samwoo

Hornbill Users
  • Content count

    246
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

samwoo last won the day on November 1 2016

samwoo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

50 Excellent

About samwoo

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 04/30/1990

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Somewhere in Berkshire
  • Interests
    IT, Technology, Computer Gaming, Movies, TV Shows

Recent Profile Visitors

510 profile views
  1. Hello, This only shows up if a user has access to translate across Hornbill. I am having this issue as well, and our instance of Hornbill Collaboration has already been upgraded to this version (and beyond I think) Thanks, Samuel
  2. Hello, Can this be extended to when a customer re-opens a ticket on the Portal? I'd like to have an "Active" sub-status of "Reopened by Customer". Thanks, Samuel
  3. Hi @Paul Alexander, No problem at all Yes if you click on the Group Node, then click on the cog icon at the top right side of the stage you should be able to edit the group node. Cheers, Samuel
  4. Hi @Paul Alexander, The groups have been very useful to us. An example in my case - we have a New Starter Requests In this process we have a stage where everything happens from Installing Applications / Building Laptops and Phones etc. all within a Parallel Process. Before the group node came along this stage in the BPM was HUGE, and very messy. When this new feature I was able to group Application specific nodes, Desktop specific nodes, New Starter Specific nodes into Individual groups which made managing the BPM more manageable. Hope this gives you some ideas as well as @Victor's post. Thanks, Samuel
  5. Hello, This has been raised quite a few times before, I think this is something Hornbill have planned to look at at some point. I raised this issue months ago as well others have. @Hornbill - if there is any plans for this, could you add me as an Interested Party? I'm sure the others in this post will appreciate this as well. Many thanks, Samuel
  6. Hi @ArmandoDM, Many thanks i will keep an eye out for your response. Samuel
  7. Hello, Not too long ago there was a feature introduced into the Service Manager that would allow users to be a part of a team, but not shown when the team is selected via the Assign Team / User feature in a Request. I would like to request for this feature to also be available for "Teams" as well. I need to be able to prevent a team or 2 to be shown in the Assign Team dropdown list. Here are my reasons: We have created a new team to replace 3 current teams. We need to prevent users from logging tickets to the "Old" teams and start logging them against the "New" one. Unfortunately even communicating this to the users, they are still doing it. We have what I call a Placeholder team. Here I put everyone in my department so I can link the Team to Boards without having to add each user or team one by one. Unfortunately this team is visible in the Assign Team area in the Request, and I need this to be hidden. As a temporary measure I have called it IMT (DO NOT USE) - this isn't very professional but it's a small workaround. We would expect that the Team's can still have activities assigned to them, and tickets assigned to the team, but no new tickets will be assigned to it going forward. Thanks, Samuel
  8. Hi @riz, One can dream Is there anyway I can request this feature? Thanks, Samuel
  9. Hi @James Ainsworth, Many thanks for this. I will look out for any updates on this. Could we also have the option in addition to the above to bulk link users to an asset? Via an excel file uploaded to Hornbill and also via API imports? The excel file would be specifically handy because most systems allow you to export a list of current users, so being able to bulk upload them into Hornbill after exporting the list would be great. It's probably too early, but will this allow us to see all assets against the customer? If so this will be great for the new starters / movers / leavers processes. Thanks, Samuel
  10. Hello, My colleague have discovered that you can only view 10 Requests inside an asset. It comes up with the following message: Here are the first 10 requests linked to this asset, you will be able to see more soon Is there any timeframe for when we can see more requests against these assets? Will this limit also affect Linked Assets as well? THanks, Samuel
  11. Hello, We have a requirement to link assets to multiple users, mostly software / licence assets. As an example I have created a new Software Sub-Type of Licences (would be nice to have an entirely new Class of Asset called Licences). As it would be too cumbersome to list and manage every single licence key for every single Application in Hornbill, I have created generic Licence assets per Licence Type per Application. Whilst some are linked to Laptops / Desktops / Smartphones, a lot of Licences are also linked to individual users (Office 365 Licences for example). In each of these assets, there will be a link to the spreadsheet where the Licence details of every asset/user is held. Is there a way we can link assets to multiple users, not just other assets? We are still trying to work out the best way to keep CMDB in Hornbill up to date... our data really isn't good at the moment. Thanks, Samuel
  12. Hi @riz, Awesome, cheers for that. I will look out for the next Admin Build. Thanks, Samuel ps. Why is there no Giphy support on the forums? I wanted to show my appreciation
  13. Hi @riz, Thanks for that. Can you confirm whether having no field validation is by design or due to limitation? (ie. the custom forms have no way of identifying multiple custom fields have the same field name such as in my example being fld_manager). Could I request to have this as a feature going forward? This would save a lot of looking around trying to identify what's wrong with the Progressive Capture Custom Forms by preventing us Saving and/or Activating the PC when it detects duplicate field names being used under a single custom form. Cheers, Samuel
  14. Hi @riz, The issue is resolved, unless you are replicating the issue with the field names not having any validation? Thanks for replying, Samuel