Resending this, as it appears to have been rejected. Sorry if you got it twice. ** I would not recommend making your testers Change Managers. The Change Manager and Change Assignee both have permissions to do pretty much anything they want with the change, which you don't want your testers to be able to do - you only want them to be able to approve it.
Note that the Change Manager does not have to be a "manager" per se. The Change Manager in Remedy is simply the person that is responsible for overseeing the change and can be the same person as the Change Assignee if you want. You really only need different people for the Change Manager and Change Assignee if you have enough changes that the Change Manager wants to delegate the responsibility of shepherding the change through to another individual in order to reduce their workload. In your case, it sounds like they're really the same person. If memory serves correctly, you can add individuals or groups to the approvals on an ad-hoc basis. I would think that you could still keep yourself (or whoever) as the Change Manager and Change Assignee but simply add the testers as approvers to the change at the appropriate point in the change's lifecycle. You could either create a group that contains the testers, or you could individually assign them as necessary. The same applies for any necessary management approvals. The management responsible for approving the change would probably normally be considered part of the CAB, and you could add them to the list of approvers as well. What I'm not sure about is whether the approvers need to have a specific role in the system (such as CAB member) or if you can add just anybody. Either way, I think you could make the approvals work for you without having to drastically change how the application is used. Lyle From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pierson, Shawn Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 11:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Change Manager Role in Change Management 7 ** Good afternoon, I've been thinking about using the Change Manager role on Change Management to reflect testers for changes rather than listing the manager of the group making the change. The reason is because at this point, the person that actually "manages" the schedule and verifies that that tasks are completed are the Assignees, and most I.T. management prefer to do approvals and use reports rather than interact directly with the Change application. So, what I am thinking of doing is setting up all of the potential testing approvers as Change Managers so that going forward, the Assignee can pick one of them, and we do an ad hoc approval before implementation that picks up the Change Manager to do the approval. Can anyone see any down side to using the Change Manager field in this way? Is there a better way to have people performing the UAT do a sign-off in change management? Thanks, Shawn Pierson Remedy Developer | Southern Union Private and confidential as detailed here<http://www.sug.com/disclaimers/default.htm#Mail>. If you cannot access hyperlink, please e-mail sender. _Platinum Sponsor: [email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. _Platinum Sponsor: [email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor:[email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
