Jump to content

DeadMeatGF

Members
  • Content count

    3,208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    61

DeadMeatGF last won the day on November 20

DeadMeatGF had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

193 Excellent

2 Followers

About DeadMeatGF

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 01/27/1970

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Derby

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

1,176 profile views
  1. Breach Emails

    You should be able to easily create a breach board, that way anyone it's shared to can see what calls are breached. No need to go rummaging around in your emails and risking missing it.
  2. VIP/Executive customers

    If your VIPs are in a certain Organisation (i.e. Dept/Team) you can adjust your SLA rules to take that into account and assign special/higher SLAs
  3. Mailbox Integration query

    @SJEaton Tick the checkbox on the first email, then Shift+Click the last one, all checkboxes between the two will now be full and you can mark them all as read.
  4. Call display

    We are having this issue also - not a biggie but it is an annoyance.
  5. Decision

    @Kelvin Instead of != Rejected try using No Match - I believe the nodes are SQL based which means that = or != do not apply to empty (null) values.
  6. @Victor Oddly this seems to have settled down and is working as expected. The only thing that has changed is that I found an error where the rules erroneously assigned a 2-Day SLA to both 2- & 3-Day priorities. Don't know if that caused a problematic clash, but all appears well currently.
  7. @Victor it does - it triggers the two Set Check List Item nodes, which it can only get to by going through the Update Service Level node! Should there be a delay from publishing a BP to the next call picking the new version up, as (I've not checked yet) I may have heard that the new process is starting to be applied on the most recent calls?
  8. Currently there is an SLA of "IT Incoming" which matches when there is no priority - that part works fine, it is assigned and the Response & Resolution targets appear. It's after the Suspend:Wait for Priority that the new SLA is not applied. This worked when I had it running in our Testing Service, and the same method works for our Facilities Service, not sure where I've messed this one up :/
  9. I have a Suspend:Wait For Priority node, followed by a Get Request Details node, followed by an Update Service Level node - but the Service Level is not being assigned. I've attached the BPM (the update is in Stage 1) in case there's an error in there. The process worked in testing under a different Service, but not since I moved it to the live service although the SLAs are linked to both. dc-it-incident.bpm.txt
  10. @Pamela Ah, yes - my Skype is showing as busy, sorry. Reception never interrupt a busy status for something important, only for annoying trivialities!
  11. @TrevorKillick All three back up and running. Thanks for the update.
  12. Thanks @TrevorKillick I've raised it as a request, linking back to this thread.
  13. I spoke too soon - these are back, unfortunately. The admin page raises the error below.
  14. Similar problems this morning, they appear to have resolved themselves while I was gathering error messages! I've posted anyway in case there are any lingering issues. The errors were more or less changing between the ones attached, although the instance check on the support site was showing as OK.
  15. Response timer

    If this was to be implemented my instinct is that having a "Run another Business Process" node might be an option. Users unfamiliar with functions will already be comfortable with having a Business Process taking data from a Progressive Capture, so I feel it could be a comprehensible jump to a Business Process taking data from another Business Process. I would have thought a bigger difficulty would be testing that any linked BPs have the required entry and exit values set correctly at build time to prevent catastrophic failures in the testing phase.
×