Its always a nice thing when documentations contradict functionality isn't it :-) I wonder whether that is the new ITIL standard where documentations mean net to nothing. Apparently its not too rare to find documentations that contradict requirements or functionality etc..
Be prepared to find things in the wrong places when installing help for certain applications too. I do not remember which applications I found those but I did come across that recently with the new version of one of the applications that I had installed. The directory name as well as the path to where you find that directory was wrongly documented in the help install guide section.. Joe D'Souza -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of strauss Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 2:18 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Roles in Incident Management 7.x: App doesn't match the doc & other tidbits In Functional Role Update for my support account record, in my primary (default) support group, in the Functional Role pull-down, I see: Change Infrastructure Change Approver Infrastructure Change Assignee Infrastructure Change Manager Release Manager Foundation Broadcast Submitter Support Group Admin Support Group Manager Incident Incident Manager Support Group Lead Problem Problem Manager SLM Service Level Manager The roles you seek are all there, but under different headings. Don't be confused by the documentation for ITSM 7 - it has very little to do with the actual application as installed (and patched) that you are exploring on your server ;-) Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. Remedy Database Administrator University of North Texas Computing Center http://itsm.unt.edu/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rabi Tripathi > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:46 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Roles in Incident Management 7.x: App doesn't match > the doc & other tidbits > > Fol > Still at war with IM 7 and this is the most recent battle report-- > > Following IM functional roles are defined in the "configure" doc: > > Support Group Admin > Support Group Lead > Support Group Manager > > But, only following 2 are available, when you go to > CTM:People->->"Support Groups" tab->"Update Support Groups > and Roles" button->"Functional Role Update" tab->Functional Role: > > Incident Manager > Support Group Lead > > I'm guessing: > When they say "Support Group Manager" in docs, they really > mean "Incident Manager". "Support Group Admin" is pure > fiction, just to make it interesting, irrespective of the > fact that this role has defined privileges as per the document. Agree? > > Related question...when making somebody a member of a support > group, the "member" and "associate member" choices are > indistinct as far as the code behavior is concerned. Right? > It says the distinction is "informational" only. I think I > know the answer, but I still ask this question, because I > can't believe the designer didn't think of having the code > make some distinction such as not notifying associate members > when a group notification for, say, assignment, is sent. > > Ok, just found out that code will allow members or associate > members of a group to submit/modify incidents in which the > group is owner or assigned group. > See Filter HPD:INC:ChkModifyPermission_017. > > However, code will allow members, but NOT "associate members" > of a group to modify Owner Group of any incident in which the > group is the owner. See filter > HPD:INC:ChkModifyOwnership_021. I don't know why/how in this > instance, this distinction makes sense. At any rate, the doc > is wrong (pg 55 of config guide). > > Lastly, and this is the question I have to get answer to for > which I am beating around the bush above...how can I have > somebody "responsible" for a list of support groups (they > would review these group's tickets on Management console), > without having them receive all sorts of notifications that > would go to group members if I made him a member of that group? > > I like the more granular and closer-to-worldly-common-sense > way roles and permissions have been defined in ITSM 7, but > the scheme appears immature, incomplete, inconsistent and > above all, not fully articulated anywhere. I wonder how many > inside BMC can explain to anybody in full detail, the way > permissions/roles work in ITSM 7. > > I remember doing Tivoli training long time ago in which > understanding permissions/roles used by the suite's different > modules came closer to being a specialization in itself. With > ITSM 7, it's not as complex, but it's certainly confusing. Is > there no clear explanation, precisely because it's so > confusing/inconsistent?? > > Back to the war on error. > Yeah, no T. I don't think BMC meant to terrify me, but it > surely has me pulling my hair figuring out if my > understanding is in error, or they have made errors in > judgment, design, execution, documentation.... No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.9/1090 - Release Date: 10/24/2007 8:48 AM _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
