enhancement Variables in PCFs

[Jeremy]

When creating form/PCFs can we have variables so that we can match things, one of our examples is that we ask for a line managers email to send an email asking for authorisation for certain things but people have a habit of adding themselves. We can handle this in the BPM and reject it, by matching the input to the submitters info. However we would like to stop it at source and when we ask for their managers email address or get them to look up via the users data query we want to match this field against the customer submitting so it would be something like:

Then if the customer email or id matches that field we can display a warning saying this will be rejected as you can't authorise your own requests.

[Gerry]

@Jeremy

Quick question here, why are you asking for someone to identify their line manager, you should be able to look that up from their profile?

Gerry

[Jeremy]

@Gerry we don't import this information as we have so many staff members it would unfeasible to try to gather, also we have a combination of Line Managers, Supervisors and team leaders all of which have some level of 'authorisation'. Also there are people that work in more than one department so dependant on their role that they are submitting a request the manager could change.

The customers completing the form however know who the person should be to 'authorise' their request.

[Steve Giller]

To be honest, if they're "gaming the system" by putting themselves down as their own authoriser and not the correct manager, if you block them from using their own email there's nothing to stop them using "Jim at the next desk" instead.
The system you have mentioned where the BPM traps an invalid address then automatically closes/cancels the request sounds much better - it's automated, it only wastes the time of the person incorrectly raising the Request (by far the best deterrent and with no Service Desk impact) and you have a record to refer to if you need to explain why the request was not completed, which is even more useful for repeat offenders.

[Jeremy]

@Steve Giller this is the issue that it is causing more work for the Service Desk as we don't just blanket cancel/closure of the request we have a task that falls to the Desk for them to find out via email etc the correct manager. Which is why we are trying to match these at the PCF stage, even if 'Jim at the next desk' was added and agreed to to authorise then it would be those two people that would need to explain themselves as we try to trust people as much as possible.