Sub-Status - On Customer Response

[Martyn Houghton]

On the wiki, there is no details on the Request Sub-status options  "On Customer Response change Sub-status to..." to explain what is counted as a customer response and would trigger the status to be changed.

https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Request_Sub-statuses

Is this being updated by the portal, having an email update applied to it form the shared mailbox etc? Can you advise on what specific conditions will trigger this.

Thanks.

Martyn

[Steven Boardman]

Hi @Martyn Houghton

Thanks for the post. 

We released the Sub-Status feature in the current SM build, so you could use active / inactive sub-statuses. We have additional logic and features going into the next SM build around the customer interaction and the behaviour this may have on the sub-statuses. This next build will be supported by documentation on which actions portal / email etc will trigger a changing in the sub-status (if configured of course).  

In essence you will be able to define for each sub-status, if a customer update should change the sub-status.  For example, if you have a sub-status of With Customer and the customer responds, then you may want the sub-status to change, however if the sub-status is With 3rd Party you may not want the sub-status to change if the customer updates via the portal, or email. 

This will be fully documented and explained on the wiki.  

For now i would perhaps suggest leaving the On Customer Response Change aspect, as you can't currently control which sub-state this will work with (so it will be all), and in the current build it is only portal updates which would trigger a change.  

The next SM build is scheduled for release in the next 10 days. 

Hope that helps 

Steve

[David Hall]

Hi @Martyn Houghton

Sorry about that, we are still expanding the documentation on this so I'll see about getting that added.

Currently a "customer response" refers to one of the following actions performed on a request in the portal

• Adding a comment to a post
• Adding a post (update)
• Adding an attachment
• Confirming a resolution has worked
• Confirming a resolution hasn't worked

Hope that helps,

Regards,

Dave.

[Keith]

@Steven Boardman @David Hall

We find that most of our customer responses are done via email. Will an update via email be one of the triggers to change the status?

Keith

[James Ainsworth]

Hi Keith, 

Yes, we have included a check for the automated email updates that are done via the Email Routing.   This will be available with the next update.

Regards,

James

[Martyn Houghton]

@James Ainsworth Does this include the ones done manually through the shared mailbox, as well as those via the Routing Rules? Cheers Martyn

[Keith]

18 hours ago, James Ainsworth said:

Hi Keith, 

Yes, we have included a check for the automated email updates that are done via the Email Routing.   This will be available with the next update.

Regards,

James

Good to hear @James Ainsworth

I notice also that the Sub status is not available for use in views/charts. Is this in the pipeline also?

 

Keith

[James Ainsworth]

Hi @Keith

Yes, the sub-statuses will be added to the condition builder for the views.  Most likely a couple of Service Manager builds away so maybe about 2 weeks time.

Regards,

James

[James Ainsworth]

9 hours ago, Martyn Houghton said:

Does this include the ones done manually through the shared mailbox

Hi Martyn,

At the moment it doesn't.  We wanted to start with the areas that are automated and the support staff may be unaware of the event happening.  With the manual updating of a request, this is being done by a person who would possibly be in more of a position to determine what happens next in the request depending on the content or sender of the email.  

I will keep this in mind as an additional enhancement.  I will look forward to more feedback on sub-statuses. 

Regards,

James

 

[Keith]

15 hours ago, James Ainsworth said:

Hi @Keith

Yes, the sub-statuses will be added to the condition builder for the views.  Most likely a couple of Service Manager builds away so maybe about 2 weeks time.

Regards,

James

@James Ainsworth Great! Thanks for confirming.

[Keith]

@James Ainsworth Can you offer any guidance on how best to implement sub statuses? Ultimately I would want to configure a number of sub statuses (some global, some service specific) and alter BPM to apply statuses in certain situations.

The problem is that as soon as I setup a sub status it becomes available for use. This doesn't give me any time to configure the system, document the processes and communicate it to my global user community before people start using them (possibly incorrectly).

Ideally there would have been some way of activating them after being fully configured.

 

Thanks

 

Keith

[James Ainsworth]

Hi Keith,

We are just finishing off another batch of improvements to the sub-statuses which is currently being tested and if all goes well, it should be available by the end of the week.  In response to your question about activating a sub-status, we have added the ability to create these using a "draft" status and then you can "publish" them when you are ready to enable them.

It might be worthwhile hanging on until this next release to configure all of your sub-statuses.  In the mean time I would suggest starting with just Service specific sub-statuses on one or two services to get a feel for how they work.

There will be further documentation and hopefully a video to accompany the next build.

Regards,

James

 

[James Ainsworth]

On 2017-5-18 at 0:25 AM, Martyn Houghton said:

Does this include the ones done manually through the shared mailbox

Hi @Martyn Houghton

I just wanted to let you know that we have now also included an option to allow for the automatic changing of a sub-status when a request is manually updated by an email.  There will be an extra setting that can be enabled for anyone that wants to include this.  

Regards,

James 

[Martyn Houghton]

@James Ainsworth

Thanks for including that option.

Cheers

Martyn

[Keith]

@James Ainsworth Good to hear that we will be able to set statuses as draft, that will be very useful as introducing these without is troublesome.

One more "issue".

I have setup an active sub status of "In Process" and an on hold sub status of "Awaiting information". In addition I have assigned the "In Process" sub status to be set upon an update by the customer. 

The problem is that is a customer adds an update to the ticket when we have not set a sub status, the update causes the "In Process" status to be set. In other words I wouldn't expect the "In Process" sub status to be set if the request didn't already have a sub status.

Hope this makes sense.

Keith

 

 

[James Ainsworth]

Hi @Keith

I think I understand what you are describing.  In this next update you will be able to select individual sub-statuses for which the automatic update will be applied.  For example, you may have "Awaiting information" as one on-hold sub-status, and another as "With 3rd-Party''.  You will be able to enable "Awaiting information" to change to "In Process'' automatically when a customer updates the request, and you can disable "With 3rd-Party" so that the customer update does not change this to "In Progress" when "With 3rd-Party" is the current sub-status.

I hope that makes sense and is what you are looking for.

James

[David Hall]

Hi @Keith,

Just in addition to James' comment around the upcoming increased controls per sub-status, as part of the same enhancements the sub-status will no longer be updated via a customer response unless a sub-status has already been set, so it sounds as if that will cater for the problem you raised?

Regards,

Dave.

[Keith]

@James Ainsworth & @David Hall Thanks for your responses.

 Both changes are very welcome ones. Look forward to the next update.

 

[samwoo]

Hello,

Can this be extended to when a customer re-opens a ticket on the Portal?

I'd like to have an "Active" sub-status of "Reopened by Customer".

Thanks,

Samuel

[Keith]

@James Ainsworth

Just updated to latest version of Service Manager. Thanks for the updates to sub-statuses. I presume the change to views to include the sub status is still an update away?

[James Ainsworth]

Hi @Keith

Yes, the change to the Views to included the sub-status is still to come.  It has been grouped with a couple of other additions to the View conditions.  

Regards,

James

[Keith]

@James Ainsworth Are you able to divulge what other additions? Please tell me I can now have my custom fields in the view 

[James Ainsworth]

Hi @Keith

The ones that we are looking to do for this batch are 

• Request Source
• Sub-status
• Catalog
• Member

[Keith]

Hi @James Ainsworth, not exactly what I was hoping for (with the exception of Sub-Status) but thanks for the update anyway.

 

Keith

[James Ainsworth]

@Keith is there a particular View criteria that you are looking for?