Pamela

Hornbill Staff
  • Content count

    182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Pamela last won the day on January 13 2016

Pamela had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Pamela

  • Rank
    Senior member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

370 profile views
  1. @Keith Thanks for the suggestion above. You emailed in and mentioned you have resolved this. Just out of curiosity what have you done to get the result you were after. For the benefit of anyone else who might be facing this issue. Regards Pamela
  2. @Lyonel Thanks for your time over the phone just now. You mentioned that you could not press F12 because the issue has stopped happening in the office. We would really appreciate the network diagnostics as soon as someone can replicate the issue. Thanks Pamela
  3. Hi Sean, Seeing that you are a platinum success customer I will log this call for you as an investigation needs to be done. That will mean I may have to contact you directly and obtain some logs. Thanks Pamela
  4. @Paul Alexander The BPM is meant to be dynamic, people are meant to use it regardless of the date in the year. The way it works now is that today being the 15th of May, you can specify to put a call on hold for 4 days, meaning it will come off hold on 19th may. Then tomorrow if someone else uses this same BPM to put a call on hold for 4 days it will come off hold on 22nd May and so on. What you are requesting for will mean if you specify in the BPM to put this call on hold until 19th May, then today when a user puts a call on hold until 19th May, it will be correct but if another user puts the call on hold on 23rd May to go off hold on 19th May, the BPM will fail because it was only meant to be used to 19th May. The aspect of being dynamic is lost and the BPM will need constant updating. With regards to the Leavers requests, the leaving date must be different for different people. Would it not be ok if you specified the on hold period in days in the BPM rather than specifying an on hold until date? Regards Pamela
  5. @chriscorcoran In order to include re-opened calls, you can add the 'Reopened' is greater than 1 condition to the view. Hope that helps Thanks Pamela
  6. Hi Chris Well one way would be to create a view on the request list. In the screenshot I have attached, I have specified a condition 'within resolve time' is false and I have specified the name of the service. This view can be downloaded as a csv file showing the requests that have breached the resolution SLA. Is this similar to what you were looking for? regards Pamela
  7. @lee mcdermott We will investigate this issue. I will advise when I get more details. regards Pamela
  8. @Rohit Govind Glad to hear this. Thanks for the update regards Pamela
  9. @SJEaton You could use the print option against a request and just select to print the questions as shown in the screenshot. regards Pamela
  10. @lee mcdermott I took a look at this hoping to replicate it and I couldn't. Seeing that you're a Premier Success customer, perhaps we could log this as an incident and have it investigated some more. Regards Pamela
  11. @lee mcdermott @Alex8000 I ran the import on my test server. I have added an example to the wiki that should help. regards Pamela
  12. @PSG We are still working on this particular functionality at the moment. Thanks Pamela
  13. @samwoo This issue regarding the FromAddress on a System AutoResponder update has been raised before and Development are looking into it. The requirement is to add the customer details in the update. As for whether there could be a checkbox in the Routing Rules, I will feed this back to Development but I am not sure yet how they will implement this. Regards Pamela
  14. @DeadMeatGF Thanks for that. @Sonali Yes, before you update Service Manager you wouldn't have the Resolution Text option but after updating Service Manager it comes up. Regards Pamela
  15. Hi, Sorry for the late reply. Let me investigate internally and get back to you on this one regards Pamela