New branch option in PCF?

[Guest Paul Alexander]

We now have quite a few teams using Hornbill, but each team seems to want different information gathered when logging a request from email.

SOME of them want to be make it so that the person logging the request takes a look at the email and extracts the contact phone number for the customer and add it to a (mandatory) field, and other teams don't need this function. 

I'm looking for a way to differentiate, in the PCF, which mailbox is being used to log the request from so that I can maybe bypass this mandatory field if required. 

Is there a way to do this? if not, could an additional search field be added which can pick up the mailbox ID? Or, could each mailbox have a setting which allows a different PCF to be used when logging requests from that mailbox please?

 

Hope that all makes sense!! 

 

[Steve Giller]

You could have a different routing rule for each mailbox, and set each template to use a specific CI within the service, each of which have a different ProCap tailored to the relevant mailbox but then use the same Business Process.

You could then use the Catalog Visibility to only show the CI to the relevant team for when they're logging requests that aren't via email.

I'm not aware of an option to branch on the mailbox from within the ProCap.

[Guest Paul Alexander]

HI @Steve Giller

Where would I set up the routing rule per mailbox please? I can see that this could be done for autologging requests, but where is this set for when people are manually logging requests from emails?

 

thanks

[Steve Giller]

@Paul Alexander Sorry, my bad - I misread and thought you were autologging from email.

[James Ainsworth]

Hi Paul,

I'm wondering if this would help...

Provided you have reached an Assignment node in the Progressive Capture, you should then be able to use the assigned team name or ID to branch and on the branch you can either stay within the same Progressive Capture and ask different questions or you can switch to different Progressive Capture.

[James Ainsworth]

Or using the custom forms after a team assignment, you can use the conditions to control which questions are asked to which team.

[Guest Paul Alexander]

Hi @James Ainsworth

Thanks for the suggestions.....I didn't explain before, but I think our problem is that the order we ask the questions in probably needs to change!

When we first started using Hornbill, we were concentrating on how the first line support analysts would talk through a problem on the phone (which, at the time, was where the bulk of our calls came in). With that in mind, we thought we'd ask questions in the following order:

1. WHO was calling
2. What the fault was (summary, description)
3. Which Service this applied to.

Now that we've started adding more and more teams to Hornbill I think that we need to change numbers 2 and 3 around as it's the Service which will dictate which PCF is needed and where the request is assigned. Most of our services are supported primarily by a specific team, so assignment doesn't necessarily need to happen in the PCF as it gets picked up in the BPM, so a lot of the time that question isn't even asked.

I thought that maybe knowing which mailbox the email came from (each of our teams have their own specific mailbox) would enable me to branch off to a different PCF, but it looks like that's not going to be an option so I think I'll just have to change the order in which we ask the questions. I didn't really want to do this as it will mean a 'blanket change' for all of our users, but it may well be that we've been doing it wrong this whole time