Hornbill Staff DR

Hi Sonali,  thanks for your post. This appears to be an inconsistency in the rights that control the availability of the "Raise New" menu items. The buttons to initiate the raising of a specific call class are governed by the "Can Create..." right. The inconsistency arises in that the availability of the "Known Error" menu item is actually being controlled via the "ViewProblemManagment" right. This is incorrect and I have raised this with dev. They will look to address this in time for the next Service Manager build (968 or greater). If you need some context to any error messages you're getting, please post them and I'd be happy to comment. I hope that helps, Dan

Hi @samwoo @PSG ,  I have some further news in relation to some of the functionality you requested. To summarise the initial post where Sam mentioned two possible enhancements, due to the design philosophy described by Gerry around document ownership, the possibility of making a Team the owner of a document will not be something that will be considered. While such an enhancement can be perceived to give you more flexibility, having such a feature could allow the adoption of working practices that may actually take away that sense of responsibility and accountability that an application is there to help you enforce. However, in relation to the second point where you request the ability to share an individual document with a Team or role, this has now been accepted and we will certainly see this feature in Document Manager at some point in the future. This will now fall in line with the other development priorities so at this time I wouldn't be able to provide a specific time frame in which this will be delivered but keep your ear to the ground! I hope this will prove to be a useful feature. Dan

Hi David,  your expectation here requires that the Request catalog capability we have for incidents and Service Requests is also available for Change Requests. This has been spoken about internally and it is likely that we will include this at some point in the future. In the mean time the advice I give to customers, and the approach that I adopt myself during the design of a typical Change Process, is to include different "paths" within the process to cater for the different change types (Emergency, Normal, and Standard). The decision logic to determine which path the process would follow can be facilitated by the "Get Request Details" node and then the Custom expressions would be based on the contents of the "Change Type" field. I hope that helps, Dan

Hi Sonali,  while it is possible to switch between different Progressive Capture flows during the information capture stage of logging a call, with BPM this is not possible. In relation to change processes, when I implement these I typically include different "paths" within the process to cater for the different change types (Emergency, Normal, and Standard). The decision logic to determine which path the process would follow can be facilitated by the "Get Request Details" node and then the Custom expressions would be based on the contents of the "Change Type" field. I hope that helps, Daniel

Hi @PSG ,  I can confirm that development have addressed the missing Priority field in the list view of Activities and it will be delivered to live in a Collaboration Core Update next week. The current list of priorities have been implemented to follow a specific internet standard, iCal RFC2445. The iCal standard was devised to provide inter-operable calendaring and scheduling services for applications communicating the Internet, ensuring compatibility between applications. Hornbill has adopted this schema to ensure that the scope for development in this area is not hindered by restricting it to a company-developed standard. Thinking about this further, the current schema (highest, higher, high, above normal, normal, below normal, low, lower, lowest) provides us with sufficient capability to define how urgent an activity is in relation to any other. Whether we use Critical, Major, High, Medium,..... etc or 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..... all these naming conventions serve the same purpose (indicating the relative importance of activities) so I'd be curious to know what specific value you feel having P1 - P5 would give? This leads me to believe that your actual challenge is potentially the disconnect between the priority of a request and the priority of an activity. For example, if you have a P1 Incident I guess the expectation could be that all activities associated to this incident should be the highest priority. While it is possible for us to set a priority on an activity in our BPM design, there is no automatic behaviour or logical rules that allow the BPM to make a decision on the priority of an activity based on factors existing at that moment in time. On a final note, if it is still down to the naming convention, it is possible to adjust this through Hornbills translation capability. Each activity priority is governed by its own translation string that can be found in Home > Hornbill Collaboration > Translations. highest = user.core.activities.highest higher = user.core.activities.higher high = user.core.activities.high above normal = user.core.activities.abovenormal ...etc It would be good to understand your specific motivation for matching priorities between activities and requests, i.e. if it is just about a more familiar naming convention or whether it has come about because of another underlying challenge. DanÂÂ

Hi Rachel,  I can confirm Lyonel is correct. The get Request Questions BPM node only retrieves the first 10 questions (on any given Pro Cap form) for us to use in the BPM. Dan

Hi Adrian,  thanks for your post. Can I first ask you to confirm that you have set the Realm of the SSO profile to "guest" as shown in the image. I'm unable to see the error message in your original post, please could you provide that again along with a screen shot of your ADFS claim rules for this particular trust. Thanks Dan

Hi Steve,  the Service has now been deleted. Dev will review your log files to try and understand how it happened and take any necessary steps to prevent this situation in the future. Let us know if you have any more problems in creating Services. Dan

Hi Steve,  As I understand it, this error prevents it from being deleted via the UI, is that still the case? I can't advocate for the use of direct database queries and don't want to get into posting specifics (there are a number of tables that need to be examined and dealt with) just in case someone less experienced that yourself has an attempt at fixing such an issue. I'll request that our cloud team execute the action on your instance. Thanks, Dan

Hi Steve,  when viewing the Service, the error that is generated appears to be in relation to the translation capability. Also, if you notice, the Language field is not populated. Looking in the database, I would expect to see at least 2 records associated to a Service (one dealing with the "default" values and then a record for each language you have translated that service into). I only see one record (the default record) where I would also expect to see a record handling the en-GB translations as well. It looks like that it failed to create for some reason. Let me speak to dev and understand the best way forward.  Dan

Hi Steve,  thanks for your post. I'd be interested to know how you managed to create a Service without a Service Category. This field is mandatory when creating a new Service. Please can you tell us what the service called and when you created it? Thanks, Dan

Hi Lee, I've a feeling that I may have implied during our Switch on, that once we'd configured your new outbound route that we could dispense with the "live.hornbill.com" route altogether, when in reality this is only true on the condition that additional configuration is performed. If you want to set guest.app.requests.notification.emailDomain to use your Domain when sending out these Application-generated notifications, an SPF/TXT record must be configured on your DNS Server. This is detailed on the following wiki page: https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Outbound_Mail_Routing . If you leave this application setting set to "live.hornbill.com" then this additional work is not required, but of course we must have an outbound route configured called "live.hornbill.com" in Hornbill Administration. Dan ÂÂ

Hi Lee,  thanks for your post. Sending an email communication to the customer when a call is logged by the service desk is done via a BPM automated operation (the blue nodes). We will have configured an "Email Customer" node in the baseline process that we created during the Switch On. I would check the following things: 1) Has a Business Process been initiated against the request (i.e. do you get the green progress bar at the top of the request)? 2) Does an automated operation still exist (to send an email) in the BPM Workflow that is being used against the request? (check the BPM design). 3) If an email operation node exists, what Shared mailbox is it using to send the email? (i.e. whats in the "Mailbox" field in the node options - does this mailbox exist) 4) If a mailbox is set in the node, take a look at the Shared mailbox (System > Email > Shared Mailboxes) click on the mailbox and review the "Addresses" tab. The Default address specified in this tab is what makes the link between the Shared Mailbox and the outbound route. If the default address is wrong or missing, then the Shared mailbox wont know how to send mail. The clue here is in the creation of an address in this particular tab. When you click the "Add new address" button, the portion after the @ symbol is populated via a drop down box. This drop down box is populated with a list of Outbound routes. This tab therefore, isn't just specifying a reply address, it is also actually making the link to the outbound route configured in Hornbill. Let me know what you find and if my explanation makes sense! Best Regards, Dan ÂÂ

Hi Hayley,  thanks for your post. There is aService Manager Application setting called " webapp.view.ITSM.serviceDesk.requests.resolve.denyWithOpenActivities " that prevents a request from being resolved if there are still incomplete activities against it. This can be found in Hornbill Administration: Home > Service Manager > Application Settings. You can use the filter to help you quickly find the app setting. Hope that helps, Dan ÂÂ

Hi Terje,  thank you for your post. Just to give the community a bit of background to your scenario, from our conversations in relation to your Hornbill Switch On I understand that you will be creating a Hornbill Service to represent each of the Products or Applications that your Company supports and you will subscribe your customers to the appropriate service. I imagine your Hornbill configuration would incorporate a Catalog Item (within each of the Services) called "Request Access to this Application". Clicking on this would raise a Service Request with a Business Process associated with it that would perform the actions you describe. As you have identified, at present there is not an available BPM operation that will subscribe a customer contact or user to a Hornbill Service, nor is there a facility to trigger external automation tools or make a call directly to an external application. Having said that, this capability may not be too far away. Development work is on-going which is exploring the various approaches in providing this Automation and integration specifically from the BPM. The following forum post gives you an indication of things to come: The particular feature mentioned in the forum post is still in the experimental stage, and it may be subject to change depending on the path development takes but as I say, hopefully, in the near future there will be options available to us. I hope that helps, Dan

Hi All,  in relation to requests, the power that roles have extends as far as the request type that a user is able to view. i.e. Incident, Service Requests, Problem, Change etc. In terms of what specific requests I can see e.g. I need to see IN00000234 OR SR00045677 is governed by the "Team Membership and Supporting Teams" visibility model. What this thread seems to be driving at, certainly Pete's initial post, is an additional level of control which is: "of those requests I have visibility of, do I have the ability to a) edit any details b ) only update the timeline c) read-only I think Keith's challenge is a different one, in this case I would start with understanding why requests are being raised against the wrong Service and see if things can be changed to prevent this. @Keith would you be able to start a new thread in relation to your challenge then we can focus the discussion? Thanks, Dan

Hi Pete,  I hope you're well. As Victor points out this was the missing link to viewing the tasks. When building out a Security Role set for a full Application user, I always start with the "Collaboration Role", as this is a fundamental role that governs much of the Core Hornbill functionality. When building out a role set for your Service Portal Users (aka Basic Users), the foundation role here is the "Basic User Role". This operates in the same vein as the Collaboration role does for the full application users in that it gives that fundamental access to the Portal. More info on roles can be found here: https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Roles I hope that helps some. Dan

Hi Doug,  I suspect Samuel is on the right track here. During my implementations I don't advise that the "Select Service" form is present in the target process as there is a potential for some unusual behavior. The "Select Service" form is a key player in progressive capture. As Bob highlights, in the days before the Switch Process node, the Service form would be in control of the transition between Progressive Captures and this behavior is only suppressed by the inclusion of a Switch Capture node. In your target flow, a switch process node probably wont be present (quite rightly) which means that if you have the Service details form in there its "transitioning characteristics" (for want of a better phrase) will be active. What could be happening here, is that (as by design) the values captured in the initial presentation of the form are being carried through in the transition and auto-selected in the second presentation of that form. This means that the process is likely transitioning correctly, but is immediately hitting the service form which it technically already has values for (as specified in the previous capture) therefore (in effectively the same breath) triggers the old-style "transitioning characteristic". I'm not sure why this would be "working" for your Service Request set-up, but I would just emphasise that it wouldn't be considered best practice to present the "Select Service" form in a target Progressive capture flow when using the new Switch-Process-node approach. Hope that helps, Dan ÂÂ

Hi Alex,  how about the "Openbare Werkruimtes", are there any counters along-side the workspaces listed here? Its possible that you were mentioned in a workspace and you were removed from the workspace before you read the post. This would mean the counter still shows that you have unread posts, but your "My Workspaces" filter will not show these workspaces. Thanks, Dan

Hi Alex,  thanks for you post. If you look at the "Public Workspaces" tab, are there any workspaces with orange counters indicating unread posts? Thanks, Dan

Hi Stephen,  thanks for your post. A metric such as this is possible with both Hornbill Advanced Analytics and the Reports functionality located in Hornbill Administration. Advanced Analytics -  Home > Service Manager > Advanced Analytics - If you want a simple count, a measure can be created to obtain the number of requests logged during a specified sample period. Upon creating a measure, specify the frequency as "Yearly", the Value Aggregate as "Count, and the Date Ranging Column as "Date Logged". In the query where clause add any specific criteria that you need e.g. if you want to limit the count to only incidents, specify "requesttype = 'incident' ". Save the measure and then select re-sample. When a measure is set to sample on a yearly basis, the count will be gathered at 23:59 on the 31st December each year and will continue to do so until the measure is suspended or deleted. Reports - Home > Service Manager > Reports - It is possible to build a Report to output a list of the requests logged within a specified date range. This is done in the "filter" tab by specifying a filter which allows you to enter a date range at the point of running the report. The image shows the filter configuration that will allow you to do this. It will also be necessary to add any other filter criteria that you desire e.g. request type. With this filter configured, when you run the report (by clicking the "Play" button towards the top right) you will be presented with a pop-up where you can choose your date range. Hope that helps. Dan

Hi Dan,  thanks for your post. For your regular one-to-ones, you can obtain some stats on feedback through reporting in Hornbill Administration. Specifically, the 5-star-rating given to a request  is stored in h_itsm_requests.h_rating. If no 5 star rating has been provided this column will be null. There is potential to create metrics for each analyst based on this column and you can ensure the null values are excluded through the filter (where clause) you specify. I have asked if someone can confirm what you're seeing in the Progressive capture summary panel as it does seem to be potentially including the null values from h_rating in the display. Hope that helps, Dan ÂÂ

Hi Prathmesh,  at present, we only facilitate the Clear-down of Request and Asset Data using the "Hornbill Cleaner" Utility. The ability to clear down Workspaces, news feed, and other such Collaborative aspects, is likely something that will be catered for in the future. Dan

Hi Prathmesh,  Our Cloud Team have identified an issue and are currently examining the instance logs and liaising with development to understand the issue further. They will post back as soon as they have more information. Dan

Hi Prathmesh,  thanks for your post. Presently when it comes to portal configuration, we don't have the power to change the style of any of the text. However we can change the colour, and also what the text says. If you would like to draw your users' attention to how they login, perhaps consider indicating this in another text area, such as in the Main Image Sub-title. Hope that Helps, Dan