DeadMeatGF

Members
  • Content count

    3,117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    58

DeadMeatGF last won the day on July 15

DeadMeatGF had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

178 Excellent

2 Followers

About DeadMeatGF

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 01/27/1970

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Derby

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

923 profile views
  1. I always prefer the 'education' option ...
  2. It's not a pop-up, where you start typing the name to assign the call, and the dynamic drop-down of names appears the status appears next to the name.
  3. @m.vandun Try using that as a drive to customers utilising the portal - "If you don't respond on the portal the request WILL close and you will have to log a whole new job!"
  4. "... comes the ability to shock!"
  5. Thanks @Ehsan, I'll keep my eye out for it.
  6. @James Ainsworth have you got a minimum release number for this so I can advise @shamaila.yousaf of when it's applied, please?
  7. @Keith, @Gerry with the videos on the YouTube channel I'd be happy with the notifications being admin-specific where appropriate and guiding interested parties to the channel.
  8. Are the HH videos published to the YouTube channel? If so, then they are available to all Users and people with sufficient interest can view them there. If not, maybe because they're understandably for customers' eyes only, a HH Workspace that is available to all customers would be a great place to view them.
  9. I'm in two minds about this - obviously there is a perfectly reasonable argument that there is little point alerting Users to a feature they have no ability to access, however there is also the Collaboration aspect that was mentioned at the Insights event, where someone who can't use the feature might watch the video and suggest a way of utilising it that the Admin never considered. Not sure how you would (or even if you could) balance it, though.
  10. Thanks @Victor - that's effectively what we're doing by assigning it back to the Service Desk, as no-one in that team will be the current owner at that stage in the Process.
  11. Hi Everyone, I've been asked to test if we can log a job using the API scheduler and not been given a great deal of time to come back with a definitive answer - out of (as mentioned above) pure laziness (and to speed the process up) rather than poring over the documentation I thought I'd ask if anyone has a working conf file for generating a Request from the scheduler that I can adjust to my requirements? I'm particularly interested in having one that uses a Catalog Item that expects two questions in this instance. Cheers, Steve.
  12. If you could add me to the list, I can see a good use case for this too.
  13. Our Facilities team use Tasks to make the process of closing calls "on the go" a lot more simple, and this is working very well in testing. One issue we do have is that (as discussed at the Insights event) you cannot reassign a task, so if, for some reason, a call needs to be reassigned the task must be "failed" and a new one recreated. We have automated the creation part, which occurs when the Request is assigned to an individual (we can't assign to groups or roles as the number of tasks on the list would quickly become unmanageable) and have logic in place so that if a task is "failed" (e.g. the owner is taken ill and has to go home, the request was incorrectly assigned etc.) the process loops back and awaits a new owner. The problem with this comes when the Requests with the "failed" Tasks are assigned into a Team that includes the original Owner - in this case the Request remembers the Owner and as the call has immediately been assigned recreates a fresh Task and assigns it to the person who's just "failed" it. There are edge cases that prevent the use of "Wait for new owner" because it is technically possible for the call to be reassigned to the original owner, e.g. they have to leave unexpectedly, no-one is available to pick the Request up, and they original Owner is back at work the next day and is reassigned the Request. What I'd need is either an option to "Unassign" a Request, or an option with the Assign to Team actions to "delete" the owner from the Request. Is this something that can be added?
  14. I can't believe a vacation took precedence!!!
  15. Personally I'm not in a mad rush as our IT teams that currently use SM are relatively small, but as we bring more features into the Facilities rollout this will become an issue.