Complex BPM

[Giuseppe Iannacone]

1. is there a way to group complex BPM like this

2. when i use group for multiple nodes and than collapse the groups, the connection mess up

3. we have diferent teams working on the same request, is there a way to manage different team with different tickets, instead of a single ticket with multiple task like the example below?

[James Ainsworth]

Hi @Giuseppe Iannacone 

The Grouping of nodes using the Group feature should not break any connections.  It might be worth providing a screen shot to show the nodes that you are trying to group together.  Is it the parallel processing that you want in a single Group node?

There is a BPM Operation for creating other requests from a single request.  This can be used as an alternative to having one request with the task for all the teams.  I think that either way can have its benefits.  Having multiple requests may result in a little less visibility of progress can control which is the nice thing about using tasks within a single request.  We will be adding additional requests types that can be raised automatically from  the BPM which would also allow for changes or problems to also be raised.

I hope that helps.

James

[Giuseppe Iannacone]

22 hours ago, James Ainsworth said:

The Grouping of nodes using the Group feature should not break any connections.  It might be worth providing a screen shot to show the nodes that you are trying to group together.  Is it the parallel processing that you want in a single Group node?

I'm Grouping this kind of nodes and even if collapsed i have no issue, but, once I add a 2 group something goes wrong and i loose some connection.

 

like this:

 

 

[Giuseppe Iannacone]

Just now, Giuseppe Iannacone said:

I'm Grouping this kind of nodes and even if collapsed i have no issue, but, once I add a 2 group something goes wrong and i loose some connection.

and while i was posting this, i discovered that switching from a stage to another the connection have appeared back again!!! WOW! so maybe is just a glitch on the visualitation

[Giuseppe Iannacone]

22 hours ago, James Ainsworth said:

There is a BPM Operation for creating other requests from a single request.  This can be used as an alternative to having one request with the task for all the teams.  I think that either way can have its benefits.  Having multiple requests may result in a little less visibility of progress can control which is the nice thing about using tasks within a single request.  We will be adding additional requests types that can be raised automatically from  the BPM which would also allow for changes or problems to also be raised.

I was aware of this opportunity but its not clear to me how to link the request in this way:

ticket 1 (main ticket for ServiceDesk Team), this might have additional tasks for the team.

ticket 2 (linked to the ticket 1 and managed by team 2)

...

ticket n (linked to the ticket 1 and managed by team n)

ticket from 2 to n will be resolved/closed by diferrent team but the main one, ticket 1, will be closed only once all the other are finished.

[James Ainsworth]

I think that having ticket 1 wait for tickets 2 to n to be resolved before ticket 1 is closed might be a challenge.  When working with a single request, this is where the parallel processing works well.  I think that there are definitely some ideas here that we can think about with how to increase some of the automation between tickets.  Something like a Suspend and wait for all linked tickets to be resolved/closed.

[Giuseppe Iannacone]

9 hours ago, James Ainsworth said:

I think that having ticket 1 wait for tickets 2 to n to be resolved before ticket 1 is closed might be a challenge.  When working with a single request, this is where the parallel processing works well.  I think that there are definitely some ideas here that we can think about with how to increase some of the automation between tickets.  Something like a Suspend and wait for all linked tickets to be resolved/closed.

ok I see, but if am I understending well this is something that you may evaluate to develop but not yet under development, correct?

[James Ainsworth]

Hi Giuseppe,

That is correct.  It will be evaluated as you suggest and added to our backlog if it is something we can provide.  It will then go through a process of prioritisation within our backlog of changes.

 

[Giuseppe Iannacone]

On 5/10/2018 at 12:27 AM, James Ainsworth said:

I think that having ticket 1 wait for tickets 2 to n to be resolved before ticket 1 is closed might be a challenge.  When working with a single request, this is where the parallel processing works well.  I think that there are definitely some ideas here that we can think about with how to increase some of the automation between tickets.  Something like a Suspend and wait for all linked tickets to be resolved/closed.

@James Ainsworth

in some initial training for hornbill i probably heard of a possibility to close a ticket and close at the same time the linked one, how can be this achieved?