Hi everyone, Please forgive the cross-post from the AT list. It seems appropriate given the topic. (Orginal thread included below for context.) The question below deals with the proper place to store requests for change (RFCs) in an RT/Asset Tracker system.
My original plan was to create a new Asset Type in AT for RFCs. Todd and Torsten think that using tickets for RFCs make more sense. I'm prepared to be convinced either way. Here are some pros and cons as I see them. RFCs in Asset Tracker ============= (+) more true to the ITIL CMDB concept (+) easy links between RFCs and other Assets (Configuration Items in ITIL-speak) (-) no scrip support (-) no support for longer form text data (-) no file attachments RFCs as tickets ========= (+) scrip support (+) file attachments (+) new RFC creation via email or other API (-) possible conceptual discontinuity between "tickets" and RFC I'd appreciate any feedback from anyone else who's considered using RT this way. -Tim >>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 2:52 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Torsten Brumm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Todd & Tim, > > from my point of view, i think Todd is right, an RFC is bound to a Asset but > don't need to exsist inside the CMDB. > > Btw: In the RT Users Group a small Sub Project ITIL starts and i think it is > a good idea also to CC the RT- Users for this, i'm not sure if all involved > RT- Users are also inside the AT List. > > And i think RT together with AT is the perfect tool to support the ITIL > process. > > @Tood: What do you think about the Date Fields for a asset as i wrote into > your Wishlist? This is import for most items, how hard is it to code this > into AT? > > Mit freundlichen Gruessen / With kindest regards > > Torsten Brumm > > Kuehne + Nagel > Ferdinand Strasse 29- 33 > 20095 Hamburg > Germany > > Tel: +49 40 329 15 199 > Fax: +49 40 329 15 500 > Www: www.kuehne- nagel.com > > >> ----- Original Message----- >> From: at- users- [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:at- users- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Chapman >> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:22 PM >> To: Tim Wilson >> Cc: at- [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: [at- users] Triggering a new ticket on custom field change >> >> Why would you make an RFC an assets? I would think it would >> be a ticket. >> >> There is no scrips system for assets. Someday... >> >> On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 02:06:51PM - 0500, Tim Wilson wrote: >> > I'd like to create a custom field called "status" in my request for >> > change (RFC) asset type that would be set to "Approved" upon review >> > (and >> > approval) by my Change Manager. >> > >> > Once the RFC is approved I'd like to create a ticket in a different >> > queue and link it back to that RFC. Can that ticket creation and >> > linking be automated? >> > >> > - Tim >> > >> > -- >> > Tim Wilson, Director of Technology >> > Buffalo- Hanover- Montrose Schools >> > 214 1st Ave NE Buffalo, MN 55313 >> > ph: 763.682.8740 fax: 763.682.8743 http://www.buffalo.k12.mn.us -- Tim Wilson, Director of Technology Buffalo-Hanover-Montrose Schools 214 1st Ave NE Buffalo, MN 55313 ph: 763.682.8740 fax: 763.682.8743 http://www.buffalo.k12.mn.us _______________________________________________ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
