Jump to content

BPM's and Boards


lee mcdermott
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi, 

I'm trying to get a new BPM working and it keeps failing with the adding and moving on Boards automation.

Can someone clarify how or what the process is. I have the below now (taken from a hornbill template) which has added it now to the board but  my next node was to move it to a lane which has failed(however that lane is the first lane of the board - so maybe isn't needed?)

Am I correct in thinking that when adding to a board it will always add it to the first lane on the board first? then you need to add another node to move it to a different lane?

Also does the TITLE option below allow you to add text to the card rather than just having the call ref showing?

image.thumb.png.b514049f8b2532ff6ced64915be9ef6c.png

 

thanks

lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lee mcdermott a few pointers, hope they will help

1. When you add a request to a board, the first action of doing so can include the lane you would like it to appear on (as shown below)

2. If you specify an application in the settings of the node, this will overiride anything you have put into the title and other fields (As shown in the help text below), so if you want to include your own content, unselect an application and populate the title and other fields as appropriate. 

3. Once you have added a request (card) to a board, in order to move the request (card) to another lane, you will first need to Get the cards id, so that you can move it. to do this you will need to use the Get Card Information option and specify the board the card is on, and use the &[global["inputParams"]["requestId"]] as the key value.  This will give you the Card ID, as an ouput param.  You can then use the Move Card On Board option, and the Card ID can be specified by using the variable picket, and getting the card ID from the Get Card Information node - the request ID is not the card ID.

image.png

Another thing to check

Do your users (requestors and agents) have the Board BPM Access role?  if not you can add everyone to this role in the admin console.

Finally could you share the error message you are seeing?

Hope that helps

Steve

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lee mcdermott is the agent had another board manager role they should not need the Board BPM Access role, but if they didn't have any then whoever invokes a process which uses the board options, would need this.  

If you can share the error message you had, we can see if it's a rights / role issue or a configuration related one

If you click on the board, and then click on the card on the board, in the righthandside panel, the request card view will appear, and a remove option is available.

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lee mcdermott looking at the config, it looks like your missing the Get Card Information node between the Add to Change Board (Standard) and Move card on board (Standard), without this node, to get the card id, you can't move the card using the move card on board option.  

As per the above info, in the get card information node, use the &[global["inputParams"]["requestId"]] value as the key.  then in the move card on board option, the card id can be added using the variable picker and the output param from the get card information node 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Steven Boardman

Hi Steve, managed to get the boards working thanks.

Next issue is I'm trying to get it to assign it to a team based on an answer in a custom form in the Pro cap as below - should this work?

On the Pro cap form i have the field ID as - h_custom_e

 

on the BPM I have below where the Team variable is - &[functions.pcf("details","h_custom_e_value")] 

i used the variable picker and selected the procap form and selected Overwrite raw value? not really sure the difference been overwrite and inject.

 

anyway this doesnt work  - it just by passes this part and moves onto the implemetation stage (it doesnt fail or error) but also doesnt assign the call to the required team?

 

any ideas?

image.png.79558d0fb2b39356f01c7f06f861ed14.png

 

image.thumb.png.981715945b80dfb9fdc1d24855bdd4fc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lee mcdermott i've run up the same config as you and have it working, using the teams group picker in progressive capture and then the assignment to team from variable. 

Could you try the following.

1. Set Team to ignore rather than Auto

2. In the Team (from variable), When using the variable picker can you confirm you are using the 

Overwrite - Display Value option when you are adding the value into the field (it looks like you are using the raw value).

image.png

So it looks like this (with your pcf reference of course)

image.png

The ignore and overwrite should ensure the correct value is being assessed. 

I've tried it from the employee portal and agent interface and it works as expected for me. Let me know how you get on

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Steven Boardman

 

thanks steve, your working late?

 

will try that now, busy testing the other path - this one is for when the change is a standard change still got to get the normal & emergency side done. the standard side is all working except the assign to team part.

 

one quick question i am trying to get it to suspend call and only move on when it has an update from an email - as below I had the action focus as Email -but that didn't seem to work, so just changed it to update and going to try that. but it may mean it will move on for any update  - ideally only want it to move on from an email response to the call?

 

any ideas?

 

sorry for all the questions - am i ok asking all these as I go through it?

image.thumb.png.4c2206af712c0d471592e4c807fe9036.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lee mcdermott great news on the assign to team, I think it was the value which was being evaluated which needed updating.

In the admin tool each team (org grouping) has an ID, and a display value, this operation needs the display name and it works :)  

Working latish,  just finishing up but thought i'd update the discussion as i know it can be frustrating if your stuck on something and want to get it done.  

In regards to the suspend await update action - what are you specifically waiting for from the email?

The suspend await email is actually waiting for an email to be sent rather than received i'm afraid. 

But if i know what your waiting on, i can have a think about other options

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Steven Boardman

cheers for the help.

 

So basically when a change gets logged it emails our CAB board members, I have a template created that populates the emails and then has a approve reject, more information required link on the email. they click the lick it auto populates the subject field, so when they send it it comes back in and updates the call with approved, more info or rejected. We need 2 responses for an approval, so my thinking was suspend the call and wait for an update via email on the call, then move onto another wait for update via email (i.e. 2 updates) this then sends an email after this to the service desk to check the change and if it has 2 approval, a reject, or more info required they have a  decision to make which progresses the change accordingly.

i have built in a loop incase an update on the call is a persons out of office and not a proper response.

 

Ideally it would be easier if an email response from the CAB members with approved or rejected or more inforamtion in the subject field could progress the call automatically - maybe a routing rule?  but wasn't sure if that could be done? it would save the service desk having to manually check the responses after 2 updates.

 

 

image.thumb.png.0b55a723fb504cb6bd313a2dc86faf5c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lee mcdermott are the CAB members Hornbill platform subscribers i.e are they of type User not Basic? I.e can they be assigned a Hornbill Task / Approval? they don't need to be Service Manager app subscribers. 

If so would the standard approval mechanism not work for you?  what i mean here is that you can have 3 outcomes to an approval task

*Approve

* Reject

*Tentative

Which would seem to cater for your three different outcomes, and of course this could use the standard decision and branch on the different outcomes, and it would allow you to assign weighting to the approvers i.e 50% to each, which would require 2 to approve to proceed the process and of course this would be automatic progress?

The other benefit of this approach, is the CAB members don't need to be full Service Manager subscribers, and they get to view the Change Record themselves as a User type subscriber.   We added a new view for User type subscribers to be able to view the change, so they have context of the change they are being asked to approve, and they can view attachments and comment on the change itself?

I've included the view below, this shows:

* Process Tracker

* Timeline

* Attachments

* Questions section

* Description 

It's not the full view i.e they won't have access to the action bar on the request, but they will be able to add updates and comment on existing updates from this view. 

image.png

Obviously this won't be available if they are Basic users.   

Let me know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Steven Boardman

 

unfortunately they are all non Hornbill users, hence the reason I have to do it via email.

 

I got a new change template (BPM and Pro cap)from yourselves last week, but have had to re work it to try and work the approval process via email.

 

Our current change process also works via email and emails CAB members, I'm just trying to refine it and automate as much as possible so the service desk have minimal tasks to do

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lee mcdermott ok, if the CAB members are Basic users, then the approvers option isn't going to be available to you, and as you say the email option is the manual way of doing this, of course the owner of the change will receive update notifications when the emails come in but it will require the owner then to view the change to see the update and no automation to leverage there.

I don't think this will work for you either in this context (where you have multiple CAB members), however i will mention it: 

https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php?title=External_Authorisation

We do have this option which allows an authorisation to be sent to a SINGLE Email recipient, this is in the form of a preset email template - you can include 1024 characters of variable text, and change the approval outcome display names (but limited to 3 - Approve, Reject, Tentative).

* The email recipient can be set manually or via variable - i.e look up the user's email address using a bpm operation

* The email contains a link to a webpage, where the user can review what is being asked and can commit a decision without the need to login to Hornbill

* The business process is Suspended awaiting either the outcome of the authorisation decision or the expiry of it, if no decision is received (there has to be an expiry on this node).

This option would allow your change process to send an email and await an outcome and automatically progress the process based on the outcome, or if the approval time expired, but it is restricted to a SINGLE Email recipient. 

I am sure you can tell by the name of the option (external authorisation), it's primary purpose is to allow an authorisation to be sought from a user who is not known on the Hornbill platform (i.e has no account), as they are not required to login to Hornbill to review and make their decision.   However, it could be of some use here.

That aside i am not sure i am going to be able to help with the automation of this aspect, unless the CAB members had the Hornbill subscription and could be assigned authorisation tasks.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Steven Boardman

thanks again, the cab members are emailed via a distribution group email that contains all the cab members in it. So it may potentially work as they would all still get the email, it would depend if multiple people could use the same link and authorise, would need to incorporate some sort of loop or dual authorisation node to accommodate 2 authorisers.

I might do a bit of testing with this just to see how it works?

 

to get it working how I am trying involves the ability to add a wait for update node. So are you saying it wont be possible to have a wait for update node that can be triggered by an email response(update to the call)?

 

If not does the wait for update as below work by waiting and will it move on when any update is received on the call, so would this progress if an email update is received on the call?

 

also i assume this wont work?

 Ideally it would be easier if an email response from the CAB members with approved or rejected or more inforamtion in the subject field could progress the call automatically - maybe a routing rule?  

 

image.png.db19ee09447b2492176e0ae4ed2b3d5d.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lee mcdermott the external authorisation is designed for a single recipient so won't work as you have described, as the process is waiting for a single outcome, it can't be reused by multiple recipients, in that way.  There is no issue with you having multiple external authorisations in the same process, but each one would be to a single recipient (or put it another way, awaiting a single outcome).

I am not sure you will be able to use the routing rules to achieve what you are after - these are separate from the business process of a ticket.

The routing rule can be used to determine if an update is applied to an existing request or not - based on it's content etc, but i am not sure this would help, as you would want all emails to be added?  I.e Approved, Rejected, More info needed. 

The suspend await update, will take any update and then unsuspend, not just an email update so in practise i am not sure you will get a good consistent experience, as any update could move the process forward. Equally there isn't a Get option which will allow the business process to assess the content of the last update to make decisions against. 

Ultimately i can see what you are trying to achieve, however it does look like Hornbill provides the approval mechanism for this, but it is only available to users who have a Hornbill platform subscription, outside of this, it is possible to manage your approvals via email but without the automation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Steven Boardman

hi steve me again. I'm making good progress and have most of my new change working.

However one part which I have copied directly from the TEST RFC supplied by yourelves the other week I cannot get to work.

 

After the Human task to select approve, reject or more info required - starts the loop as shown, It then is meant to get the output from the decision and the details entered to then populate the custom field p with that info so it can be added into a email template.

this is a human task not an authorisation node so not sure if that makes a difference - although i did try it using "Get Task Details" rather than get last authorisation details but still didnt work.

image.thumb.png.0fda9bfa43168cd933f03b3a8fe19f37.png

image.png.7684bcd143b110fe57040d6842e59099.png

image.thumb.png.b86e07e922b97fda6d3f5afefe816012.png

 

the custom p field is  - &[global["flowcoderefs"]["resultRef"]["completionDetails"]]

 

Then the send email uses a template with custom _p to populate the emailimage.png.a94653e27e2dce29a2b57c41aab3d82a.png

 

the email isn't populated with any info and just shows as above the variable, so i assume the custom field has not been populated with any information.

Also the next part of the loop does the same and populates custom fied t, but this doesnt work either.

 

 

Any ideas am i missing something obvious?

 

thanks

lee

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lee mcdermott a couple of things to check

1. If you show the custom P field  in the details of the change record, you'll be able to confirm if the 'need more info' reason is being written into that field in the first place.

2. Assuming it is, you will then need a get request info node between the node which is updating custom field p and the sending of the email  node, which you are looking to include the value held in the custom p field.  

Hopefully that helps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Steven Boardman

 

Hi steve was just about to update you think I have it sorted 

I think my application and scope was wrong, my screen shot must have been from the test hornbill one , where as mine was slightly different.

 

I think it's been a long week and I have too many tabs open updating various things so getting confused as to which one is the one i am actually working on

 

Anyway it seems to be working now, and I think maybe i should call it a day for this week and start a fresh next week. 

I think it is all working as I want now any way, maybe just a few tweaks to wording here and there.

 

cheers for your help again

 

image.png

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...