Hi,
If you have a home-grown solution for approvals, why not create one record per
approver, with the approvers user-name in the submitter-field.
When the approver then updates this record with a read-licenses, you can then
have FLTR:s and/or ESCL:s that forwards the process. For example creating a
new approval record for the next approver, or notifies someone of a reject.
Best Regards - Misi, RRR AB, http://www.rrr.se (ARSList MVP 2011)
Products from RRR Scandinavia (Best R.O.I. Award at WWRUG10/11/12):
* RRR|License - Not enough Remedy licenses? Save money by optimizing.
* RRR|Log - Performance issues or elusive bugs? Analyze your Remedy logs.
Find these products, and many free tools and utilities, at http://rrr.se.
> Ø approval engine is an exception to the "normal" write license
> requirements.
>
> Clarification. Currently, that exception is only granted when Approval is
> utilized within a BMC provided solution (e.g. Incident, Change, SLM, etc.).
> When used with custom / bespoke applications, the exception is not granted and
> any user modifying data not owned by them requires a write license.
>
> While discussions about whether the exception should, in fact, be extended to
> non-BMC provided solutions is ongoing, it has not yet been implemented.
>
> -David J. Easter
> Manager of Product Management, AR System
> BSM & Atrium Solutions Management
> BMC Software, Inc.
>
> The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action expressed in this
> E-mail do not necessarily reflect those of BMC Software, Inc. My voluntary
> participation in this forum is not intended to convey a role as a
> spokesperson, liaison or public relations representative for BMC Software,
> Inc.
>
> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Miller
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:39 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: License considerations for custom approval process
>
> **
> Hi David,
>
> None of the approvers should need a write license. The approval engine is an
> exception to the the "normal" write license requirements. I think BMC
> understands that almost anybody in an organization can be an approver for some
> process or another have built in this flexibility by not requiring a license
> for approvers.
>
> So with that info why can't either level 1 or level 2 reject the approval
> request and then the requester would be notified to update their request.
> Once the corrections are complete the approval process starts over with new
> approval records.
>
> The way I see it there are no licenses required until the request gets to the
> provisioner. What you have described is pretty similar to how SRM -> Approval
> -> back-end fulfillment app works. The requester always has write access to
> their own request. The approvers do not need write access to the request
> itself and can approve/reject/make comments using the Approval Engine without
> a write license.
>
> The only gotcha I can picture is I think there were issues with earlier
> versions of the approvals where the approver ended up needing a write license
> (I never encountered it). I think this may have been an issue in 7.5. I am
> not sure if it was an issue with the Approval Server or within ITSM and how it
> worked with the Approval Server. Somebody else on the list may know the
> specifics.
>
> Jason
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:29 AM, David Durling
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> ARS 7.5, custom applications
>
> I've been asked to scope out creating an approval process that is something
> like:
>
> requester > level 1 approver > level 2 approver > provisioner (person who
> does the work after approved)
>
> I'm thinking the level 2 approver and provisioner would use write licenses,
> but am trying to come up with a way for the requester and level 1 approver to
> utilize read licenses. The problem is there's a requirement to allow either
> of the approvers (level1 or level2) to kick the request back to the requester
> for correction - and it's not considered user-friendly to make the requester
> fill out the initial form all over again.
>
> So I can use "submitter locked" functionality for one of these (request or
> level1), but not the other. I'm inquiring with BMC as to whether I can
> utilize filters to make changes on behalf of the other user, since this is an
> approval process and not someone working tickets.
>
> Kind of an open-ended question: Is there something I haven't thought of? How
> have some of you handled this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David Durling
> University of Georgia
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at
> www.arslist.org<http://www.arslist.org>
> "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
>
> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
> "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
"Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
