Along those same lines sort of... How do you translate your old Region/Site/Department listings to the new formula.
We have 12 hospitals, each hospital has an Emergency Center. Old Format Region Site Department Northwest North Tower Emergency Center Southwest Building1 Emergency Center Northeast North Tower Emergency Center Northeast North Tower Labor and Delivery Northeast North Tower Laboratory Southeast Hospital Bldg Emergency Center Southeast Hospital Bldg Labor and Delivery Southeast Hospital Bldg Laboratory We need to keep the "Emergency Center" as generic as possible because of funding/sorting etc. The same thing happens with other Departments... Labor and Delivery, Laboratory, etc... We will get a request asking how many calls have come from the Emergency Center at NW or we will get a request asking how many calls have come from all of the Emergency Centers. With the limitations of having Site Group be unique, we are not sure how to proceed. Claire Sanford Information Systems Division Memorial Hermann Healthcare System System Services Tower North - 2:105 920 Frostwood, Houston, TX 77024 Phone: 713 338 6035 [email protected] ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pierson, Shawn Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 8:23 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ITSM Multi-tenancy and people company restriction dilema My company has this requirement as well. There are governmental regulations that require certain arrangements between different divisions of companies. In the case of my employer, we have FERC regulations (specifically market affiliate rules) that make it so that, to oversimplify things, our corporate Remedy Incidents, Changes, etc. cannot be accessible to some of our divisions. At the same time, since they pay our corporate division's I.T. department to maintain their infrastructure and perform some additional I.T. functions, they need to be able to create Incidents and RFCs to be assigned to corporate I.T. There are a few possible workarounds I've discovered within ITSM for this, but they each have their downsides. * Option 1: Make an additional group or groups under that operating company that the individuals within the primary company can pick up tickets upon assignment and either work them there, or reassign them to the "real" assignee group. This may end up being more work for those supporting both assignments and Remedy users. However, it should work ok if you have everything go through a centralized service desk and let them reassign things to the appropriate groups. * Option 2: Set up service requests in SRM so that individuals in these other companies can submit requests that go to other companies. Multi-tenancy can bite you here as well depending on how you set the permissions to the forms, but this solution seems to work fine for me. The main down side is that if the operating company is already using Incident management, they aren't going to be happy to need to bring up another screen entirely just to submit something to the primary company's I.T. department, especially if they already have an Incident they have been working on. * Option 3: Do not change anything in Remedy, just make it a business process change where the operating companies are required to contact the primary company's service desk to have them submit Incidents, Changes, etc. on behalf of the operating company's employees. Thanks, Shawn Pierson Remedy Developer | Southern Union From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roger Justice Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 2:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ITSM Multi-tenancy and people company restriction dilema ** My question would be. If they cannot see Incidents for other companies why would they be creating Incident for another company. One of the ITIL steps when a new Incident is created is to determine if this is a duplicate or if there is alrady another Incident opened with the same issue. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Heverley <[email protected]> To: arslist <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, May 13, 2011 3:28 pm Subject: Re: ITSM Multi-tenancy and people company restriction dilema ** Hi Andrew, We are currently experiencing the same issue and cannot seem to find an easy work around. It is All or Nothing with no in between. I hope someone out there can provide us with something. Robert On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Andrew C Goodall <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: ** All, We have a dilemma with the current multi-tenancy design of ITSM (we're using ITSM 7.5.01). We require multi-tenancy for multiple operating companies to restrict access of IT support staff members from seeing incidents in another operating company. However, by implementing multi-tenancy and un-checking unrestricted company access causes other unwanted side affects due to Assignee Groups (112) permissions, namely the following: 1. Incident Management - Users can NOT see all customer companies in the Customer company drop down list. We need or IT support staff to be able to open an incident for any defined customer companies and not just operating companies they have access permissions to. 2. Problem Management - Vendor Tab - Vendor Name will not list vendor companies unless you have access permissions to the specified vendor company. In a large enterprise scenario with a large centralized service desk it is impractical to keep the CTM:people company permissions updated for IT support staff in the service desk with access to all Customer and Vendor companies. Currently my workaround is to use Data Import tool to update assignee groups (112) to "Public", but this is frustrating too, since now I have to add this to the process whenever adding customer and vendor companies, as well as to the customer and vendor company people. Does any one else have this frustration with multi tenancy and non "unrestricted" people? Does anybody have any suggestions or know if this behavior changes in 7.6.04? Does anyone know of a best practice solution for allowing unrestricted access to Customer and Vendor companies but not operating companies? Thanks in advance. In the mean time I'll open an RFE :) Regards, Andrew Goodall Software Engineer 2 | Development Services | jcpenney . www.jcp.com <http://www.jcp.com/> | The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that your access is unauthorized, and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message including any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. _ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
