enhancement Define the same person as multiple connections

[samwoo]

Good afternoon,

As part of the latest version of our New Starter process, we need to be able to define the New Manager, Budget Holder, Same Access As user etc. as connections, but I'm facing a problem where the new manager could also be the budget holder as well as the person to copy the same access as to the new starter...  I cannot add them multiple times for different Connection Types to a single request, especially via the Business Process.

I would like to request an enhancement to enable the same person to be added as connection's multiple times for different types, either displaying each connection type next to their name, or displaying the person multiple times in the connections list.

Not everyone may want this, so I would also like to request there be a flag, whether it's per Service or a global setting to allow this functionality to be enabled/disabled.

Now, I'm not sure what else to do to get this working... as I don't want to have to create new connection types for the different combinations, as we cannot disable connection types per service, as it will clutter everything else.

Thanks,

Samuel

[samwoo]

Good morning,

I was wondering if this has been discussed internally?

We had a New Starter whose "New Manager" is also the "Budget Holder" and as part of our process we send automated emails to the "New Manager" and "Budget Holder" and to other Services containing this information, but because we cannot have users defined as multiple connection types, the process errored when it attempted to assign the "Budget Holder" connection because they already existed as a "New Manager" connection. 

 

[Berto2002]

Are you adding the Budget Holder as a Connection because they need to view the Request or just as a convenient place to store the information? The simple workaround is to always have the Budget Holder assigned to a custom field instead of being a connection. Option to display this in the Request Details by adding that field. but that won't work if they need to review the details.

If Budget Holder needs visibility, then I'm thinking this approach to back-off Budget Holder to a custom field only when there's a clash and to have two different sets of email nodes if that case arises:

• set Line Manager Connection
• get Line Manager connection
• decision/expression to compare Line Manager to Budget Holder
• if different then add Budget Holder as Budget Holder Connection
• If same then add Budget Holder as, say, Custom B

Then later when you're emailing:

• Get Request Details (Custom Fields)
• If Custom B is set then email Line Manager Connection then email Custom B
• If Custom B is not set then email Line Manager Connection and email Budget Holder Connection

This will ensure both roles get visibility; as long as the visibility offered to a Line Manager also satisfies the Budget Holder's needs when they are relying to the single connection type.

[samwoo]

Hi @Berto2002,

So, we are storing this information as connections so:

1. Tech Support can send emails to assigned connection(s) by type, if they need to
2. We can visually see the details of the connection, and it'll be easy to amend if necessary or add substitutes if someone is on leave
3. The Business Process will be emailing these connections at various stages for example the Budget Holder needs to approve/reject the request for a Smartphone. The process uses the node "Email Connections" to cater for potential changes to the Budget Manager or New Starter Manager part-way through the process etc.
4. Visibility of requests in the Employee Portal. For example the person raising the request may not be the New Starter's manager and/or Budget Holder.
5. Will eventually be useful for reporting purposes.

Thanks,

Samuel

[Berto2002]

+1

I do see the usefulness of being able to add one person as multiple Connection Types.

[samwoo]

Good afternoon,

Has this been picked up and discussed by any chance?

Thanks,

Samuel

[samwoo]

Good afternoon,

I was wondering if there has been any further discussion in-house by any chance?

[samwoo]

Good afternoon,

Just bumping up to see if this has been looked at by any chance?

[samwoo]

Good morning,

We are working on our Change Improvement process and need to be able to set up the same person as multiple connections. For example, a person can be an Implementer as well as one of the Testers and even a UAT Tester. It doesn't make sense to set up connection type(s) to cater for two or more potential types.

Has this been picked up for discussion at all, since this was requested quite some time ago with no official responses, it would be great if we could have some feedback on this request.

Thanks,

Samuel

[Berto2002]

@samwoo inferring we are able to rename connections or add new types? How are you specifying the connection type as "Implementer", "Tester" etc?

[samwoo]

Hi @Berto2002,

The request connections can be defined in the Service Manager Simple List called requestConnectionType:

https://live.hornbill.com/<INSTANCE_NAME>/admin/app/com.hornbill.servicemanager/setup/simple-lists/requestConnectionType/

(replace <INSTANCE_NAME> with your instance)

I hope that's what you are looking for. 

[Berto2002]

Does that list also affect this view in service portfolio and allow full config of the utilisation of connections by service?

[samwoo]

Yes it does @Berto2002

It is a shame we cannot control which Connection Types are used per Service but essentially whatever you add there will appear in all Services.

[Berto2002]

Wow!

@Fizza

[Berto2002]

+1 again to this. Not thought of using Connections for Change before; could be useful. But until we can add one person to multiple roles I won't...

[samwoo]

Good morning Hornbill,

Please can the be considered. We have people in multiple roles and connections is important for capturing this in our New Starter, Movers and Leaver processes as well as Change Requests and other similar processes.

Thanks,

Samuel

[James Ainsworth]

Hi @samwoo

I can raise this as a change proposal.  This would still have to be accepted and scheduled as a change. We have a large volume of change proposals so I would suggest that this is something that wouldn't be available in the short term.  We have to take in a number of factors when promoting changes which may include how many customers have requested a feature, if it is technically feasible, and if it fits the model or design for the particular app.

The change proposal will be linked to this forum post.  If there is any movement I will add an update here.

 

[samwoo]

Thanks @James Ainsworth

[Martyn Houghton]

+1 for us.