I sort of oversimplified my requirement but that isn't a bad option.
Basically, in my case we had something like:
Incident 1 Type
Company 1 > Support Group 1
Company 2 > Support Group 2
Change 1 Type
Company 1 > Support Group 1
Company 2 > Support Group 2
Incident 2 Type
Company 1 > Support Group 3
Company 2 > Support Group 4
Change 2 Type
Company 1 > Support Group 3
Company 2 > Support Group 4
A simple example of this would be that if you request access to an Accounting
system you are routed to the security team, while if you are requesting an
enhancement to it you are routed to a developer/app administrator, while a
reporting request for the Accounting system may route you to a reporting team.
Remedy can handle that pretty easily via the Assignment Engine. However, by
adding the Location Company to the mix (major components of my company are
natural gas pipelines) we add another layer of complexity. It's also not a
true multi-tenancy issue, because it's not necessarily tied to the company the
person reporting the Incident/Change is working for since a lot of them are
shared services and thus split amongst all or some portion of the pipelines.
It's more a matter of which pipeline they are reporting the request for.
I created a custom assignment mapping form that can handle this criteria, and
it's (currently) only used by one AIF for the purpose of one department within
I.T. but it's flexible enough that as we buy, sell, or merge pipeline companies
and their systems we can easily set up mappings to handle it here. I also had
to update a few places to make the Support Group ID and related fields
available for AOTs, so theoretically I can completely bypass the Assignment
Engine from SRM whenever it's needed. I haven't yet integrated them with
Incident or Change Directly because I don't think there is much point, but it
shouldn't be difficult to do if necessary. Since ITSM itself doesn't handle
this type of assignment routing as of 7.6.4, I'm not sure how easy it would be
to do in a vanilla SRM form. The new 8.x functionality Jason Miller brought up
may be able to do it, but I'd probably still have to keep my custom assignment
mapping form out there for reference purposes.
Thanks,
Shawn Pierson
Remedy Developer | Energy Transfer
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Tauf Chowdhury
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 2:26 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: SRM Question Conditions
**
Shawn,
Also for your example, couldn't you have had a search menu where you were doing
the company lookup from the CTM:Support Group, but store the support group name
value internally? Then you could set that in whatever fulfillment request
you're trying to create.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 29, 2013, at 2:57 PM, "Pierson, Shawn"
<shawn.pier...@energytransfer.com<mailto:shawn.pier...@energytransfer.com>>
wrote:
**
That's very interesting and looks like it might be able to do some of what I
need AIFs for. We're about to start an upgrade to 8.1 so that will be
interesting to check out.
Thanks,
Shawn Pierson
Remedy Developer | Energy Transfer
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Jason Miller
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 1:44 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>
Subject: Re: SRM Question Conditions
** So far we have been able to avoid AIFs but I know the day will come when we
need to create one. We have been using the approach Tauf mentioned in helping
people be creative or relaxing their "requirement" (many times things asked for
do not provide enough business value to justify the effort in making it happen).
A feature that was added in SRM 8.0 and has really helped us steer clear of
AIFs are the Autofill Actions.
https://docs.bmc.com/docs/display/public/srm80/Autofilling+responses+in+an+SRD
So far this has provided the the ability to look up (Set Fields if you will)
configuration data that helps route the request to the correct fulfilment app
and/or Support Group.
As an example we built an ITSM Process Designer workflow because we thought it
was the only way (besides AIF) to create the dynamic process we needed
(configuration based fulfillment and assignment). Turns out there is a major
flaw in ITSM PD that doesn't create the linking records between SRM:Request and
the fulfillment apps (I call it a flaw but it is working as designed, they just
didn't finish the design). Since we started building the system on 7.6.04 and
upgraded to 8.0 we overlooked the introduction of Autofill Actions. We were
able to recreate the process within SRM and everything worked as expected.
Although I do miss the ITSM PD revisioning and ease of import/exporting just an
XML file to transfer between environments.
Jason
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Pierson, Shawn
<shawn.pier...@energytransfer.com<mailto:shawn.pier...@energytransfer.com>>
wrote:
**
I currently only have two AIFs in production right now out of less than 50
types of requests (we're still pushing our I.T. management on the importance of
user self-service.) The most recent one I probably could have done more easily
by customizing the Assignment Engine in retrospect. The requirement I couldn't
meet was a custom type of assignment rule which should have been included out
of the box, the ability to assign to different support groups based on Location
Company. Still, since I got my start purely doing ARS development I can't help
but feel a sense of nostalgia for the days prior to working on ITSM so despite
it taking longer, it ends up being fun enough that I don't mind.
Thanks,
Shawn Pierson
Remedy Developer | Energy Transfer
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>] On Behalf Of Tauf
Chowdhury
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:42 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>
Subject: Re: SRM Question Conditions
**
Shawn,
You're right. To me, AIF is always the answer at the end when "out of the box"
SRM solutions have been exhausted. Personally, I like to always save that as a
last resort or when the complexity of the service demands it. I've found when I
do that, it really forces someone to get creative with SRM and the "standard"
functionality.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 29, 2013, at 7:36 AM, "Pierson, Shawn"
<shawn.pier...@energytransfer.com<mailto:shawn.pier...@energytransfer.com>>
wrote:
**
It may be overkill, but I haven't seen anyone suggest an AIF (Advanced
Interface Form.) Since that is actual development, you can basically do
whatever you want with it, and it will definitely allow you to have multiple
levels of conditions and such. The catch is that you're doing development so
it's not as fast, but where building a basic service request form should take
you 30 minutes the AIF may take you half of a day instead, assuming you are
familiar with ARS development.
Thanks,
Shawn Pierson
Remedy Developer | Energy Transfer
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Vyom Labs Support
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 5:36 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>
Subject: Re: SRM Question Conditions
**
Hi Dinesh,
If question is a radio buttons/check boxes or menu,we can add conditions to
question. For 1st level question, if there are 3 options in Radio button/check
box or menu,we can add three conditions.But we can't add condition within one
conditional question i.e we cannot add condition on next level of the question.
I found that only one level of conditional question is supported.
--
Regards,
Preeti Karna
Vyom Labs Pvt. Ltd.
BSM Solutions & Services || ITIL Consulting & Training
|| Web Site: www.vyomlabs.com<http://www.vyomlabs.com> Follow Vyom Labs
http://twitter.com/#!/vyomlabs<http://twitter.com/#%21/vyomlabs> ||
http://www.linkedin.com/company/vyom-labs
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Dinesh Kumar
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 11:42 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>
Subject: SRM Question Conditions
**
Hello All,
How we can configure more than 2 condition in question SR question and mapping.
Remedy Version : 7.6.04 SP1
Regards,
Dinesh kumar.
_ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_
_ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_
Private and confidential as detailed
here<http://www.energytransfer.com/mail_disclaimer.aspx>. If you cannot access
hyperlink, please e-mail sender. _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have
been for 20 years_
_ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_
Private and confidential as detailed
here<http://www.energytransfer.com/mail_disclaimer.aspx>. If you cannot access
hyperlink, please e-mail sender.
_ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_
_ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_
Private and confidential as detailed
here<http://www.energytransfer.com/mail_disclaimer.aspx>. If you cannot access
hyperlink, please e-mail sender. _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have
been for 20 years_
_ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_
Private and confidential as detailed here:
http://www.energytransfer.com/mail_disclaimer.aspx . If you cannot access the
link, please e-mail sender.
_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
"Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
