Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


DanielRi last won the day on March 23

DanielRi had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

54 Excellent

About DanielRi

  • Rank
    Product Specialist

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,020 profile views
  1. DanielRi

    Unable to export Customer Contract

    Hi @Johanna Guest thanks for your post. I can see development indicated to you that they have managed to identify and address the issue in time to be incorporated into the next build of Customer Manager. I'm told that this will be made available on Tuesday next week at which time an update will become available for you to apply via Hornbill Administration. I hope that helps set a little more expectation in terms of when the fix will be made available. Dan
  2. Hi Dan, I've been reading through your post and I'd be curious to see the BPM that you have in play. From what I can tell you are unable to evaluate effectively on the display because this will only be either "Review" or "Query". The "value" is holding more granular information (Query [hours], and Review [hours], etc.) I'm curious why evaluating directly on the progressive capture answer (rather than using the custom field in the request) is not suitable? It would be good to understand the challenge further. Thanks, Dan
  3. DanielRi

    Bulk import of Contracts

    Hi Darren, thanks for your post. Looking at the API's available I would expect that if all you require is a single contract adding to each organisation this would only be a couple of hours work. We would simply need a spreadsheet containing the following information for each contract: orgId xs:integer required once Organisation ID name xs:string optional Name of the Contract description xs:string optional Description of the Contract dateFrom xs:dateTime optional Date the contract starts dateTo xs:dateTime optional Date the contract ends value xs:decimal optional Value for the Contract contractType xs:string optional The type of contract. Stores the key from a Profile 'cm-contract-types' We would then prepare an API sequence by looping through the rows and add each contract. Of course, if there were subsequent elements required such as contacts associating to contracts this would need further consideration and will of course increase the time required. If you would like a formal estimate and Statement of works preparing, please don't hesitate to get in touch with your specific requirements via the Hornbill Success Portal: https://success.hornbill.com/hornbill/ and we would be more than happy to discuss further. Dan
  4. Hi Helen, thanks for your post. It is possible to have a different progressive capture experience when initiating the raising of a linked request via "Raise New Linked Request" compared to the progressive capture that is initiated by clicking the arrow and selecting a particular call class such as "incident". This button (and each of the call class buttons in the menu) have progressive capture flows anchored to them via application settings. So I would start by understanding which of your progressive capture flows are initiated in each scenario. The application settings can be found in Home > Service Manager > Settings and filter on: app.itsm.progressiveCapture . The image shows which application strings are associated with each button/menu item. Once you have identified the progressive capture flows involved, we must establish how the summary is being populated. There are three ways of capturing information to put in a request summary: 1. Using the standard "Request Details" progressive capture form 2. By using field mapping within a purple progressive capture custom form 3. By using the relevant automated operation in the BPM (Methods 1. and 2. capture the summary information during call logging in progressive capture. Method 3. populates the summary retrospectively once the request record exists in the database) Are you able to identify which capture flow gets used when you click the arrow then incident? This will be held in the application setting app.itsm.progressiveCapture.newIncident . Does the Request details form exist in this particular capture flow, or capturing the summary via field mapping? Dan
  5. DanielRi

    Searching KE/Problems in Incident logging

    @davidrb84 the Knowledge centre doesn't discriminate between the request classes. CH's, PB's, IN's etc are all returned if they're deemed relevant (see the image attached.) In terms of the PB/KE divorce you speak of, this simply allows more flexibility in the way you use Hornbill within your organisation. It allows you to be selective in terms of the Problem Management elements you use and also means that you could potentially re-purpose these call classes if you didn't wan't to utilise them in a strict ITIL Problem Management context. Dan
  6. DanielRi

    Searching KE/Problems in Incident logging

    Hi David, thanks for your post. The latest build of Service Manager incorporates a new feature called the "Knowledge Centre". When enabled, the feature returns relevant Requests, FAQ's, and Known Issues based on the words being typed in the "Summary" field when logging a call via progressive capture. More information on this new feature can be found here: https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Knowledge_Centre I hope that helps, Dan
  7. Hi Chris, it won't be strictly related to when the ticket was logged, but that can be a good reference. It's more about the time when the BPM tried to perform the operation that failed. Therefore, if the BPM operation took place prior to the fix being applied, then the BPM will fail. If the BPM can be successfully restarted, then that indicates that the underlying cause has been addressed. If you are still experiencing problems with more recent Change requests, this may indicate an issue is still in existence. I hope that helps, Dan
  8. DanielRi

    Email Templates

    HI Gareth, email notifications concerning call logging and call closure would indeed be configured in the BPM and by the sounds of it you've updated/included the relevant nodes in your BPM to contain the name of the template you now want to be sent. If its still sending the old one, have you published this new version of your BPM? Publishing is necessary in order to make any changes you have made active. The video below is taken from the following wiki page and describes the BPM publishing feature in more detail: https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Business_Process_Designer Let me know if this helps, a screen shot of your email notification node may assist with some further context if publishing turns out not to be the issue. Dan
  9. DanielRi

    Service 'forgetting' Workflow and BPM?

    Hi Lauren, My previous advice would not apply to this message you have now reported ("The flow is poorly formed - loop detected...") and it sheds new light on your situation. There are underlying checks in the progressive capture flow switch-capture mechanism that protects against a flow referencing itself and creating a loop. It may not be literally referencing itself during the switch, but I suspect that if the configurations of two flows are very similar then maybe the system is interpreting it as a possible loop. Perhaps this mechanism is being over cautious in its evaluation, in which case we may have to seek developer assistance in order to "tune" this for a future product build. Anyway, before we get to that stage it will be necessary for me to understand the way you have your progressive capture flows set up. As your organisation has purchased a Success Plan, and we are going to require more detailed specifics in relation to your configuration, I'd recommend that we move this investigation into an incident logged with support. I can see that you have already reached out to us via email however we are still waiting on confirmation of your supported contacts that we hold on record before we can raise an incident in your name. For the time being, I will raise the incident in the name of one of the other supported contacts we have on record and someone will be in touch later this afternoon. Thanks, Dan
  10. DanielRi

    Service 'forgetting' Workflow and BPM?

    Hi Lauren, thanks for the update. If I may consider the blank fields in the catalog item configuration, I've experienced something very similar when working on a customer site recently. However, in my case, after a few seconds the pro cap and bpm that i'd originally configured would appear in the fields. This was, at times, a good 2 - 4 seconds delay but it seems to be an issue loading the information rather than anything wrong with what has been set and stored. Are you able to confirm that when this occurs the pro cap and BPM values do eventually appear? How frequently are you experiencing this? On the topic of the Switch Capture node, values will certainly disappear if the flow specified is deleted. Aside from that there shouldn't be any reason why this would happen. As the node stores the ID of the flow behind the scenes, renaming the flow is not an issue. Are you able to give me an example of the flow that was specified in the node and then disappeared? I would suggest monitoring the situation and gathering more information on the frequency at which it occurs. Is there a particular point in time when this started happening? Thanks, Dan
  11. DanielRi

    Service 'forgetting' Workflow and BPM?

    Hi Lauren, thanks for your post. It sounds like you are experiencing two different issues: "....intermittent issue where the Catalogue items within Services 'forget' the flow they are supposed to be attached to." I think I need a bit more clarification on this one. 1) Do you mean that tickets are being successfully raised against a service but sometimes the tickets don't have a BPM associated (i.e. there is no green progress bar visible at the top of a ticket) OR 2) When you view the configuration of a catalog item, the two fields where you specify a Pro Cap flow or BPM are empty? OR 3) Something different "Similarly, we've also had it within progressive captures where the 'Switch Capture' option forgets where it's supposed to point to". In relation to this one, do you experience a perpetually spinning Hornbill icon during progressive capture? This typically occurs when a progressive capture flow reaches the Switch Capture node but it cannot identify the flow that it must switch to in order to continue the progressive capture experience. Here, it is necessary to understand how you are determining which flow to switch to. Is it based on the selection of a catalog item, or is it specifically referencing the name of another flow? If its the former (which is usually how the out-of-box flows are set up) can you confirm that a catalog item is being selected by the analyst each time? Thanks, Dan
  12. DanielRi

    Email loop created over 300 tickets

    Hi Dan, thanks for your post. This is a request that would not normally be fulfilled by Hornbill Support as it is effectively an administrative task. From what I can tell the tickets logged were not as a result of any fault or defect with the platform or applications, which would be the situation where we would perform such an activity. Do you feel that this is the case? In the absence of a multi-select cancel option, the solution would be to work through each request and cancel using the appropriate action button within the ticket. An alternative could be found in the form of the Hornbill Clean Utility (https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Hornbill_Clean_Utility). This tool can acheive the desired result as it has the ability to permanently delete request data based on a list of request references. However, such a tool should be used with extreme caution as mistakes (incorrect references etc.) in the configuration file could be costly. If you would like to enlist our Expert Services team to perform this task for you, we would be more than happy to do so and this service can be requested via the Hornbill Success Portal, available at: https://success.hornbill.com/hornbill/ Aside from the options above, I'm sorry that on this occasion I cannot be of more help. Dan
  13. DanielRi

    Adding connections when linking tickets to MI

    Hi Paul, thanks for your post. The addition of connections seems to be ancillary to the primary requirement which is to communicate with a broader group of individuals more efficiently. In this case, the group of individuals is composed of those that are currently the customers of linked requests. The feature that would be applicable here would be in the form of a bulk email from the request list (which would be along the lines of what Nasim mentioned) , or the ability to apply an update to all linked requests and, if that was an email update, send an email to the customer of the request as part of that action. Unfortunately, that specific capility doesn't currently exist within Service Manager. I understand there are plans for its introduction but at present I can't supply any further detail on timescales etc. I can see that you are trying to accomplish this through the use of connections, which is potentially the best solution when it comes to emailing a group of individuals, as we can add connections quickly to an email. However, as you point out the association of a connection is ad-hoc and doesn't occur at any particular point in the life-cycle of an incident. If an action is ad-hoc, the BPM is not be best-placed to facilitate this and so it would be questionable whether a BPM operation you describe would give you the value that you desire. Self Service Bulletins offer a mechanism to broadcast information to customers. Of course, it depends what information you are trying to convey in these bulk updates. If it's a generic holding response a bulletin could serve this communication need, if it relates to detailed resolution steps, then this suggestion may be less appropriate. Could you elaborate more on the type/content and frequency of communication that takes place as part of your Major incident process? Thanks, Dan
  14. DanielRi

    Sensitive Data on Ticket - URGENT

    Hi Hayley, I've taken a look at the web form and the problem has been rectified. The usual options should be available to you shortly as it takes a few minutes for the changes to take effect. In the mean-time I can log a ticket on your behalf and be in touch momentarily. Best Regards, Dan
  15. DanielRi

    Adding Connections via BPM

    Hi All, I noticed that this thread seems to have yet to reach a conclusion. The initial query was around adding Connections to a request via BPM, specifically the ability to add Basic Users as connections. I can confirm that since Service Manager build 1099 the "Add Connection" BPM operation now allows us to add Basic Users as connections. This is done via the "Co-Worker" option which now incorporates a pick list where you can specify whether Basic users, Full users, or All Users will be available when searching and choosing the co-worker (see image). For those interested in adding Contacts as connections, this is also possible with this node. Set the Co-Worker Option to "ignore", set the "Contact" option to "Manual", and specify the Contact. I hope that helps, Dan