dwalby

Hi all, Just wondered how you all managed the 'sign-off' of assets within Hornbill? For example we procure Microsoft Surface Pro devices. After we've setup and configured the device ready to hand-over we'd like the customer to sign to agree they have received the device and read the usage guidelines, etc. It'd be cool if we could get them to physically write their signature using the Surface pen and apend it to the request/asset somehow. Interested to hear your thoughts!

@Victor thanks - using Chrome Version 66.0.3359.181 if that makes any difference.

@Victor has there been any further update on this please? Because... IE11

Thanks @James Ainsworth - it'd be useful as all of the relevant information would be contained within the incident request, rather than some information breaking out into e-mail communication or Major Incident report Word templates outside of Hornbill.

@James Ainsworth - sorry didn't explain it very well but yes, essentially if the request is a major incident show fields X, Y & Z within the request details section.

@chrisnutt I'm in exactly the same boat! We have multiple departments/teams who are desperate for this functionality.

Hi all, Is it possible to include the workaround of a Known Error in an e-mail template? I've checked through the list of variables but can't see that it exists? Thanks in advance

@James Ainsworth - Just a further thought on this, would it be possible to somehow display additional fields in the 'Request Details' section when a request it categorised as a Priority 1/Major Incident during the BPM? E.g. Existing: Summary Existing: Description Major Incident Detail: Timeline of Events Major Incident Detail: Subsequent Investigation Major Incident Detail: Additional Preventative Actions etc. That way all of the major incident detail can be captured and represented in one form?

Hi all, Is it possible to suspend a BPM whilst awaiting requests to be linked? I can't see it as an option currently, but maybe the terminology is different? Example Scenario: A problem record requires a known error to be linked once a workaround has been identified Thanks in advance

Hi all, Interested to know how you all go about managing incidents linked/related to Problem and Known Error records? Currently when an incident comes in we're using the 'Link' action then searching for the Problem/Known Error. If you don't know the Problem/Known Error exists however this may get missed. I've enabled the new feature that presents Known Errors based on a dynamic search of the Incident Summary/Desc when raising it - however I believe this only allows the customer to be marked as 'Impacted' by the Known Error. What is the benefit of this over linking? The reason we currently 'Link' incidents is to provide an understanding of the impact of the Problem/Known Error and allow us to know who to contact once a resolution or workaround has been identified. Once the resolution is available we then manually e-mail each incident customer individually Ideally I'd like to be able to reduce the administration overhead of having to manually e-mail each incident customer individually and instead send a single update/resolution e-mail from within the Problem record - is this possible? Are there any other tips and suggestions to automate and streamline problem management process? Thanks in advance

@conorh is there a way of displaying the results in a grid, or at least scaling them so they all appear on one line? Currently when there's only 1 change scheduled for example the text is enlarged and wraps the text.

@conorh - You're right, my fault. Rather rarely we didn't have any scheduled changes at the time I looked at it. They're appearing now. Thanks for your help.

@Steven Boardman - yes currently the 1st line analysts are completing an impact assessment manually. Arguably this could be reviewed and an SLA determined automatically based on the prog cap results submitted by the end-user. I'll need to look into that but that'll be a long-term activity for me. In the meantime I'm looking to alert the 1st line team that there has been a request outstanding for X amount of time, via Hornbill Notification and a team e-mail if possible.

Hi all, In our instance when requests are submitted via the portal they're assigned to the 1st line service desk queue but do not have an SLA/Priority assigned until an analyst has picked up the request. These are often getting missed in the mass of requests coming into the queue, is there a way of creating an escalation trigger to alert the 1st line analysts despite the fact they do not have an SLA associated? Thanks in advance

Thanks @Lyonel and @Victor - I've setup the role and will test with a number of users.

@Miro - The affected user was using IE11 at the time.

Hi all, A customer has reported that they were unable to complete our new starter request process as one of the fields did not present any options. As per below screenshot the progcap contains a Dynamic Checkbox group which references a simple list. I believe refreshing the page resolves this, however this can be frustrating for users as they have to complete the form again from the beginning. Is there a permanent fix available for this?

@Dan Munns Thanks for this - I knew I'd seen this somewhere before!

Hi all, I think this has been asked before but can't seem to find via search. Is it possible to edit the e-mail template for 'Authorisation for Request' as below:

@James Ainsworth - Thanks for the response on this it certainly clarifies a few things. I'll be reviewing our BPMs with major incidents in mind and will try to post back here with any findings.

Hi all, Just looking for some advice on how Hornbill users manage major incidents. When receiving the initial report of a major incident (highest priority) should this simply remain as a single incident record with a linked problem record to determine the root cause? Should any further reports of the same major incident be raised as incidents also & linked to the P1 - how should they then be prioritized? Obviously not P1. Is there a way to automatically update/resolve child incidents linked to the major incident? Is there a way to utilize e-mail templates for business-wide progress updates on major incidents? Once the major incident is resolved a major incident report needs to be created, is there a way of integrating this into BPM? Thanks in advance

@conorh - I've attempted to use your custom SQL query but it doesn't appear to return any results (the headers show). Please can you confirm that the SQL query is correct?

Hi all, We have 1 mailbox within Service manager, only members of the Service Desk need access to monitor this mailbox and be notified of new e-mail. All other members of IT only send e-mail from this mailbox when handling requests, but do not need to see new e-mail. Is it therefore possible to remove the e-mail icon and e-mail count from the notifications area for certain teams/analysts?

Hi all, I've just noticed that when selecting the 'View Details Form' button of a Change Request (as below) It then allows you to enable and show some additional fields (see below) which could be quite useful for us. Currently when IT members are raising changes they complete a progress capture form which contains a custom form capturing the; implementation plan, test plan, etc. I was therefore wondering if it is either possible to map the details they enter into these additional fields within the 'Details Form'? Or somehow present the additional details fields shown below directly in the progcap? Alternatively would it be better to have the IT members raising a Change Request by simply inputting a Summary and Description during the progress capture, then having an activity in the BPM prompting them to complete the additional fields - implementation plan, etc? If so, is there a way of making the additional details fields mandatory? Interested to know if anyone else uses the above additional change details and if so how?

@Victor - OK so after re-sampling the number of requests logged for April has gone from 1788 down to 892. Just to confirm I'm understanding it right, that is because previously it was calculating ALL Incidents (Ever logged?) + Service Requests logged in the month?