Progressive capture suggestion

[Alisha]

Hello,

When customers request access to folders, we need to know their details and which level of access they require. Would it be possible to include a table option in progressive captures so customers can enter their name, and then choose if they need read only or write access? It would be really useful as one person (the authoriser) could then add multiple people onto the one request, and not everyone requires the same level of access.

Many thanks,
Alisha

[Conor]

Hi @Alisha

I may be mis-understanding the requirement slightly so bear with me, but from what I am thinking this could work well with what is already available. Firstly a service and/or a catalogue item to request access to a folder, with a PC that will ask for customer details (if analyst logging, this doesn't get asked for self service), followed by folder location and then a drop down or radio select option for the level of access required.

Once the request has been logged the process will obviously assign an authorisation activity to the relevant authoriser with the necessary information to make an informed decision, but following that the process can then put the details i.e. the folder location, and the level of access into custom fields on the form of that service.

From there you will then be able to report on requests against this service with the customer detail, the folder location, and the level of access required, which will then be shown in a table. 

If the requirement is so that the authoriser wants to be able to authorise multiple folder access requests at once, that is a different thing so before I get into that what do you think of this suggestion?

Kind regards

Conor

[Alisha]

Hi @conorh,

Thanks for your reply.

Here's a scenario that might better explain what we're after.

We have a group of people who all need access to one folder. Instead of everyone logging requests individually, a nominated person from the group logs the call and enters all their colleagues' details onto the capture as well. This is where a table format would come in handy, so that they can enter details like this onto a capture:

Full name - Read only access
Full name - Read only access
Full name - Write access
Full name - Write access

And so on.

 

I understand that we could use a multi line text field, but if the customer logging the request could just tick whether they require read only/write access, it would make it more user friendly.

 

Many thanks,
Alisha

[Conor]

Ah ok thanks @Alisha

This will be possible with what we have, not in a table format but using dynamic fields. If the nominated customer adds in full name and the access required, there could then be an extra question - Do you want to submit this request for another person? If the customer ticks 'yes' then another question (the original question again) will pop up beneath that with the same options, so the user can log the request for themselves, or multiple people. 

In the case that the user does go through the questions 4 times for 4 people, these will all be listed in the questions section against the request. It could be just themselves, or it could be several other people, it just depends how many times you want to repeat it within the PC. The authoriser will then be able to easily see the user details, plus the level of access required. This is done using the override flags tab within a question on the progressive capture designer, if the answer to the previous question was yes then show this field. 

Let me see if I can quickly pull together a very simple example and you can use that as a guide?

Thanks

Conor

[Alisha]

Thank you @conorh!

We really like that idea, and I'll try that on an existing capture. :)

[Alisha]

@conorh,

Is there a way to make the question, "Do you want to submit this request for another person?" invisible once the request is logged? So we don't see it several times on the same request?

[Conor]

Hi @Alisha

Just tried it out and it works well. I've uploaded my test with a few different examples in there to make it look a bit neater if the request is for 4+ people. Basically the first 2 are dynamic fields, whereas the next 2 are repeated on a separate node. This will mean there aren't too many fields on the form while logging, and it keeps the summary on the right a bit neater too. It will also help the admin side because you can copy and paste nodes, so rather then adding in lots of fields manually you can create one form and copy it as many times as you need. Just make sure the names of each form are different though. I've also added in numbers to each user question so that it's a bit easier to select which question you use for the over ride flags. 

A lot to try and explain but if you import the attached file into your instance and add it to a test catalogue item you can give it a try. 

For the question being invisible I don't think it is currently possible... I know there are settings to make unanswered questions invisible but in this case these questions would always have an answer. I will double check though...

folder-access.pcf.txt

Thanks

Conor

[Alisha]

Thank you, @conorh :)

I've uploaded it and it will work well if we don't have too many additional people requiring access.

Just thinking about some other requests that we need to create. Sometimes we have 20+ new recruits start at the same time. Is there a way to streamline this so we don't have the same questions appear multiple times on the logged request?

[Conor]

Hi @Alisha

A change has been raised to provide the ability to 'Exclude a Custom Progressive Capture Question from being captured on a request'. I will link you to the Change as a connection so you know when it has been completed as soon as I can.

Thanks

Conor

[Alisha]

Thanks for the update @conorh, much appreciated. :)

[Alisha]

Hi @Conor,

This has cropped up again for us, and I was wondering if we could request having a table input as an enhancement please?

We need to create a capture to gather information from several customers. This can easily be up to 100 or more, as one person will be logging the request for the whole team, so the solution provided in an earlier post above is not as feasible for this.

Is there another way around this please?

Many thanks,
Alisha

[Alisha]

@Conor, just to add to this. Perhaps if we ask, 'How many people are you logging the request for?', and then if the answer is 50 for example, it would bring up 50 rows in a table for the customer to complete?

[Conor]

Hi @Alisha

I have raised this as an enhancement request with the relevant Hornbill teams. There will be definitely be changes required as the request details need to be able to cope with that type of data as well as the Progressive Capture, but as I say I have raised it with the right people and we will get back to you ASAP

[Conor]

Hi @Alisha

I have been asked to ask you a few questions about this requirement:

Is this kind of an Excel doc type funtionality?
Would this involve Dynamic or predefined columns?
How many columns would they need?
Once the data is stored, what would they do with it?