Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'changerequest'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Hornbill Platform and Applications
    • OpenForWork
    • Announcements
    • Blog Article Discussions
    • General Non-Product Discussions
    • Application Beta Program
    • Collaboration
    • Employee Portal
    • Service Manager
    • IT Operations Management
    • Project Manager
    • Supplier Manager
    • Customer Manager
    • Document Manager
    • Timesheet Manager
    • Live Chat
    • Board Manager
    • Mobile Apps
    • System Administration
    • Integration Connectors, API & Webhooks
    • Performance Analytics
    • Hornbill Switch On & Implementation Questions
  • About the Forum
    • Announcements
    • Suggestions and Feedback
    • Problems and Questions
  • Gamers Club's Games
  • Gamers Club's LFT

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Organisation


Location


Interests


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype

Found 4 results

  1. Hi All, We have a particular change request which requires two authorisers before being reviewed by the our change management team. Due to leave and the authorisers work loads, we want this still to be a manual selection of the two authorisers (as they may differ) We have found that when authoriser approves rather than waiting for the second it will continue onto the next step. I understand that if these authorisers were always the same and known, we could alter the weighting of the approval, and set each one to 50%, but as mentioned above this wouldn't work for us. I have checked out Service Request BPM, which places the ticket on hold, but as changes do not have an SLA, there would be no reason for the change to be placed on hold. Is there another way of being able to add suspend wait for authorisation to occur? Below is a screenshot of the suspend node, to allow the authorisers to be manually selected, but there doesn't seem to be a similar process for suspend await authorisation: Any help would be gratefully received. Kind Regards Adam
  2. Hi, Here at Milton Keynes Council we've been looking at replacing our RFC system (sharepoint) with Hornbill Service Manager. We've come across some obstacles and were wondering what existing 'tools' in Hornbill Service Manager we can use to achieve them. Authorisers; we have multiple approvers spread across 5 teams (total of 11 potential approvers), is there any way to send an email for approval to all but just log the first response from each team? Is there any way to do this without allowing more than one approval per team? Allowing the change requestor to update the RFC following implemntation without having to get onto the Service Manager portal (via the Customer Portal only)? Hope you can assist Kind Regards Rashid Milton Keynes Council
  3. Not sure if anyone else has this problem or if this has been discussed previously (have searched the forums). Our change requests go through several stages of authorisation: CP1, CP2 etc. These stages require a completion of a task from the owner of the change at which point the Change Manager is contacted to approve the next level. This issue we have is that your change manager recently left and whilst I have updated the BPM for new requests all the old requests that are still in progress break when getting moved to the next stages. Here is the error message returned for this workflow: Xmlmc method invocation failed for BPM invocation node 's1/approval-00dccce6-55ba-4fb6-0c90-c1e4d3d2879e': <methodCallResult status="fail"> <state> <code>0200</code> <service>task</service> <operation>taskCreate2</operation> <error>The specified user &apos;USERNAME&apos; does not exist</error> </state> </methodCallResult> Is there anyone to fix these with the live calls as having to recreate the change or resolve them without the relevant stages completed is not best practice and won't look great come audit time.
  4. Hi there, We keep getting this error when trying to log a change. This is hard coded somewhere but not sure where, can you advise please? Thanks, L
×
×
  • Create New...