In our implementation, we actually disabled typing in the Summary field and forced users to pick from the drop downs. This ensured there was some level of categorization and structure and the routing still worked. Just remember the service type HAS to be User Service Request.
Tauf Chowdhury | Forest Laboratories, Inc. Sr. Analyst Office: 631.858.7765 ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lisa Westerfield Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: CTI routing in 7.1 Good question, and unfortunately the answer is that it will remain "In Process" unless there is a summary or solution configured to handle the specific request. If there are errors, the support staff will have to correct the errors and then retry the request. We are not actually using this feature in my current implementation due to the limitations, but we did go through a lot of discovery around it with my last implementation and I'm not entirely sure that they are using it either. As an alternative, you may consider using the email engine integration to submit issues into Incident Management, if your client has implemented this feature. I have not done a full email integration to allow users to submit via the web as of yet, so my knowledge in this area is what's in the BMC documentation. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sivarama velicheti Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 12:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: CTI routing in 7.1 ** Hi Lisa, I have one more question for you. What if user instead of selecting from the summary field (the definitions we have configured) for a request, types in his own summary in the field? then its not going to get routed as the routing is only defined for the ones we have in the summary field. Its just going to end up as an error. Do we have any alternate for this?? Or how can we overcome this criteria?? Thanks Sivarama On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Lisa Westerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ** You would actually set up "Summary Definitions" for the requestor console in Application Administration Console/Requestor Console/Summary Definition. When you configure these, you will specify whether or not the request is going to generate an Incident or Change. The user selects a Summary Definition that you have configured, and based on that the request will be opened as an incident or change. When the incident or change record is submitted, it will reference the Assignment Engine form for who to assign it to (just as if you created it directly in the incident form) The user may also choose solutions based on the summary definition they've selected, which will then use the categorization and routing from the solution record. There is a lot more to it than that, but hopefully that helps a bit. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sivarama velicheti Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:23 AM To: [email protected] Subject: CTI routing in 7.1 ** Hi Group, I trying to configure the remedy 7.1 for my company. Now I have some questions. Currently in our organization in 6.3 we have Category, Type, Item in the requestor console based on which the request is routed to the appropriate group. But in 7.1, I don't see any option that is analogous to that in the requestor console. How do I set it up do out of the box. I am strictly to stay away from customizations. The idea that remedy 6.3 supports something and 7.1 does not sounds improbable. Is there any thing that I am missing out here? In 6.3 again there are two options create a change request and help desk request. In Remedy 7.1 I have only one option which says create a New Request. Please help me understand what needs to be done to accomplish the above business needs. Thanks Sivarama __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ Error! Filename not specified. <http://www.bmc.com/userworld/> TuringSMI is a Platinum Sponsor of both BMC UserWorld Events Email Disclaimer This email has been sent from the TuringSMI Group This message is subject to and does not create or vary any contractual relationship between TuringSMI, SMI Technologies, SMI Telco, its subsidiaries or affiliates and you. Internet communications are not secure and therefore the TuringSMI Group does not accept any legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author. This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and its contents and any attached files are strictly confidential. If you have received it in error, please contact the sender on the number above. __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ -- Sivarama Velicheti ***** ***** ***** ******* * * * - __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ ********************************************************************** This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
