Add custom information to an AutoTask?

[lee mcdermott]

Hi,

 

I am trying to setup a Major incident process, when our IT staff raise the call to Major and it starts the Auto task to send emails and update the Teams channel etc, is it possible to get the auto task to ask for information or is there a way that information can be added to the "send message" to teams and also included in any emails that are sent?

Basically if a call is populated with certain info in summary or description etc probably by the customer raising the call, I wold like the service desk staff when raising the priority to Major incident to be able to populate in greater detail the actual issue and reason for raising an MI.

This information then needs to be able to be sent in an email template and added the to teams channel as part of the auto task.

 

Does that makes sense?

 

Would the servicedesk staff have to add an update to the call first? how could that be send to Teams? Or is there a way the auto task could pop up a box so staff can add all the relevant info at the start of the Auto task which could then be used in the relevant comms?

Or is there any variable that can be added to an email that will populate it with the last entry in the Timeline? - i.e. as mentions staff add update to call with relevant MI information then start the MI autotask that sends and email which will pick up the last update on the call?

 

Or is there anyway to do the above?

 

thanks

 

lee

[Kate Sandall]

I can't help but spent a chunk of yesterday battling with the exact same thing. If I figure it out I'll let you know!

[Jeremy]

So for us when raising major incidents, when the priority level is chosen in the PCF there is a branch (when a certain priority is selected) that then asks the analyst to enter extra details which are then populated into custom fields so that they can be used in emails/teams updates etc.

When the system permits we will also be added a Bulletin to the Employee Portal to say which systems are affected too (fingers crossed)!

@lee mcdermott @Kate Sandall

[lee mcdermott]

@Jeremy

 

Thanks jeremy, I had thought about just creating a specific form to use to log a Major Incident which should then cover all options and capture the correct detail. However at the minute I have set it up to raise a MI from an existing call (so something logged by the end user) using customs buttoms and an Autotask process.

[Jeremy]

@lee mcdermott if this is after you have logged then I guess you would need to add some custom fields to the description of the request and then complete/update these before you can this use a custom button.

The custom button could then be set so that it only appears if a particular custom field(s) are filled in, to send emails etc.

[Berto2002]

Please +1 this topic in which I have asked for it:

 

[Steve Giller]

On 11/23/2021 at 9:02 AM, lee mcdermott said:

I had thought about just creating a specific form to use to log a Major Incident which should then cover all options and capture the correct detail.

I'm pretty certain that using Raise New Linked Request will more than address all of your requirements - you can have anything from a simple form to a full suite of questions in the resulting ProCap.

[Berto2002]

Maybe for MI but the case for user input to AutoTasks is well supported on this thread: 

 

[Steve Giller]

However - it's not an AutoTask if it's presenting a form.

I appreciate not everyone will agree but the whole point of an AutoTask for me is that it's automated - once you click the button, it's done.

You could always create a Human Task with the answers/checklist you require, then use the fields it's populated (including one that determines whether the Custom Button is displayed) in the AutoTask. All you're doing is filling in the form then clicking the button instead of clicking the button then filling in the form.

[Berto2002]

Hi @Steve Giller,

There's quite a lot of support for the idea of user input into AutoTask but I agree with the essence of your point which is that it would alter the raison d'etre of the function.

We are proposing that the feature be expanded beyond it's original design scope (AutoTask) into a feature that allows small elements of workflow to be launched at any time: (Ad-Hoc Task)

The reason it's important stems from one of the fundamental design 'features' of the product which (incorrectly in my view) assumes organisations can ultimately map-out workflows with certainty as to which order every task should be done. This is coded into the product in the way that workflow stages are serial and we cannot loop back. It also appears to be 'coded' into the Hornbill philosophy that we see in the team's responses to queries.

For some time, users have been requesting the ability to 'go back' to a previous stage. I know enough to realise there would be complexities of that but I wonder if your team have considered how enhancing the AutoTask function to be an AdhocTask function could potentially cover-off the requirements of those who want to go back a stage. They want to go back a stage because there's a bit of the flow they want to either run again or run at a different point; and that is exactly what AdhocTasks would enable.

If I can put a snippet of workflow behind a Custom Button on a Request and call on that at any (selected) stage in a BPM, then I have no need to 'go back' to a prior stage; I can simply put any repeatable workflow segments into the AdhocTask feature. The core BPM would be designed as a master flow, calling-out other mini-flows as necessary; massively increasing our flexibility to handle the agility organisations need.

The more I think about this, the more powerful it gets as a concept and I really cannot emphasis enough how useful it could be.

Berto