Jump to content

Complex BPM


Recommended Posts

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?

image.thumb.png.344c9d88705b16692ca64b3ffe3e8c4d.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

image.png

I hope that helps.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

image.png.d3f06992729c5c8d13eeb61fbad5c1e6.pngimage.png.fcf0e057d9bb9f2668cf13df1434654e.png

 

like this:

image.thumb.png.9914a882d80e90a21887cdc31234ffac.pngimage.png.1548849d41a8c8dc8edec1955067a2b5.png

image.thumb.png.6ece8575bb197d3299c7a4f5b8e4f934.pngimage.png.cb20f548a5ba2aa30ff25049feededa8.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

image.thumb.png.a30a72a8e3eb5442843cb95915152da0.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...