fault with Software service?!) . This then causes a problem where, if they can't find exactly what they're looking for, they'll either plumb for the 'closest match' or they'll email or phone in - which is something we're trying to get away from. Added to this is the fact that we're now bringing more teams in to Hornbill (HR, Finance, Fleet, Training and H&S so far) all of which need their own Services and Catalog Items. These all need their own SLA's and for some, the data needs to be separate and not visible to other teams (particularly the HR Services). We too have started looking at the Service Category options and we think that, if the Portal could make this distinction a little more obvious and usable, it would definitely help to make things more user-friendly. So, really, I'm not going to be any help here at all......all I'm saying is that you're not alone in saying that things can and do get very unwieldy very quickly, and it's especially difficult to retrospectively go back and change things which were set in place when we initially set things up. Also, we agree that making the Service Category options more visible and maybe even a default view on the Portal would probably help a lot. We also think that the option of being able to change the Service of a request after it's logged would help us because it would mean that if (for instance) someone did log a software fault, but the software turns out to be the Finance software, we could then change the Service that the request is logged under and, hence, change the SLA. It's definitely a minefield.....and one which I don't think is easy to overcome! Nice to know we're not alone though........;)
  13. Hello Would it be possible to allow searching custom fields in a co-worker record from the GlobalSearch bar please? We use one of the custom fields in the Co-Worker record to hold the employee ID number. We'd like to be able to search on this field as it's 'unique' and, as part of our leavers process, we need to know if the leaver has an IT (AD) account. We are given the employee id number when HR send us these requests and being able to search for this ID would be a quick way of knowing whether the person leaving DOES have an IT account and, if so, whether any more work needs to be completed. thanks
  14. Hi @James Ainsworth It just stopped being a problem.....I'm still not sure what happened, but I've left everything as it is and the error hasn't shown for a while now, so in answer to your question, YES it's sorted thanks
×
×
  • Create New...