Ordering Catalogue Items

[Lauren]

Hi,

Apologies if this has been posted in the wrong place - I haven't used the forum too much!

We're currently in the process of building our Service Manager instance.

When logging a request via the "Raise New" button, our services list shows all of our catalogue items (incident, SR and change). Is there a way of ordering the catalogue items at all? Currently, our incident and service request catalogue items show under our change catalogue items in the overall list - this isn't ideal as we will use incident/service request far more than the change catalogue items.

Please let me know - it's probably something very simple.

Thanks

[Dan Munns]

The list is sorted alphabetically with no option to change it on the basic PC form. 

I know some people have added an asterisk at the beginning of the service name to set it to the top but my OCD prevents me from doing this.  

[Alisha]

This would be very useful if it could be implemented in a new update.

[Steven Boardman]

 @Lauren @Dan Munns @Alisha when you are configuring your catalog items on a service, you can drag and drop the catalog items into the preferred order Under Each Request Type and this is respected in the progressive capture services form when raising as an agent and using the Raise New button.

What is also applied is an alphabetical ordering of the catalog items by request type so:

Change Catalog Items first (sorted by your drag and drop order)

The Incident Catalog Items (sorted by your drag and drop order)

Then Service Request items  (sorted by your drag and drop order)

I have asked the question on having an option to decide which request types are displayed in which order, but i would welcome your thoughts on what sort of ordering / options would help the most here?

Steve

[Dan Munns]

@Steven Boardman ah sorry I misunderstood and assumed the question was talking about having the services in alphabetical order. 

I completely missed the CI part of the question to be honest. Thanks for the clarification. 

I guess it is hard because all the request types in a service are not shown together anywhere to be ordered.

 

[Lauren]

On 5/4/2018 at 5:14 PM, Steven Boardman said:

 @Lauren @Dan Munns @Alisha when you are configuring your catalog items on a service, you can drag and drop the catalog items into the preferred order Under Each Request Type and this is respected in the progressive capture services form when raising as an agent and using the Raise New button.

What is also applied is an alphabetical ordering of the catalog items by request type so:

Change Catalog Items first (sorted by your drag and drop order)

The Incident Catalog Items (sorted by your drag and drop order)

Then Service Request items  (sorted by your drag and drop order)

I have asked the question on having an option to decide which request types are displayed in which order, but i would welcome your thoughts on what sort of ordering / options would help the most here?

Steve

Hi Steve,

Thanks for clearing up.

I would suggest having incident and service request catalogue items first and second, as these are most used in most organisations, especially by the Service Desk analysts - this is certainly the case for us!

Thanks

[Steven Boardman]

@Dan Munns @Lauren thanks

I have asked about the option as a starter for a system setting to allow you to control the order in which the request types are set on your own instances - i.e give you the option to set IN, SR, CH if that is your preference over the alphabetical approach.   

As this change progresses we will post back here to let  you know

Steve

[Martyn Houghton]

Having the ability to  specify the order of the request types would be useful to us.

Would this be honoured in the customer/service portals as well?

Cheers

Martyn

[Steve Giller]

Is it just me that thinks of Kays or Littlewoods whenever they see the title of this thread?

[Steven Boardman]

@Martyn Houghton that is the idea, an initial global option to include the user app and the portals

[Guest Paul Alexander]

@DeadMeatGF.....it probably WAS just you until you mentioned it. Now it's all I can think of.....

 

+1 for this suggestion please!

[Steven Boardman]

@Paul Alexander added as an interested party thanks