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

57 Excellent

About DanielRi

  • Rank
    Product Specialist

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,120 profile views
  1. DanielRi

    Allow re-open without Team / Owner

    Hi Sam, thanks for your post. I'd be interested to know a little bit more about the way you're operating. As you're probably aware, the concept of "Ownership" is one of the core principles of the Hornbill Platform and exists in all the apps that you might install. Many of the objects across the apps are subject to an owner, such as documents, activities, and of course requests. This is intentional and aims to help an ethos of responsibility. While you raise an interesting suggestion regarding the "reopen" button, my first question would be, why is the request passed back to a holding queue once its been resolved? Why wouldn't the resolving team maintain ownership through to closure? The closure of the ticket is when we can be confident that the request has been dealt with. If its a question of removing the request from the teams field of view, resolved requests can be filtered out. To broaden the scope of my response and talk a little more generally, have you got metrics in place to understand how frequently requests get reopened and to capture the reasons why this is happening? Are agents being too overzealous in resolving requests without proper consideration for the customers needs. Are customers tagging on new issues to an existing request? Typically, the best solution to this challenge begins much further upstream. Dan
  2. DanielRi

    Size of Hornbill mailbox

    I'm glad you found it useful @lokent ! In terms of instance storage, there is no specific allocation for email messages that exist in the mailboxes but the messages will contribute to the overall space consumed i.e. the contents of the mailbox folders can grow and grow until you reach the storage capacity of your instance. If you want to see details of the available storage, it can be found in a tab located in the Hornbill App Store: Home > App Store then click on "Subscription" which will show the following: More information on your instance storage quota can be found here: https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Instance_Storage_Quota Dan
  3. DanielRi

    Size of Hornbill mailbox

    Hi Lauren, further to @Pamelas post, Hornbill Administration provides an overview of the current content of each of the folders within a Hornbill Shared Mailbox. This can be found via Home > System > Email > Shared Mailboxes and then click on the mailbox of interest (in this example mine is called "Helpdesk") followed by the "Status" tab. The total space being consumed by the current contents of the Shared Mailbox can be seen in the bottom left hand corner with a per-folder breakdown shown in the "Folder Size" column. As Pamela says, you can delete the actual email but any timeline text will remain in the request. I hope that helps, Dan
  4. DanielRi

    Customer sign-off/Asset provisioning

    Hi Daniel, thanks for your post. Both requests and asset records support the adding of attachments. Whether the user is required to sign an electronic document of some kind or you simply require their signature as a image, I'm sure this can be emailed back to the service desk upon delivery of the new asset to the customer. Naturally, I would assume there will be some prompt or checklist within your business process to ensure the technician completes this step prior to closing the request. Whether the attachment ultimately resides against the asset record or against the request itself would largely depend on your preference and what you feel makes sense based on what the signature represents. You mention that it would indicate receipt of the device and acceptance of the usage guidelines, thus in my opinion linking this information to the request would seem logical as this is more about the procurement and delivery of the asset (performed as part of the request) and acceptance of broader IT policy, rather than anything really specific in terms of Asset no. XYZ123. It would be good practice to ensure the request (and any subsequent requests relating to reallocation of the asset) is linked to the asset record. I hope that helps, Dan
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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