You would be correct if (a) the CAI integration between SRM:Request and HPD:HelpDesk worked reliably, and (b) the notifications to customers via email referred them to the SRM:Request form.
The out-of-the-box email notifications to the customer contain links not to SRM:Request, but to HPD:HelpDesk, so they are sent to the incidents, which they cannot edit. They can see them, but they cannot make entries in the Work Info or anywhere else, because the Submitter is either the Remedy Application Service account, or a support staff member! Because the Incident form that they are sent to contains all of the menus and controls of the Incident Console, they are given the tools to run searches into all of the rest of the tickets in the system for their company. The Incident form is the absolute LAST place you want customers to be going, but that is their default destination. Also, if the incident is put in for them by a support staff member via the Incident form, (1) the incident frequently does not create a parallel service request (succeeds about 60% of the time, and support says this is a known problem with the CAI integration), and even if it does, (2) the Submitter carried into the SRM:Request form is sometimes the support staff member, not the requester. It speaks _volumes_ about the CAI integration that a dozen pages of the Incident Management User documentation covers the role of the Request Master in troubleshooting errors in the process. IF the two-way integration between SRM:Request and the Incident and Change forms was reliable, AND the notifications to customers always referred them to the SRM:Request records, I would be a lot happier with this architecture. Maybe they will get this fixed in the Service Request Management module, but if it is priced the way I heard it will be, no one will be able to afford to buy it, making it irrelevant. Today's Dilbert cartoon is the best description I have seen yet of an ITSM 7 implementation project. Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. Remedy Database Administrator University of North Texas Computing Center http://remedy.unt.edu/helpdesk/ ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Justice Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 6:35 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Implementation Q> ITSM 7 and "Shared People" as 'Generic Contact' Company ** I have done some testing and have determined that the design is for the users to not create or review their Incidents they only see the Service Request in the Requester Console. Of course this eliminates the ability to modify their own tickets. If you add workflow to add the Users login to field 112 you might be able to allow them to access their tickets only. I have not seen the problem with the support people so far however I will check this over the next week. _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
