I also would be interested in where these items are documented within the wealth of BMC Remedy documentation.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Tavares" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 1:57:53 PM Subject: Re: Using != and LIKE in Approval Mappings ** Hi Doug, thank you for your response. You are correct in your assumptions of what I am trying to do and I very much like the approach you are recommending. I believe this will work for us. So, I have two questions: 1) Are these approval rules, (Auto Approval, Self Approval, etc), available in CM v7.1? 2) If so, where do I configure this? I'm assuming it is not in Change Mgm t> Approvals> Approval Mappings Thanks, .ron On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Mueller, Doug < [email protected] > wrote: ** Ron, I thought I would respond to this message with not really an answer to the specific question you are asking but more of a discussion of a general best practice model for using the approval system. Reading into your question, I am assuming you have a requirement where you want to run an approval process but when there is some specific criteria met, you don't want that process to run. I am going to suggest that you should approach the problem differently. This different approach has many advantages: -- It is more consistent -- It is more auditable and trackable (makes things like Sarbox compliance reviews much easier) -- It makes the overall flow of execution and processing much easier and less error prone (one path of execution not several) This approach is a generic philosophy. If there is a need for approvals, you ALWAYS call the approval process for EVERYONE. This is regardless of whether there are special conditions or limits or it is sometimes needed or anything. You ALWAYS call the approval process. Then, you use the rules of the approval process to control action and operation. So, let's look at your situation. You have a case where you want to have approvals but to skip approvals when the company is not Acme or when some group is specified. I am going to suggest that you look at it slightly differently. You want approvals. When the company is not Acme or when some specific group is specified, you want the approval process to complete immediately with success without having a person involved. If these conditions are not met, you want to get explicit approvals. The end result is the same, but it is much more managable and trackable to think in the new terms (and it is easy to do which is a nice bonus). Within the approval process, there are a variety of rules you can configure. One type of rule is an Auto Approval rule. You can have any number of these rules for any process. This type of rule is the first type of rule run whenever an approval process starts and if the rule passes, the approval process is immediately approved, no individual approvals are needed, and the "done" or completion rules are run to update the process to move forward. If none of these rules are successfully passed, then the approval process continues on with other rules to assign things and go through the process until that is approved (or rejected) and then the completion rules are run. So, in your case, you would just have the approval process called and you would define one or more Auto Approval rules that test the conditions you want to have the process automatically approve with no further action and you will be good to go. Note that there are several other rules that can support you along the way: Self Approval rules -- these are rules that run after the Auto approval rules that are like Auto Approval but more about including who you are and approving things based on you or information about you. So, you might have a Self Approval rule that approves if your personal signature authority is over the limit of the request being approved. Auto approval could have been used if it was approve for ANYONE if the request was under $10; but it could not have done something based on who you are. Get Authority (or Get Data) rules -- these are rules you can use that run before the Self Approval rules to get information you want to use in your later rules test. Essentially, these are "Set Fields" type operations that can pull data from other sources than the source ticket (whose data fields are available by default and without needing any work). For example, one might be used to pull the approval dollar authority limit for the requestor to test to see if they have authority to self approve their own request. Anyway, the purpose of this note is not to teach the details of approval rules, but to set out a philosophy. Too many times, I hear requests for folks to try and figure out how I can control whether or not to call approvals or see how to change things so that approvals are called only when or .... If you change your thinking to say if there is a need under any condition for approvals, then call approvals and put any rules or restrictions or limitations or automatic approval or whatever within the Approval process using all the rules and capabilities of the approval server itself, you will find that you can much more easily control what you are trying to accomplish while also simplifying your processes, removing error conditions in logic, and providing a much better tracking method to ensure all is going correctly. In addition, you can get much more sophisticated about what conditions approve things. And, modification or adjustment is now just adjusting approval rules and not reconfiguring workflow. So, my suggestion to solve your problem is to always let approval get called and put your conditions (actually the reverse of them because you want conditions that say to auto approve not ones that say to call approval) in Auto Approval rules and you will be good to go. I hope this helps, Doug Mueller From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: [email protected] ] On Behalf Of Ron Tavares Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 8:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Using != and LIKE in Approval Mappings ** Hi, I think the answer to this is no, but I thought I would ask. Is there any way to build an advanced qual in a Change Approval Mapping. Meaning, out of the box: For example: Require Review Approval by Change Mgmt team when Requestor Group 'Company' != "Acme" or Require Review Approval by Change Mgmt team when Requestor Group 'Company' LIKE "ABC%" ARS 7.1 CM 7.0 Thanks, .ron _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
