Doug is spot on. 

  

A change in process or philosophy may be a better way here. 

Maybe one question is why does the company "ABC" not need approvals? 

At least if autoapprovals is on then auditing is one benefit. Unless they don't 
need it.  

Or Is it because of notifications that are causing more spam than anything? 

If thats the case you can use the Ap:notifications additional qualification to 
add a statement.  NOT ('Company' = "Acme") for the particular type of rule. 

  

One side bar note ARS 7.5.: when editing the record for the additional 
qualification in ap:notification, it may not modify the filter.  There is an 
Article on this, but ours is on a Server Group environment  so the bug fix did 
not work. We did however manually edited the filter. This could be another 
Bug BMC needs to look at. 



JK 

  

  

  

----- Original Message -----




From: "Ron Tavares" <ron.tava...@gmail.com> 
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG 
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 2:50:03 PM 
Subject: Re: Using != and LIKE in Approval Mappings 

** 
I did some research on this.  Looks like this is configured in the 
AP:Administration form.  See the doc "BMC Remedy Approval Server 7.1 Guide for 
Users and Administrators" 

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:10 PM, pritch < pri...@ptd.net > wrote: 


I also would be interested in where these items are documented within the 
wealth of BMC Remedy documentation. 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Tavares" < ron.tava...@gmail.com > 
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG 
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 < doug_muel...@bmc.com > 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: 
arslist@ARSLIST.ORG ] On Behalf Of Ron Tavares 
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 8:13 AM 
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG 
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" 

_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"

Reply via email to