Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'enhancement'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Hornbill Platform and Applications
    • Announcements
    • Blog Article Discussions
    • General Non-Product Discussions
    • Application Beta Program
    • Collaboration
    • Service Manager
    • Project Manager
    • Supplier Manager
    • Customer Manager
    • Document Manager
    • Configuration 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 210 results

  1. @Steve G Would it be possible to form the JIRA 'Comment Issue' to return a status parameter similar to the 'Update Issue' so we can then branch in the workflow based on the outcome. We are to get around the absence of this on the 'Create Issue' node as we can check if the 'key' parameter is set as a means to determine if the integration step was successful. Cheers Martyn
  2. Can I raise an enhancement to provide a Request Attachment Importer tool. Like the current SQL Request Import tool, provide a mechanism where the attachments information containing the case reference, visibility and file path can be queried form a database and the tool loads the attachments against the referenced requests. It it could also have the ability to match the case reference to a custom field/External Reference field, so that the source only has to have the legacy unique ID in it. Cheers Martyn
  3. We are in the process of trying to convince one of our other service desks in our wider group to migrate to our Hornbill Service Manager Instance from 'Salesforce Desk'. One of the features they use extensively and is one of the blocking issues, is there ability to add multiple tags/labels to there requests which they then use as part of there process for identification and searching/selection. As Requests can have multiple tags/labels associated with them and they are not necessarily sequential nor singular we cannot utilise sub states to emulate them. Example screen shot below show how these are presented, with them being coloured coded and appended in front of the subject line. Are there any plans to offer a similar Tag/Label facility in Service Manager? If not can we raise this as an enhancement to provide the following:- Admin Tool - Setup Tags/Labels and assign colour coding. Requests - Add/Remove Tags/Labels from predefined list. Request List - add as additional column for display Request List Views - add as an additional field criteria. Cheers Martyn
  4. We are wondering if we can request an enhancement to have conditional questions in the feedback e.g. if they choose 3 stars then we ask for what we could of done better or if they suggest poor feedback we can prompt for them to explain the poor feedback
  5. At the moment it is only possible to create a measure based on a Table object, but with relational database architecture used in the platform there are often selection criteria held in a related table hence it would be useful to be able to create a measure on an entity. Cheers Martyn
  6. As we are primarily an external support focuses organisation, we have a large number of organisation and contacts within them. As we provide multiple different services to the same organisation, it would be really useful to be able to support multiple primary contacts, with specifying a 'Primary Contact' type which is a custom set list of types, for example 'Technical', 'Legal', 'Out Sourced IT', 'Accounts Payable' etc. Cheers Martyn
  7. Hi, We have servicemanager.portal.requests.showStaffRequests enabled to allow people to see the requests in the system for anyone they manage. This is a requirement for some teams on IT Services. However, we are potentially interested in adding a service where the ability for a manager to see requests raised by someone they manage could be problematic - it's a HR service. Is it possible to restrict the ability by service? I.E. allow managers to see requests for those they manage on say the "Account Management" service but not allow it on the "HR" service? If not, is there anything in the pipeline? Thanks Chris
  8. Related to my earlier post about snippets on Human Task reason field, can there also be an option to enable this on any additional fields of the type 'Multi line text' as well, as we make use of a number of additional fields of this type, especially for integration, which this would be very useful. Cheers Martyn
  9. With increased complexity and volumes of requests on our instance we are seeing more occurrences when operations in the BPM which are sequenced sequentially in the BPM are not completing or committing there changes to the request before the next node is activated, i.e. there operations are overlapping/unsynchronised. Though most of the time this is not critical to the operation of the BPM, but there are times when this is critical as the subsequent node is dependent on the former step. We have found that with increased volume, we have had more occurrences of issues with the BPM where the logic (decision nodes) or subsequent actions have failed to work as intended or apply the correct route through the BPM due to the update on the request not being completed prior to the next stage. We have found this occurring in a number of scenarios, some which I have listed below:- Using 'Update Request > Priority' then following it will 'Update Request > Service Level' will often fail to update the Service Level, as the second step does not pick up the changed priority value. We have had to insert some delaying nodes and a loop to wait for the update to the priority to be committed to the database/cache. When a request is taken off hold by applying a request or customer portal update, the BPM will resume before the update has been fully applied and the sub status updated as per the setting on the service, which results in get request information node and decision node having the incorrect data, i.e. sub status, so the incorrect logic is applied following the request coming off hold. Updates to custom fields are not picked straightaway, so when these are injected into objects such as task descriptions, email templates etc, they do not contain the new values. Can we request an enhancement to add a setting to BPM Update and Suspend nodes to force them commit all changes to the database/cache before the node is completed and passes operation on to the next node in the BPM. This can default to the current behaviour but where it is necessary to ensure proper sequential operation this can be enabled. Cheers Martyn
  10. Related to the post below about having access to 'Snippets' in the request view 'Update' action, can I also request that they are also made available in the 'Reason' field when completing Human Task/Activity as well. Cheers Martyn
  11. Can the Update Request > Timeline node have an additional option added to enable the timeline post to be set as locked when it is inserted. This is so important updates are left in the timeline as is and stops comments being made on them. Cheers Martyn
  12. The majority of the service desk we operate on our Hornbill instance are externally facing and we are now looking to bring on two additional desk from other parts of the group, where email iteration is key. These new desk the user base are field or mobile based external customers in the Petrochemical and Medical/NHS environment where it will not be piratical for them to use the Customer Portal. It is important we can communicate effectively with the primary customer and connections on the request using emails generated from the BPM workflow. At the moment the disjointed Email Customer and Email Connections nodes are not really fit for this purpose as separate emails are sent and with the latter you have to call the node twice to send the email to both impacted and interested connections. Plus the fact that it is in essence separate emails and the connections are not aware of who has also been included with the communication. In short we would like to request the enhancement of the Email Customer/Contact node to add the following options, so that just one email can be sent, just like it can be done from the Live user app on the email action on the Request View, with the appropriate connections included. We would like to propose the following 1. Additional parameters for CC: BCC Subject Line Importance Sensitivity Above CC/BCC parameter have the option for Manual entry with variable injection Impacted Connections Interested Connections Impacted and Interested Connections Cheers Martyn
  13. I am sure this has been raised before but could not locate it with the forum search. Can a third type of 'Connection' be supported to allow the inclusion of 'Email Address' only without the need for creating a contact. This is especially essential when dealing with external customers or third parties, who are not primary contacts or are adhoc etc. Cheers Martyn
  14. As a follow on from the request below which has now been implemented, can the timeline update be extended to include the text of all the email addresses on the To: recipients. At the moment it does not show any details from the To: part of the email and you have to open the linked email to view this information. Having the information as part of the timeline, makes it easier for the analyst to pick up and add additional connections. Cheers Martyn
  15. Can we request an enhancement 'Get Request Information' node of 'Source Email Details' is extended to return all any email addresses on the To: recipient as a separate sting so that these can be injected into timeline and activity descriptions, as at the moment. At the moment the current To: only returns the single receiving mailbox address, not all the recipients. This is related to our earlier post where we are trying to ensure the analyst is aware of involved parties they need to add as connections. Cheers Martyn
  16. We make use of Workpspaces quite extensively to keep coordinated, record meeting and actions. This means we will often have multiple notifications within a single workspace appearing in the notification bell at the top. At the moment the behaviour is that when you click on the blue link within the notification is takes you to the whole of the workspace, which then results in all notifications of updates within the workspace being dismissed. Can I ask that the Workspace notifications include a link to the individual post that triggered the notification, that way only the notification for updates on the same post would be cleared and you can then return to the notifications to view the other updates post by post. Cheers Martyn
  17. Can I request an enhancement to the Email options held at a Service level, to enable the automatic inclusion of connections when opening the request 'Email Action'. Connections is a very useful facility, but is let down by the need to manually have to add the connection on to the email action each and every time you use it. This whole relies on the analyst remembering to add the connections, which with human error results in an inconsistent application. We would propose there is an options as below:- Impacted connections - option None, To, CC or BCC. Interested connections - option None, To, CC or BCC By having a setting a the Service level this can be controlled and set due to the particular needs of the the service, rather than a system wide setting. Having the options above give complete flexibility to fit different service desk needs. Cheers Martyn
  18. When using Routing Rules and the Service Manager Templates to create new requests from emails, can the timeline entry be expanded to include the source email address as well as any CC: addresses, as at the moment it only displays either a matched contact or undefined contact. Undefined Matched contact Cheers Martyn
  19. Can we request an enhancement 'Get Request Information' node of 'Source Email Details' is extended to return the any email addresses on the CC: recipient as a sting so that these can be injected into timeline and activity descriptions, as at the moment it only includes the To and From addresses. Cheers Martyn
  20. The Customer Portal at the moment appears to group the catalog display order by Request Type and then the order of the catalog items as per the Request Type. At the moment it appears to sort the Request Types alphabetically. We are in the process of enabling the display of change requests on the portal, so we are seeing all the change request catalog items appear first and then the incident ones. Could there be a setting added to allow us to configure the order of request types as they as displayed on the portal? In our case we would want to show them in the order Incident, Service and Change, but having a user configurable setting would allow people to set there own preference on their instance. Cheers Martyn
  21. Can I request the addition of a 'Seconds' column to the 'Expire period', as there as cases when trigger BPM actions we need to suspend for a shorter period of time than 1 minute. This is especially true when under taking integration actions and also action after other suspend nodes where the BPM process has been resumed but simultaneous operations occurring on the request have not been committed to the database which result in the BPM retrieving on incorrect data. For example we have a process which awaits the request coming off hold which is followed immediately by a get request details and decision node. We have had occurrences where the request has been taken off hold by an update on the customer portal and the BPM has resumed but the full update from the portal has not completed/committed so the subsequent decision node does not have the up to date information and branches incorrectly. Cheers Martyn Note: the above scenario was discuseed with @Victor as part of IN00158237
  22. As per of a investigation with Hornbill support (IN00158425) the Suspect - Await Expiry is applying some form of Working Time Calendar even though it does not have the WTC options the other hold/suspend processes do,. We when using the suspend node and the BPM resumes out of hours, the node will suspend not for the duration of the expiry there and then but hold until the WTC starts and then commences the timer to suspend. Cheers Martyn
  23. Following discussion with Hornbill Support regarding issue with on hold duration and suspend await expiry nodes, it was confirmed that Service Manager BPM when using the 'Apply WTC' option to calculate on hold periods, does not use the actual 'Working Time Calendar' associated with the Service Level Agreement the request is assigned to. What it does do is use the Working Time Calendar specified in the Service Manager setting "guest.app.timer.defaultCalendar". As we operate services over multiple time zones with different operating hours, this means that this option is not usable in its current state. Can we request an enhancement for the 'Apply WTC' option to query the linked Service Level Agreement (SLA) on the request to obtain the linked Working Time Calendar (WTC) and use this in its calculation. If there is no linked SLA, then the WTC specified by the current default setting can be used as per the current behaviour. Cheers Martyn
  24. Hello, We would like to be able to select a to and from date in a progressive capture within the same field, so that we don't have to create two separate fields. The reason for this is that we are running out of custom fields. For example, we currently have to create it like this: Access start date = (customer picks a start date) Access end date = (customer picks an end date) We would like to have this instead: Duration of access = (customer pick a start date -- customer picks an end date) Please could we request this as an enhancement? Many thanks, Alisha
  25. Can I request additional question types: A slider for variable amount, like you have in your project management module e.g. A question with two different answers, like below questions is not a good example. But we have a need for matrix type questions choose colour and choose amount drop downs for the same question.
×
×
  • Create New...