Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'pcf'.

  • 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

  1. 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.
  2. So we have a field that we have in the portal and in the analysts section when raising requests and the field acts differently e.g. in the portal we present a simple list and you can search: But analysts raising a request get the same box but cannot search Can this be updated so the analysts can search this box as this is very handy when presenting long lists of information.
  3. So we have multiple users (staff, students, etc) which we can identify by their email address in the PCF and then either let them complete the form or show them a message saying you are not logged in with a suitable account. However even when it drops into the Incorrect account if thy press finish it logs a request...can we prevent a request from being raised? As we then have to add to the BPM if this is student email address then cancel the request. So we are generating data for no reason.
  4. In some of our PCF's we require our customers to enter a change number (CHxxxxxx) that has been raised. We would like when they enter this number in the PCF and a job is created, that the BPM will link the 2 together. Is this possible?
  5. In a PCF if you add an asset selection, you can't seem to make any conditional decisions based on the asset selection. If you have customer search or questions you can show/hide questions based on those choices but doesn't have the same options for the Asset node, please can these be added?
  6. Currently when using the Variable Picker in the BPM editor to get values from Progressive Capture Forms, is shows the 5 Most Recently Created, by title. Which is fine when setting up a new system, but when maintaining an existing system, this would be better to be the 5 Most Recently Updated. Can this change to "5 Most Recently Updated" or an additional option in the tree between the two existing Customer PCF options. Cheers Martyn
  7. I have a process that I have been tasked with getting in to Service Manager, this is a Risk Assessment. Normally it would be straight forward, but there are sections that need repeating if the customer chooses but the only way that we can think is to allow the customer to complete the section then have a question 'Would you like to add more Risks/Mitigations?' with a Yes/No answer and if they click yes show or get them to complete another section, but we think this would get complicated very quickly. This would normally be fine if there are a few repetitions but this form can have approx 30+ risks and additional details. How are other companies/institutions working with forms like this, or has no one decided to be as crazy as us? The image shows the word form that people can obviously add new lines to and keep adding Risks, Hazards etc:
  8. We have noticed that when people have apostrophe in their names it shows incorrectly in a user selector list in the PCF, please can this be fixed.
  9. Is there a way of displaying a custom field that is set against a customer in the PCF to the analyst when logging? I know you can add the {{user.email}}, {{user.fName}} etc but is there an option for {{user.custom4}} so that this information can be pulled out and displayed?
  10. When creating form/PCFs can we have variables so that we can match things, one of our examples is that we ask for a line managers email to send an email asking for authorisation for certain things but people have a habit of adding themselves. We can handle this in the BPM and reject it, by matching the input to the submitters info. However we would like to stop it at source and when we ask for their managers email address or get them to look up via the users data query we want to match this field against the customer submitting so it would be something like: Then if the customer email or id matches that field we can display a warning saying this will be rejected as you can't authorise your own requests.
  11. As part of the PCF that we have for raising requests we would like to branch based on analyst or team as we would like to display different information when logging a request to different teams i.e. Service Desk rather than Site Support/another Support team. As when logging a request via the analyst route you know who the person is and their details, as this is used/picked up in the BPM. Is this something that can be looked into please?
  12. Just a little annoyance of mine that I correct on forms.... I have an image below of a form, the top text is a label and then there is a question below. My query is why are the questions in font size 13 and then the labels font size 11 (guessing this one), can they not be the same please?
  13. Can I request an enhancement, when completing a form/PCF in Self-Service can the section collapse the same as when logging a request as an analyst so that it keeps the breadcrumb list to a minimum? This would be especially useful when we have some 'long' forms and the data just disappears and creates a massive scrollable page.
  14. When we try to choose assets in a PCF (form) on the portal it does not return many assets but when raising a request in the analyst side there are there. Please can this be looked into: Raising a request: On the portal:
  15. When you have an 'Add Attachments' node what does the Attachment title do? As I have set this as below: and in the resulting request it appears as: My assumption would be that a part or all of the uploaded file would reference 'Risk Assessment'?
  16. Please can we request that there is a new System Form or the ability to add a custom field with the closure categories in please, there is the Request Category but we would like a Closure Category for the requests that we log and resolve.
  17. Hi All, Since the update to build 1958 of the Service Manager we have been unable to raise incidents from inbound emails. Upon raising the incident we receive the attached error. The BPM runs and logs the version being used and then the PCF seemingly fails to collect any information. Our application cache has been cleared sucessfully. Any advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
  18. I like the idea and premise of the favorite services etc, but to extend this I wondered if it would be possible to favorite a form/PCF as this is more relevant than the Service in our portal. We have a lot of Services that people use but just 1 form out of several within these, so this would be a great help for people to able to find the forms they use the most quickly. Maybe an extension of the favorite services widget where you can choose if you display the favorite Service or CI?
  19. We have quite a few fields in different PCFs mapped to h_summary and it has been highlighted to us that this now basically does the same as the search function within the portal and tries to be clever in suggesting other CIs, FAQs, Previous Requests etc can this be turned off or hidden in the portal please? This can and will cause confusion as when customers complete these forms they have no concept of these things and should be (in my opinion) reserved for analysts, this is at least going to cause confusion for people filling in forms etc as the box is not easily removed. I have a image of the issue below this is on the portal with any field mapped to h_summary... to go through all fields in our PCFs to work out which ones are mapped to this field and then change these and the corresponding BPMs to update the summaries 'manually' is not currently that feasible.
  20. We have forms with quite a few sections and when the data appears in the right hand side you don't know how far you are etc, would it be possible to allow the previous completed sections to be collapsed to just show the section header? Also I have noticed that when going to a new stage in the Employee Portal it doesn't return you to the top of the page and sometimes leaves you in the middle with empty white space when go from a section with lots of questions to one that has a few, guess this is something to do with the sections on the right filling more of the page...
  21. When logging certain requests we make decision based on users email addresses but when we log into the new portal it does not honour these decisions.... basically if you have a @port.ac.uk email address it let's you proceed and if you have any other email address it will refuse your request with an incorrect account message. New Employee Portal Current Portal allows access: The PCF decision is as follows:
  22. We are about to embark on a course of action, but I wanted some clarity around what others so to get around the issue of linking incidents to problem requests. My current plan is to place a node in the problem bpm when raised to pass details of the PB number and the description to some code via the API to update a simple list called Problem Requests. This list is then going to be added to the Raise Request PCF so that when jobs are raised we can get our analysts to choose from the simple list the correct problem record to link the new incident too. Once the incident is then logged, I will then add a node which will pass (again via API call) the incident number of the new request and the problem number selected from the simple list and link the two via an API call. Obviously this is basically creating a mini knowledge management system for problem records but I wondered how others where approaching this issue and their working practices, as we have found the the Knowledge Centre in beta is not useful to for linking any requests. Also there is no functionality in the BPM designer to allow us to link requests even through we have two valid request numbers which would be 'relatively straight forward' (in my mind) to be able to do this as part of the BPM. Any help or insights gladly received.
  23. I'm not sure if this has been asked for before but would it be possible to add a search to the Service List in the PCF so that we can type in a box to return Services or CIs? Our Service/CI list is ever growing, but our analysts know the type of request that they log things against, maybe the search can look at Service/CI Name and descriptions?
  24. We have a question on a PCF that pulls data from a simple list and it is not displaying correctly, it seems to display display values in the PCF rather than the Value. It is set up as follows: But on the Active PCF it shows the Default Display name: This is the Simple list:
  25. We want to able to utilise the option in the PCF to allow customer to choose another user as affected which we can do very nicely with a Dynamic Drop Down box linking this to users. However, as this list has all users this is causing us issues, for example we have all students and staff in this list and need a way of restricting this list by department/organisation or a query. To be able to define this list would help us as we have approaching 57,000 users and the vast majority of these are students and when completing these forms we are asking for other affected staff members, this would also make the list faster and easier to use and cut down on the potential risk of having duplicate names and choosing the wrong affected user.
×
×
  • Create New...