Change request authorisation issues

[Gary@ADL]

Hi Guys - I'm looking to revamp our change control process and how it is approved, but unsure how to go about it.

 

currently we have a pretty robust change process, and the level of authorisation required depends on the impact of the change, and whether its an emergency.

 

to reflect this we have several people who can authorise changes at different levels (as per image - top 4 are managers hence able to 100% sign off a low impact change - on a high impact change these same managers only have a 50% weighting)

 

my problems are that this process falls over if we have any leavers after the process has been started (as per error message screenshot) as we downgrade the hornbill account (to free up the licence) and disable the AD account, this gives us task allocation errors and cannot progress the workflow (see image).

 

so I am looking to move towards using groups - but I cannot see this as option (only user or variable), I'm also unsure if the groups will allow me assign 2 tasks to one group with a 50% weighting for each task? and also ensure a different person from the group completes each task?  and also can I mix and match the groups? so for the example below, I would need two groups - 1 group for my 4 change managers with 1 task at 100% weighting, and 1 group for my 4 change analysts with 3 tasks with a 35% weighting, is this possible?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Steven Boardman]

Hi @Gary@ADL it is not currently possible to assign approvers based on roles or groups, it is as you say named users, or variables. 

There is the option of the Manual Approvers on the fly which uses concepts such as Service owners, CI owners as well as named users but looking at your requirement i am not sure this is going to give you what you need as it would have a manual element rather than pre-defined as you are doing now.

I will ask the question internally about the viability of adding groups or roles to dynamically build out the approvers but looking there is nothing currently planned in the short term for this.

Steve

[Gary@ADL]

thanks @Steven Boardman

 

please could you look at  my other ticket regarding how I progress a request which the user is named as a approver but has left -

we don't even need him to approve it (as theirs about 8 potential people than can approve), but the system wont even allow us to progress our change. we are going to have a few requests that are like this in the coming months, and need a solution, i dont think we have any licences spare to relicense the guy, and we'd rather not anyway as this could be a few months before all the requests go through which may reference him.

 

thanks

 

[Steven Boardman]

@Gary@ADL an update to this post.

We are introducing the options to allow approvers by both Role and Group.

We are adding two new business process options: Hornbill Collaboration > Application > Utility > Get Authorisers By Role / Get Authorisers By Group

From here you will have the option to then choose an Assignment Role or Group 

• This will include all Active users with that role or in that group as an approver (will receive an approval task), Active being non archived or suspended user accounts. 
• You can set authorisation type as follows:
  • Unanimous - Needs approval by all users
  • Majority - Needs approval by the majority of the users (i.e 4 out of 7)
  • Individual - Needs approval only by one of the users  

The New node needs to be followed by the existing Auto Assign Authorisation node in order to actually load and create the approval tasks.

This approach will mean you can manage your users in the groups and roles and not need to remember to edit individual business processes should a user leave / join etc. 

This new option will be available in a admin console update shortly so watch out for the release notes 

Steve

[Victor]

On 4/17/2018 at 11:50 AM, Gary@ADL said:

please could you look at  my other ticket regarding how I progress a request which the user is named as a approver but has left -

@Gary@ADL haven't we discussed this over PM?