Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'slm'.

  • 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 10 results

  1. We recently undertook an import of request form an ZenDesk service desk into Hornbill which all loaded correctly in to Hornbill, except for the active requests where the incorrect Service Level Agreements where assigned as the SLM Rules to determine the correct SLA to apply did not evaluate correctly. New request logged correctly since the migration directly in Hornbill do have the correct SLA applied using the rules in place. Our SLA rules use both the Organisation and Organisation Industry to determine which SLA to apply and as per best practice we have a default catch all rule to apply a default SLA. All the imported active requests got the default SLA. It appears the Organisation relationship used by the SLA rules is not being set properly by the import tool, so it is not able to evaluate the Organisation name or Organisation Industry values used in the rules. In terms of the imported requests these where matched at the user level by h_logon_id and also supplied the h_container_id of the organisation, using v1.8.1 of the tool. We have two concerns, One how to do we avoid this for future migrations, so that SLA rules apply properly? We have had previous issues in our instance where requests have subsequently become cross linked to the incorrect organisation due to different interpretations of the organisation and container id relationships, which has involved @Victor have to undertake corrections. Example SLA rule below Cheers Martyn
  2. We are in the process of setting up a new service desk and services on our instance as part of bringing in another part of the organisation, I am having to spend several hours manually linking and duplicate SLA rules on the each of the services, which as well as being somewhat frustrating can lead to human error. As per our earlier post for the ability to Copy a Service and Copy SLA (links below) we would like to request the ability to copy/import the linked SLA and the rules from one service to another. Cheers Martyn
  3. Currently the Service Level Agreement - Linked Services List list all services irrespective of the status of the 'Service'. Can a filter much the same as on the Service list be added to allow the display of All, Pipeline, Catalog, Retired? Cheers Martyn
  4. I am interested in knowing the proportion of Service Manager users who are using the different request performance tracking options, namely Priorities and Service Level Management for their services. Cheers Martyn https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Service_Manager_Priorities https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Structure_Service_Level_Management
  5. At the moment we only have a limited access to fields in order to specify SLM Service Level Agreement rules:- We would like access to additional fields, so that we can make the rules more useful and fit more users possible combinations Organisation Country Region (see linked post at the bottom) Industry Custom fields Customer Job Title Language Country Custom Fields Region (see linked post at the bottom) Request Service Summary Description Source External Ref No. Custom Fields Thanks Martyn
  6. Having a large number of Services and a growing number of different Service Level Agreements (SLA) where we need to add both different targets and escalation processes, it would really help save a lot of manual effort, it there was the ability to copy the Service Level Agreement setting from one Service to another or even better select a number of destination Services in one go. In terms of settings this would need to include linked Service Levels and the Rules. At the moment I updating about 40 Services where I am having to manually add each new Service Level Agreement and add the Rules, service by service, when the changes are identical for all the services in question. Cheers Martyn
  7. At the moment the maximum Service Level Management Target you can set for 'Resolution' is 40 days,23 hours and 55 minutes. We are currently implementing further service desk on to our instance and they have some long running SLA's for cosmetic software issues which in affect have an SLA of a year. Based on on 261 working days a year and 9 hours a day, I need to set a target of 97 days and 21 hours but are not able to set the value higher than the for mentioned maximum. Can these maximum value be increased please. Cheers Martyn
  8. We are in the process of implementing the new Service Level's to replace the original priority levels. We have roles based on the system Full and normal Incident Management Users, but need to understand what permissions are required to allow a user to change the service level on a request. At the moment the users are not able to click and edit the service level on the requests setup with the new service levels. Cheers Martyn
  9. We are currently testing the new Service Level Management option, enabled in settings by the guest.app.view.ITSM.serviceDesk.enableSLM with reference to the wiki link below. https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Transitioning_to_the_new_Service_Level_Agreement_functionality I am just trying to work out how we implement escalation actions against the new SLM setup, or if this is not yet in place. Cheers Martyn
  10. We are in the process of implementing the new Service Level Management (SLM) feature for all new services we are defining ahead of going back to apply it to our existing catalogue of services. Though we use 'Priority' as part of the rules to determine the initial 'Service Level' applied, you can then once further into the case update the 'Service Level' and it will recalculate the duration/targets which is great. This means the original priority value is somewhat historic and no longer accurate. On the current 'Request List' you are only able to display the original 'Priority' and the indicator 'SL' field, not the 'Service Level' field which is now the up to date and more relevant field. Can the 'Service Level' field be added on to the Request List screen as a matter of urgency as not having it available means that analysts and managers are not able to accurate assess and priorities the workload. Cheers Martyn
×
×
  • Create New...