This previous thread may apply: http://ars-action-request-system.1093659.n2.nabble.com/People-belonging-to-Multiple-Companies-Data-Management-Tool-Spreadsheet-People-td6078544.html#a6078822
New in AR System 7.6.0x is hierarchical groups: 'Hierarchical group relationships for access control You can now define a parent-child relationship between access control groups to simplify permissions management. When this is defined, and when the object properties allow for permission inheritance, object permissions assigned to the child group are also granted to the parent group. A group hierarchy can also be applied dynamically during row-level security processing to grant permission to a parent group, if the appropriate object properties are enabled. See the Form and Application Objects Guide, "Using a parent group for permissions inheritance."' 17-Aug-2010 What’s New: BMC Remedy Action Request System 7.6.03 PDF<http://documents.bmc.com/supportu/documents/80/99/168099/168099.pdf> -David J. Easter Manager of Product Management, Remedy Platform 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:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Roger Justice Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 12:53 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG 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 <robert.hever...@gmail.com> To: arslist <arslist@ARSLIST.ORG> 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 <ago...@jcpenney.com<mailto:ago...@jcpenney.com>> 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. _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com<http://www.wwrug.com/> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com<http://www.wwrug.com/> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_
