Ø I recall hearing about a place in 7.6.04 to specify one company as hierarchically above another, but have not had time to see if it exists.
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 Andrew C Goodall Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 02:11 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: ITSM multi tenancy - customer company vs operating company needs ** Thanks Strauss, I'll take a look. Go Mean Green Eagles. Regards, Andrew Goodall Software Engineer 2 | Development Services | jcpenney . www.jcp.com <http://www.jcp.com/> ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of strauss Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 4:08 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: ITSM multi tenancy - customer company vs operating company needs If you don't mind the pain, you could try to digest what we built - documented at http://arsweb4.ars.unt.edu/index_prod.htm under the section "UNT-Specific Documentation for Multi-Tenancy in the UNT BMC Remedy ITSM 7.x system." It has held up in production for over three years now, so we are carrying it over to the upgraded 7.6.04.01 system... as-is. I have not seen a practical use yet in our environment for the extension to Vendor Assignee Groups (60900) in 7.6.04; we continue to push what we need into Assignee Groups (112) instead. Vendor Assignee Groups might turn out to be the correct tool to accomplish what you need to do in your environment, however. I recall hearing about a place in 7.6.04 to specify one company as hierarchically above another, but have not had time to see if it exists. That might help me to create a super-company over all of my separate companies defined for each directorate in the Computing Center. Assuming that worked, I would be surprised if it could cross company-type boundaries. I don't even know if it made it into the release, given that the multi-tenancy doc has not changed since 7.6.00. Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. Call Tracking Administration Manager University of North Texas Computing & IT Center http://itsm.unt.edu/ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Andrew C Goodall Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 1:44 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: ITSM multi tenancy - customer company vs operating company needs ** ITSM 7.5.01 We are a fairly large enterprise and use multi-tenancy to control access to multiple operating companies' data. So we do not give any one unrestricted access to control access to the different operating companies. However, our associates from both companies - particularly our central Service Desk work with multiple customer companies and have to open incidents for those customers. BMC support is telling us that we would have to add all those hundreds of customer companies to every ones access restrictions for that company to show up on the customer selection. In our current environment, I have a workaround where we add public to those customer company records - but this is not sustainable long term. I was hoping this would have changed in 7.6.04 but it does not, so all I can do is open an RFC :( Does anyone else have this issue with the inflexibility of access restrictions between different company types, i.e. needing operating companies separate but customer companies open and public? Does anyone else recommend a solution? I'm currently adding public manually. But I'm thinking of adding a filter to push this on submission of Customer Type Company. 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 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"
