Based on this email and the earlier one from Carl, it makes sense that it would work this way. However, it is also self-defeating because it removes your ability to do surveys on Incidents created by the service desk team over the phone, and it also removes the ability for the users to look up the statuses of all of their open requests within SRM. I added our survey to the "Service Desk Incident" SRD, and ensured no notifications are sent for it because they're not descriptive enough. With a few exceptions, I prefer to notify the users from the fulfillment requests rather than the higher level REQ because it's easier for I.T. workers to find the actual record they are working on with an INC, WO, or CRQ modules. Also, it helps that we really only have a few SRDs that create several different units of work.
Also thanks for the words of warning on the Change Management issues. We just started user testing today and when the Remedy team did our testing we pretty much just did happy path testing logged in with our admin accounts. However, the change to CHG:CRQ:NotifyOnRejectApproval-CA will not hurt us, because we don't even have the concept of a "Change Manager" in our organization. Your issues with the approval table could be a big problem. We ran into similar issues with 7.6.4 when we first migrated to that and spent a lot of time working with BMC to find a solution. Thanks, Shawn Pierson Remedy Developer | Energy Transfer From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martinez, Marcelo A Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:42 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: HPD:INC:NTCustConfirm_851_SetTag in ITSM 8.1 ** Under Incident Rules, there is an option to set "Create Request on Submit". Try selecting "No" to see if that meets the criteria of the filter in question. We are new to SRM (8.1), but we found out that when an support agent updates the work info of a ticket and marks it public, it is supposed to mark the SR as "needs attention" for the customer to see, this is not happening. Also, annoying ARWARN message when updating items in your cart. The message is something about completion date must be later than the expected date. In Change Mgmt module 8.1 1. When a change is rejected, the Change Manager is not notified, but the Change Coordinator is. Check filter CHG:CRQ:NotifyOnRejectApproval-CA__o 2. They've done some funky stuff with risk calculations also.. for us at least, broke how "derived risk factors" are taken into account into change risk ranking. 3. On the CRQ:Infrastructure Change form, the approval table seems to have a mind of its own and displays (or not), what it wishes. We've been running ITSM 8.1 for a few months now. In my opinion, the new features are nice, although runs slower than 7.6.04. Good luck Marcelo Martinez From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pierson, Shawn Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:32 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: HPD:INC:NTCustConfirm_851_SetTag in ITSM 8.1 ** Good morning, I think we've identified our first defect with ITSM 8.1 in our user testing phase. It looks like the filter above isn't firing, so the customers are not being notified. The cause appears to be the Run If portion. Here's what we see in 8.1: ('Status' < "Resolved") AND ('z1D Char01' != $NULL$) AND ('SRInstanceID' = "NA") AND ('Created_From_flag' != "Request") AND ('SRID' = $NULL$) AND (('Flag_Create_Request' = "No") OR ('Flag_Create_Request' = $NULL$)) Here's the Run If in 7.6.4: ('Status' < "Resolved") AND ('z1D Char01' != $NULL$) AND ('SRInstanceID' = "NA") AND ('Created_From_flag' != "Request") AND ('SRID' = $NULL$) That extra stuff with the 'Flag_Create_Request' field seems to be the problem, but I don't really know what that is used for. Has anyone else run into this, and if so, what is the solution? My testing fix was to create an overlay and set the Run If to be the same as 7.6.4. If it also helps, we have SRM which probably has some bearing on the ITSM notifications that go out. Thanks, Shawn Pierson Remedy Developer | Energy Transfer Private and confidential as detailed here<http://www.energytransfer.com/mail_disclaimer.aspx>. If you cannot access hyperlink, please e-mail sender. _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ Private and confidential as detailed here: http://www.energytransfer.com/mail_disclaimer.aspx . If you cannot access the link, please e-mail sender. _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
