how can I a) change my current ticket-id-layout (keep in mind that we are at position 099999, for example) from 000001 to AR000001 and b) how can I add two letters at the beginning of the field wi
Dear listeners, I would like to make a new form for maintenances. Therefor I would like to differentiate between our action request tickets and service request tickets. So I want to change our ticket-id-layout from 00 in AR01. Further I would like to form the maintenances ticket id like SR01. My question is: how can I a) change my current ticket-id-layout (keep in mind that we are at position 09, for example) from 01 to AR01 and b) how can I add two letters at the beginning of the field with database id: 1? Thank you very much for your help. Regards Christoph ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: how can I a) change my current ticket-id-layout (keep in mind that we are at position 099999, for example) from 000001 to AR000001 and b) how can I add two letters at the beginning of the fiel
Hi, If your current format is 00 and the new format is xx00, you need to do two things: 1. Extend the length of the field from 6 to 8 characters 2. Change the default value from nothing to xx You must also figure out if you are storing the data somewhere else, such as 'Parent Ticket Id' in the same or another form. This may also need the new length. If you want to convert the old ticket ids to the new format, you want to do so with our RRR|Chive-utility. source_server = myserver source_user = Demo source_password = source_form = Trouble Ticket target_server = myserver target_form = Trouble Ticket qual= '1' LIKE 0_ splitsearch = YES transfertype= MOVE entryidmode = AR00 logfile = AUTO loglevel= INFO progressbar = YES Best Regards - Misi, RRR AB, http://www.rrr.se Products from RRR Scandinavia (Best R.O.I. Award at WWRUG10): * RRR|License - Not enough Remedy licenses? Save money by optimizing. * RRR|Log - Performance issues or elusive bugs? Analyze your Remedy logs. Find these products, and many free tools and utilities, at http://rrr.se. Dear listeners, I would like to make a new form for maintenances. Therefor I would like to differentiate between our action request tickets and service request tickets. So I want to change our ticket-id-layout from 00 in AR01. Further I would like to form the maintenances ticket id like SR01. My question is: how can I a) change my current ticket-id-layout (keep in mind that we are at position 09, for example) from 01 to AR01 and b) how can I add two letters at the beginning of the field with database id: 1? Thank you very much for your help. Regards Christoph ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org 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
AW: how can I a) change my current ticket-id-layout (keep in mind that we are at position 099999, for example) from 000001 to AR000001 and b) how can I add two letters at the beginning of the fiel
Hi Misi, thank you very much for your help. This works fine :) Regards Christoph -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] Im Auftrag von Misi Mladoniczky Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. August 2011 11:03 An: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Betreff: Re: how can I a) change my current ticket-id-layout (keep in mind that we are at position 09, for example) from 01 to AR01 and b) how can I add two letters at the beginning of the field with database id: 1? Hi, If your current format is 00 and the new format is xx00, you need to do two things: 1. Extend the length of the field from 6 to 8 characters 2. Change the default value from nothing to xx You must also figure out if you are storing the data somewhere else, such as 'Parent Ticket Id' in the same or another form. This may also need the new length. If you want to convert the old ticket ids to the new format, you want to do so with our RRR|Chive-utility. source_server = myserver source_user = Demo source_password = source_form = Trouble Ticket target_server = myserver target_form = Trouble Ticket qual= '1' LIKE 0_ splitsearch = YES transfertype= MOVE entryidmode = AR00 logfile = AUTO loglevel= INFO progressbar = YES Best Regards - Misi, RRR AB, http://www.rrr.se Products from RRR Scandinavia (Best R.O.I. Award at WWRUG10): * RRR|License - Not enough Remedy licenses? Save money by optimizing. * RRR|Log - Performance issues or elusive bugs? Analyze your Remedy logs. Find these products, and many free tools and utilities, at http://rrr.se. Dear listeners, I would like to make a new form for maintenances. Therefor I would like to differentiate between our action request tickets and service request tickets. So I want to change our ticket-id-layout from 00 in AR01. Further I would like to form the maintenances ticket id like SR01. My question is: how can I a) change my current ticket-id-layout (keep in mind that we are at position 09, for example) from 01 to AR01 and b) how can I add two letters at the beginning of the field with database id: 1? Thank you very much for your help. Regards Christoph __ _ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org 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 ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
7.6.04 question Scheduled Change
I am trying to diagnose why my scheduled changes aren't being created I have tried to search the system and the documentation, I cannot (easily) find what triggers the creation of the Change? e.g. an escalation would be a good candidate, couldn't find one. Anyone out there know, have some troubleshooting suggestions? Of course I would also like to know if anyone has modified it to allow a Period of 1 day? .. Dan ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry
I was going to ask the same question. My reason is that my Support center staff do not need to see open tickets. They put in about 90 tickets per day per person. They have to put a ticket in for every call. If they have to do all that extra clicking, it takes time. I hate the fact that the Classic View forms are being deprecated. For people working the tickets, the best practice view may be fine, but for entering a ticket and quickly verifying the info, it is not quick or easy. So, if my staff just open the form up and create a ticket without going through the click here, click here and finally click here process... will they lose any functionality? I think the designers of the views should have spent a day in a busy support center. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Chowdhury, Tauf Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:58 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** Are you talking about the OOB requester console that comes with Service Desk or the Service Request Management module? Either way, there is some functionality lost such as being able to see the Open tickets table. It all depends on what the requirement is. If all your users want to do is enter a request and forget about it, then having a direct entry form as you call it should be fine. Anything else, go with the requester console. I guess the question is... why don't you want to use the OOB entry form and why do you want to use the direct entry form? -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Kathy Morris Sent: Wed 8/10/2011 5:43 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: SRM: Request Console vs. Direct Entry Hi, If we enter the request via a direct entry form versus the request console, what functionality do I lose? Am I able to redirect surveys to the direct entry form or the work order form? Thanks. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. _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
Atrium Normalization Job Schedules
Hey Folks, We seem to have an issue where Normalization Job Schedules have disappeard. They are stored in the NE:JobSchedule form. Has anyone encountered this before? Thanks Les Ganton ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
JOB: Remedy Systems Engineer Team Lead
Hello all, TEKsystems is working on a Remedy Systems Engineer Team Lead position for one of our great national clients. The ideal candidate can sit onsite in either Colorado Springs or Cleveland and the length of the contract is a 1+ year with a high likelihood of extending. Below is a detailed job description for perusal - Top Three Skills Needed: Remedy, Atruim, Linux/AIX This is a team lead position with the Production Engineering team. This is truly a leadership position where they are looking for a candidate with a strong technical background but yet experience leading teams from a strategic standpoint. System Engineers in this area are responsible for planning, leveraging and maintaining the Remedy platform and its infrastructure, applications, procedures and integrations that support all IT cost, service and operation management functions across IT and ultimately IT Service Management throughout the organization. Through consultation and leadership, Production Engineers plan, engineer, implement and operationalize all aspects of the Remedy platform and its associated integrations. If this sounds like something you or anyone you know might be interested in, please give me a call at 719-866-6915. Thanks and have a great day! ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry
Come on Claire - Your Business, Their Way! From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Sanford, Claire Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:45 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** I was going to ask the same question. My reason is that my Support center staff do not need to see open tickets. They put in about 90 tickets per day per person. They have to put a ticket in for every call. If they have to do all that extra clicking, it takes time. I hate the fact that the Classic View forms are being deprecated. For people working the tickets, the best practice view may be fine, but for entering a ticket and quickly verifying the info, it is not quick or easy. So, if my staff just open the form up and create a ticket without going through the click here, click here and finally click here process... will they lose any functionality? I think the designers of the views should have spent a day in a busy support center. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Chowdhury, Tauf Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:58 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** Are you talking about the OOB requester console that comes with Service Desk or the Service Request Management module? Either way, there is some functionality lost such as being able to see the Open tickets table. It all depends on what the requirement is. If all your users want to do is enter a request and forget about it, then having a direct entry form as you call it should be fine. Anything else, go with the requester console. I guess the question is... why don't you want to use the OOB entry form and why do you want to use the direct entry form? -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Kathy Morris Sent: Wed 8/10/2011 5:43 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: SRM: Request Console vs. Direct Entry Hi, If we enter the request via a direct entry form versus the request console, what functionality do I lose? Am I able to redirect surveys to the direct entry form or the work order form? Thanks. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.orghttp://www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.comhttp://www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.comhttp://www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.comhttp://www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ This email is subject to certain disclaimers, which may be reviewed via the following link. http://compass-usa.com/Pages/Disclaimer.aspx ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Atrium Normalization Job Schedules
Les, what version of atrium? From: rem...@arutilities.com rem...@arutilities.com To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:04 AM Subject: Atrium Normalization Job Schedules Hey Folks, We seem to have an issue where Normalization Job Schedules have disappeard. They are stored in the NE:JobSchedule form. Has anyone encountered this before? Thanks Les Ganton ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org 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
Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry
I still have a Remedy t-shirt that has minding your own business across the shoulders. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Tanner, Doug Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:55 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** Come on Claire - Your Business, Their Way! From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Sanford, Claire Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:45 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** I was going to ask the same question. My reason is that my Support center staff do not need to see open tickets. They put in about 90 tickets per day per person. They have to put a ticket in for every call. If they have to do all that extra clicking, it takes time. I hate the fact that the Classic View forms are being deprecated. For people working the tickets, the best practice view may be fine, but for entering a ticket and quickly verifying the info, it is not quick or easy. So, if my staff just open the form up and create a ticket without going through the click here, click here and finally click here process... will they lose any functionality? I think the designers of the views should have spent a day in a busy support center. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Chowdhury, Tauf Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:58 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** Are you talking about the OOB requester console that comes with Service Desk or the Service Request Management module? Either way, there is some functionality lost such as being able to see the Open tickets table. It all depends on what the requirement is. If all your users want to do is enter a request and forget about it, then having a direct entry form as you call it should be fine. Anything else, go with the requester console. I guess the question is... why don't you want to use the OOB entry form and why do you want to use the direct entry form? -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Kathy Morris Sent: Wed 8/10/2011 5:43 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: SRM: Request Console vs. Direct Entry Hi, If we enter the request via a direct entry form versus the request console, what functionality do I lose? Am I able to redirect surveys to the direct entry form or the work order form? Thanks. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.orghttp://www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.comhttp://www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.comhttp://www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.comhttp://www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ This email is subject to certain disclaimers, which may be reviewed via the following link. http://compass-usa.com/Pages/Disclaimer.aspx _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
Web services in ARS 6.3
Hi All I am trying to consume a complex web service from an external application and supply it with a parent / child response containing a list of items. We have managed to achieve this as incoming web service, i.e. the external application can create multiple rows in Remedy using a single web service call to a Remedy supplied WSDL, but simply reversing the process does not appear to be the solution... We have studied the manuals and are sure we are fully compliant with the list of capabilities and restrictions therein. Has anybody done anything like this with 6.3 (or a later version)? Anyone got any tips or docs to check out? ARS6.3 patch 011 Oracle 9 AIX 5.2 Tomcat Apache 5 TIA Mark Rushton Stylex I.T Ltd ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry
Claire, A number of people in our organization search for Incident from the Object List and go straight into creating a new incident without passing the console. Another option you might consider is setting the Service Desk's home page to HPD:Help Desk in their application preferences. Jennifer Meyer Remedy Technical Support Specialist State of North Carolina Office of Information Technology Services Service Delivery Division ITSM ITAM Services Office: 919-754-6543 ITS Service Desk: 919-754-6000 jennifer.me...@nc.govmailto:jennifer.me...@nc.gov http://its.state.nc.ushttp://its.state.nc.us/ E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties only by an authorized State Official. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Sanford, Claire Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:38 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** I still have a Remedy t-shirt that has minding your own business across the shoulders. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Tanner, Doug Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:55 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** Come on Claire - Your Business, Their Way! From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Sanford, Claire Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:45 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** I was going to ask the same question. My reason is that my Support center staff do not need to see open tickets. They put in about 90 tickets per day per person. They have to put a ticket in for every call. If they have to do all that extra clicking, it takes time. I hate the fact that the Classic View forms are being deprecated. For people working the tickets, the best practice view may be fine, but for entering a ticket and quickly verifying the info, it is not quick or easy. So, if my staff just open the form up and create a ticket without going through the click here, click here and finally click here process... will they lose any functionality? I think the designers of the views should have spent a day in a busy support center. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Chowdhury, Tauf Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:58 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** Are you talking about the OOB requester console that comes with Service Desk or the Service Request Management module? Either way, there is some functionality lost such as being able to see the Open tickets table. It all depends on what the requirement is. If all your users want to do is enter a request and forget about it, then having a direct entry form as you call it should be fine. Anything else, go with the requester console. I guess the question is... why don't you want to use the OOB entry form and why do you want to use the direct entry form? -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Kathy Morris Sent: Wed 8/10/2011 5:43 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: SRM: Request Console vs. Direct Entry Hi, If we enter the request via a direct entry form versus the request console, what functionality do I lose? Am I able to redirect surveys to the direct entry form or the work order form? Thanks. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.orghttp://www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.comhttp://www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.comhttp://www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.comhttp://www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ This email is subject to certain disclaimers, which may be reviewed via the following link.
Re: Atrium Normalization Job Schedules
Julie, we are running 7.6.03. Les, what version of atrium? From: rem...@arutilities.com rem...@arutilities.com To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:04 AM Subject: Atrium Normalization Job Schedules Hey Folks, We seem to have an issue where Normalization Job Schedules have disappeard. They are stored in the NE:JobSchedule form. Has anyone encountered this before? Thanks Les Ganton ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org 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 ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Web services in ARS 6.3
Mark, I have both consumed complex where we send parent/child to external as well as published complex where we consume parent/child, I don’t see details about the problem that you are having…but I’m currently on 7.6.4 SP1 and have done the same in 7.5…but I’m sure the features are available in earlier versions. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Mark Rushton Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:11 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Web services in ARS 6.3 ** Hi All I am trying to consume a complex web service from an external application and supply it with a parent / child response containing a list of items. We have managed to achieve this as incoming web service, i.e. the external application can create multiple rows in Remedy using a single web service call to a Remedy supplied WSDL, but simply reversing the process does not appear to be the solution... We have studied the manuals and are sure we are fully compliant with the list of capabilities and restrictions therein. Has anybody done anything like this with 6.3 (or a later version)? Anyone got any tips or docs to check out? ARS6.3 patch 011 Oracle 9 AIX 5.2 Tomcat Apache 5 TIA Mark Rushton Stylex I.T Ltd _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
Re: Web services in ARS 6.3
As long as the external web service WSDL loads into the Filter Set Fields action you should be able to map the root form's items easily. To add a sub form you do the Add button and tell it what field in the sub form is unique as well as what field in the sub form holds the parent form's entry ID. Fred -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Mark Rushton Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:11 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Web services in ARS 6.3 ** Hi All I am trying to consume a complex web service from an external application and supply it with a parent / child response containing a list of items. We have managed to achieve this as incoming web service, i.e. the external application can create multiple rows in Remedy using a single web service call to a Remedy supplied WSDL, but simply reversing the process does not appear to be the solution... We have studied the manuals and are sure we are fully compliant with the list of capabilities and restrictions therein. Has anybody done anything like this with 6.3 (or a later version)? Anyone got any tips or docs to check out? ARS6.3 patch 011 Oracle 9 AIX 5.2 Tomcat Apache 5 TIA Mark Rushton Stylex I.T Ltd ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry
I was referring to the Requester Console with SRM. We have some custom forms that need to be built. Based on the requirements, the team wants to open the custom forms. We are concerned about Surveys. Can surveys be generated off of work orders, or custom form data? In a message dated 8/10/2011 8:00:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tauf.chowdh...@frx.com writes: ** Are you talking about the OOB requester console that comes with Service Desk or the Service Request Management module? Either way, there is some functionality lost such as being able to see the Open tickets table. It all depends on what the requirement is. If all your users want to do is enter a request and forget about it, then having a direct entry form as you call it should be fine. Anything else, go with the requester console. I guess the question is... why don't you want to use the OOB entry form and why do you want to use the direct entry form? -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Kathy Morris Sent: Wed 8/10/2011 5:43 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: SRM: Request Console vs. Direct Entry Hi, If we enter the request via a direct entry form versus the request console, what functionality do I lose? Am I able to redirect surveys to the direct entry form or the work order form? Thanks. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. _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
Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry
Kathy, If you are truly talking about the Remedy Service Request Management console, regardless of the custom forms (Advanced Interface?) that you build for it, you will still need to create an associated SRD (Service Request Definition) for it. In doing so, there is a survey tab where you can configure custom or standard surveys that should be sent out for that specific SRD. So in short, the survey is really triggered off the resolution of your Service Request and not your fulfillment request (Incident/Change/Work Order). From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Kathy Morris Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:46 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** I was referring to the Requester Console with SRM. We have some custom forms that need to be built. Based on the requirements, the team wants to open the custom forms. We are concerned about Surveys. Can surveys be generated off of work orders, or custom form data? In a message dated 8/10/2011 8:00:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tauf.chowdh...@frx.com writes: ** Are you talking about the OOB requester console that comes with Service Desk or the Service Request Management module? Either way, there is some functionality lost such as being able to see the Open tickets table. It all depends on what the requirement is. If all your users want to do is enter a request and forget about it, then having a direct entry form as you call it should be fine. Anything else, go with the requester console. I guess the question is... why don't you want to use the OOB entry form and why do you want to use the direct entry form? -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Kathy Morris Sent: Wed 8/10/2011 5:43 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: SRM: Request Console vs. Direct Entry Hi, If we enter the request via a direct entry form versus the request console, what functionality do I lose? Am I able to redirect surveys to the direct entry form or the work order form? Thanks. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ ** This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry
Amen, Claire! We just rolled out with ITSM 7.6.04 about 2 weeks ago and we decided to go with the Best Practice view precisely because the Classic view is being deprecated. Our service desk analysts are already complaining that their hands hurt because of all the extra clicking. As far as our users are concerned, they don't care how nice and pretty and clean the screen looks - they want to be able to get to the information they need in the most efficient manner possible even if it means their screen looks a bit cluttered. Natalie Stroud Remedy Tester Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), contractor to Sandia National Labs Albuquerque, NM (505)844-7983 nkst...@sandia.gov mailto:nkst...@sandia.gov From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Sanford, Claire Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:45 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** I was going to ask the same question. My reason is that my Support center staff do not need to see open tickets. They put in about 90 tickets per day per person. They have to put a ticket in for every call. If they have to do all that extra clicking, it takes time. I hate the fact that the Classic View forms are being deprecated. For people working the tickets, the best practice view may be fine, but for entering a ticket and quickly verifying the info, it is not quick or easy. So, if my staff just open the form up and create a ticket without going through the click here, click here and finally click here process... will they lose any functionality? I think the designers of the views should have spent a day in a busy support center. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Chowdhury, Tauf Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:58 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** Are you talking about the OOB requester console that comes with Service Desk or the Service Request Management module? Either way, there is some functionality lost such as being able to see the Open tickets table. It all depends on what the requirement is. If all your users want to do is enter a request and forget about it, then having a direct entry form as you call it should be fine. Anything else, go with the requester console. I guess the question is... why don't you want to use the OOB entry form and why do you want to use the direct entry form? -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Kathy Morris Sent: Wed 8/10/2011 5:43 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: SRM: Request Console vs. Direct Entry Hi, If we enter the request via a direct entry form versus the request console, what functionality do I lose? Am I able to redirect surveys to the direct entry form or the work order form? Thanks. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. _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
Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry
I agree Natalie and that brings me to my other problem with BMC going with Flash embedded objects. All this talk about optimizing the mid tier for performance and they go with Flash?? OK terrific. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Stroud, Natalie K Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:58 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** Amen, Claire! We just rolled out with ITSM 7.6.04 about 2 weeks ago and we decided to go with the Best Practice view precisely because the Classic view is being deprecated. Our service desk analysts are already complaining that their hands hurt because of all the extra clicking. As far as our users are concerned, they don't care how nice and pretty and clean the screen looks - they want to be able to get to the information they need in the most efficient manner possible even if it means their screen looks a bit cluttered. Natalie Stroud Remedy Tester Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), contractor to Sandia National Labs Albuquerque, NM (505)844-7983 nkst...@sandia.gov mailto:nkst...@sandia.gov From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Sanford, Claire Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:45 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** I was going to ask the same question. My reason is that my Support center staff do not need to see open tickets. They put in about 90 tickets per day per person. They have to put a ticket in for every call. If they have to do all that extra clicking, it takes time. I hate the fact that the Classic View forms are being deprecated. For people working the tickets, the best practice view may be fine, but for entering a ticket and quickly verifying the info, it is not quick or easy. So, if my staff just open the form up and create a ticket without going through the click here, click here and finally click here process... will they lose any functionality? I think the designers of the views should have spent a day in a busy support center. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Chowdhury, Tauf Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:58 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** Are you talking about the OOB requester console that comes with Service Desk or the Service Request Management module? Either way, there is some functionality lost such as being able to see the Open tickets table. It all depends on what the requirement is. If all your users want to do is enter a request and forget about it, then having a direct entry form as you call it should be fine. Anything else, go with the requester console. I guess the question is... why don't you want to use the OOB entry form and why do you want to use the direct entry form? -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Kathy Morris Sent: Wed 8/10/2011 5:43 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: SRM: Request Console vs. Direct Entry Hi, If we enter the request via a direct entry form versus the request console, what functionality do I lose? Am I able to redirect surveys to the direct entry form or the work order form? Thanks. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. _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_ ** This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are
Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry
I seriously wonder sometimes how much real world beta testing BMC does with their clients prior to finalizing the form designs. 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 Stroud, Natalie K Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:58 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry Amen, Claire! We just rolled out with ITSM 7.6.04 about 2 weeks ago and we decided to go with the Best Practice view precisely because the Classic view is being deprecated. Our service desk analysts are already complaining that their hands hurt because of all the extra clicking. As far as our users are concerned, they don't care how nice and pretty and clean the screen looks - they want to be able to get to the information they need in the most efficient manner possible even if it means their screen looks a bit cluttered. Natalie Stroud Remedy Tester Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), contractor to Sandia National Labs Albuquerque, NM (505)844-7983 nkst...@sandia.gov mailto:nkst...@sandia.gov From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Sanford, Claire Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:45 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** I was going to ask the same question. My reason is that my Support center staff do not need to see open tickets. They put in about 90 tickets per day per person. They have to put a ticket in for every call. If they have to do all that extra clicking, it takes time. I hate the fact that the Classic View forms are being deprecated. For people working the tickets, the best practice view may be fine, but for entering a ticket and quickly verifying the info, it is not quick or easy. So, if my staff just open the form up and create a ticket without going through the click here, click here and finally click here process... will they lose any functionality? I think the designers of the views should have spent a day in a busy support center. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Chowdhury, Tauf Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:58 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** Are you talking about the OOB requester console that comes with Service Desk or the Service Request Management module? Either way, there is some functionality lost such as being able to see the Open tickets table. It all depends on what the requirement is. If all your users want to do is enter a request and forget about it, then having a direct entry form as you call it should be fine. Anything else, go with the requester console. I guess the question is... why don't you want to use the OOB entry form and why do you want to use the direct entry form? -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Kathy Morris Sent: Wed 8/10/2011 5:43 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: SRM: Request Console vs. Direct Entry Hi, If we enter the request via a direct entry form versus the request console, what functionality do I lose? Am I able to redirect surveys to the direct entry form or the work order form? Thanks. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. _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_ /prefont face=monospacesize=-3brThe information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and brmay contain confidential and/or privileged material. If the reader of this message is not the intendedbrrecipient, you are hereby notified that your access is
OT: SRM Developer Needed
Hi, We are currently looking for an SRM Developer. Pleae let me know if you interested. SRM Technical - Developer Experience/Skills: Build and configure service request definition based on design (Required) Familiarity and experience with SRM Advanced Interface Form (Required) Familiarity and experience with Web Services integration for SRM Experience with Java and XML is a plus Familiarity and experience in configuring service target for SLM AR System, ITSM, SRM, SLM 7.6 or higher (Required) Atrium Orchestrator (Required) WSDL (Required) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry
For some reason, they want to generate the survey off of the work order. Is there a way to build a survey for each of the work orders? In a message dated 8/11/2011 10:57:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tauf.chowdh...@frx.com writes: ** Kathy, If you are truly talking about the Remedy Service Request Management console, regardless of the custom forms (Advanced Interface?) that you build for it, you will still need to create an associated SRD (Service Request Definition) for it. In doing so, there is a survey tab where you can configure custom or standard surveys that should be sent out for that specific SRD. So in short, the survey is really triggered off the resolution of your “ Service Request” and not your fulfillment request (Incident/Change/Work Order). From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Kathy Morris Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:46 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** I was referring to the Requester Console with SRM. We have some custom forms that need to be built. Based on the requirements, the team wants to open the custom forms. We are concerned about Surveys. Can surveys be generated off of work orders, or custom form data? In a message dated 8/10/2011 8:00:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, _Tauf.Chowdhury@FRX.COM_ (mailto:tauf.chowdh...@frx.com) writes: ** Are you talking about the OOB requester console that comes with Service Desk or the Service Request Management module? Either way, there is some functionality lost such as being able to see the Open tickets table. It all depends on what the requirement is. If all your users want to do is enter a request and forget about it, then having a direct entry form as you call it should be fine. Anything else, go with the requester console. I guess the question is... why don't you want to use the OOB entry form and why do you want to use the direct entry form? -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Kathy Morris Sent: Wed 8/10/2011 5:43 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: SRM: Request Console vs. Direct Entry Hi, If we enter the request via a direct entry form versus the request console, what functionality do I lose? Am I able to redirect surveys to the direct entry form or the work order form? Thanks. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at _www.arslist.org_ (http://www.arslist.org/) attend wwrug11 _www.wwrug.com_ (http://www.wwrug.com/) ARSList: Where the Answers Are This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. _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_ This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. _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
Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry
Do you have a 1:1 relationship between your service requests and your work orders or does 1 service request generate 10 work order requests? If it is a 1:1 relationship between your SRD and the specific Work Order, then you would simply set the survey on the SRD and you would be done with it. Perhaps I should moonlight as your SRM developer! From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Kathy Morris Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:22 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** For some reason, they want to generate the survey off of the work order. Is there a way to build a survey for each of the work orders? In a message dated 8/11/2011 10:57:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tauf.chowdh...@frx.com writes: ** Kathy, If you are truly talking about the Remedy Service Request Management console, regardless of the custom forms (Advanced Interface?) that you build for it, you will still need to create an associated SRD (Service Request Definition) for it. In doing so, there is a survey tab where you can configure custom or standard surveys that should be sent out for that specific SRD. So in short, the survey is really triggered off the resolution of your “Service Request” and not your fulfillment request (Incident/Change/Work Order). From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Kathy Morris Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:46 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** I was referring to the Requester Console with SRM. We have some custom forms that need to be built. Based on the requirements, the team wants to open the custom forms. We are concerned about Surveys. Can surveys be generated off of work orders, or custom form data? In a message dated 8/10/2011 8:00:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tauf.chowdh...@frx.com writes: ** Are you talking about the OOB requester console that comes with Service Desk or the Service Request Management module? Either way, there is some functionality lost such as being able to see the Open tickets table. It all depends on what the requirement is. If all your users want to do is enter a request and forget about it, then having a direct entry form as you call it should be fine. Anything else, go with the requester console. I guess the question is... why don't you want to use the OOB entry form and why do you want to use the direct entry form? -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Kathy Morris Sent: Wed 8/10/2011 5:43 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: SRM: Request Console vs. Direct Entry Hi, If we enter the request via a direct entry form versus the request console, what functionality do I lose? Am I able to redirect surveys to the direct entry form or the work order form? Thanks. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org http://www.arslist.org/ attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com http://www.wwrug.com/ ARSList: Where the Answers Are This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. _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_ This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories,
Email Engine Scaling
Hello, Background: We have an AR system running 7.1, Oracle 10g, Solaris 10. The ARS is running on the same server as the database; there is no Server Group configuration. Question: To scale the email engine, is it possible to run two instances of the email engine on the same server and configure each to process separate defined mailboxes in the AR System Email Configuration form? Based on the email engine documentation, this seems to be supported. Do you recommend doing this when you are not using a server group and need to scale to accommodate a considerably higher volume of messages. The current configuration (with adjustments to the email properties file) performs well, however, we are concerned that the email engine may backlog when we double the total volume of outgoing messages (we will be doubling the activity in a couple of days). Thanks for your guidance and experiences. Ken Leihkauff North American Integrated Services Management Center (NAISMC) Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Email Engine Scaling
What is the current message throughput (incoming and outgoing)? Axton On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Leihkauff, Kenneth G (LEIHKAUFFK) kenneth.g.leihka...@saic.com wrote: ** Hello, ** ** Background: We have an AR system running 7.1, Oracle 10g, Solaris 10. The ARS is running on the same server as the database; there is no Server Group configuration. ** ** Question: To scale the email engine, is it possible to run two instances of the email engine on the same server and configure each to process separate defined mailboxes in the AR System Email Configuration form? Based on the email engine documentation, this seems to be supported. Do you recommend doing this when you are not using a server group and need to scale to accommodate a considerably higher volume of messages. The current configuration (with adjustments to the email properties file) performs well, however, we are concerned that the email engine may backlog when we double the total volume of outgoing messages (we will be doubling the activity in a couple of days). ** ** Thanks for your guidance and experiences. ** ** Ken Leihkauff North American Integrated Services Management Center (NAISMC) Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) _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
Re: Email Engine Scaling
I don't think I would have considered that approach unless I saw it discussed here. Couple of years ago I had to deal with increased message traffic, and fixed the problem by setting up two mailboxes and dropping the polling to 1 minute. These I have roughly load balanced with one box handling internal mail (Assigned group/person) and the other handling external emails. Each Remedy outgoing mailbox has its own thread to the mail server. Don't see what you gain with the second instance. ARS 6.3 patch 24 Oracle 9.2 SunOS 5.9 FYI Mark From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Leihkauff, Kenneth G (LEIHKAUFFK) Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:53 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Email Engine Scaling ** Hello, Background: We have an AR system running 7.1, Oracle 10g, Solaris 10. The ARS is running on the same server as the database; there is no Server Group configuration. Question: To scale the email engine, is it possible to run two instances of the email engine on the same server and configure each to process separate defined mailboxes in the AR System Email Configuration form? Based on the email engine documentation, this seems to be supported. Do you recommend doing this when you are not using a server group and need to scale to accommodate a considerably higher volume of messages. The current configuration (with adjustments to the email properties file) performs well, however, we are concerned that the email engine may backlog when we double the total volume of outgoing messages (we will be doubling the activity in a couple of days). Thanks for your guidance and experiences. Ken Leihkauff North American Integrated Services Management Center (NAISMC) Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ This e-mail is the property of NaviSite, Inc. It is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Distribution or copying of this e-mail, or the information contained herein, to anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Email Engine Scaling
If processing output is a concern you can always look at changing the polling to secs rather than mins, e.g. we poll every 10 seconds. (I think we process about 10-20k messages a day) com.bmc.arsys.emaildaemon.MailboxPollingUnitIsMinutes=false 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 Brittain, Mark Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:29 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Email Engine Scaling I don't think I would have considered that approach unless I saw it discussed here. Couple of years ago I had to deal with increased message traffic, and fixed the problem by setting up two mailboxes and dropping the polling to 1 minute. These I have roughly load balanced with one box handling internal mail (Assigned group/person) and the other handling external emails. Each Remedy outgoing mailbox has its own thread to the mail server. Don't see what you gain with the second instance. ARS 6.3 patch 24 Oracle 9.2 SunOS 5.9 FYI Mark From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Leihkauff, Kenneth G (LEIHKAUFFK) Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:53 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Email Engine Scaling ** Hello, Background: We have an AR system running 7.1, Oracle 10g, Solaris 10. The ARS is running on the same server as the database; there is no Server Group configuration. Question: To scale the email engine, is it possible to run two instances of the email engine on the same server and configure each to process separate defined mailboxes in the AR System Email Configuration form? Based on the email engine documentation, this seems to be supported. Do you recommend doing this when you are not using a server group and need to scale to accommodate a considerably higher volume of messages. The current configuration (with adjustments to the email properties file) performs well, however, we are concerned that the email engine may backlog when we double the total volume of outgoing messages (we will be doubling the activity in a couple of days). Thanks for your guidance and experiences. Ken Leihkauff North American Integrated Services Management Center (NAISMC) Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ This e-mail is the property of NaviSite, Inc. It is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Distribution or copying of this e-mail, or the information contained herein, to anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ /prefont face=monospacesize=-3brThe information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and brmay contain confidential and/or privileged material. If the reader of this message is not the intendedbrrecipient, you are hereby notified that your access is unauthorized, and any review, dissemination,brdistribution or copying of this message including any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are notbrthe intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.brpre ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Atrium Normalization Job Schedules
Les, Haven't worked with Atrium on that version. Just wrapped on an Atrium 7604p1 where we had *lots* of issues, but mostly with the Reconciliation Engine. Sorry I can't help here. From: rem...@arutilities.com rem...@arutilities.com To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:22 PM Subject: Re: Atrium Normalization Job Schedules Julie, we are running 7.6.03. Les, what version of atrium? From: rem...@arutilities.com rem...@arutilities.com To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:04 AM Subject: Atrium Normalization Job Schedules Hey Folks, We seem to have an issue where Normalization Job Schedules have disappeard. They are stored in the NE:JobSchedule form. Has anyone encountered this before? Thanks Les Ganton ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org 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 ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org 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
BMC CMDB and Remedy positions in the DC area
Dev Technology is looking for a Sr CMDB person, needs a TS-SSBI, Rockville, MD also need a Remedy ITSM developer, 3-5 years experience, with 7.5 experience, crystal city, VA Looking for a mid level develop in the Mechanicsburg, PA area also. great salaries, great 401k, beneifts. We are not a staffing company, these are positions we will be filling. mike .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
SRM 2.2 - Multiple Requestees, Multiple Services
Hi, ARS 7.1 SRM 2.2 ITSM 7.0.3 I am being given a scenario having to do with SRM that I'm hoping someone has faced and can provide advice. We are working on bringing our current system access requests into SRM from an outdated in-house application. The customer is asking for a way that a single person (say, a manager) could request the same service (a system access request) for multiple people. The request on behalf of functionality requires them to first select the person, then fill out the SR, and then do it again for each person. What they would like is to be able to fill out the SR once, select all of the people, then submit it. They consider this one request and would like to track it as a single entity. They would also like any of the people on the request to be able to track the status of the request. They are being ambiguous on whether one approval would suffice, or if there should be an approval for each user. I'm pushing them to accept that each person/access combo is a separate request, but then they want a common identifier to tie them all together. Additionally, they want to be able to select multiple SR's and submit them all at once. The out of the box Cart feature pretty much takes care of this need. Although, since one of their scenarios is 3 pieces of access for 5 people as one request, the Cart solution doesn't help when there are multiple requestees. Anyway, I'm being pushed down a path of building out an AIF to deal with all of this, but I don't relish the idea of trying to incorporate the individual SRD questions into the AIF, plus the maintainability of it. Seems like they want me to completely rebuild SRM. So... does anyone have any thoughts on this? Suggestions of out of the box features I could use (SRM 2.2) to satisfy their need? ITIL Best Practices that I can shield myself with? Approaches that will help them see the light? Favorite brands of rum? Thanks, Thad ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: SRM 2.2 - Multiple Requestees, Multiple Services
Yes it is with an AIF. You will have to determine if the requirement is for a SR for each person or a way to capture the list of people in a single service request. If it is a SR per person you will need to build a table field to hold the selected people and then create the WF to do the table loop and create each SR. There are some more items you need to review to insure that each of the people can see their individual SR. As you can see it has been asked for by other customers. -Original Message- From: Thad Esser thad.es...@gmail.com To: arslist arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Sent: Thu, Aug 11, 2011 8:24 pm Subject: SRM 2.2 - Multiple Requestees, Multiple Services ** Hi, ARS 7.1 SRM 2.2 ITSM 7.0.3 I am being given a scenario having to do with SRM that I'm hoping someone has faced and can provide advice. We are working on bringing our current system access requests into SRM from an outdated in-house application. The customer is asking for a way that a single person (say, a manager) could request the same service (a system access request) for multiple people. The request on behalf of functionality requires them to first select the person, then fill out the SR, and then do it again for each person. What they would like is to be able to fill out the SR once, select all of the people, then submit it. They consider this one request and would like to track it as a single entity. They would also like any of the people on the request to be able to track the status of the request. They are being ambiguous on whether one approval would suffice, or if there should be an approval for each user. I'm pushing them to accept that each person/access combo is a separate request, but then they want a common identifier to tie them all together. Additionally, they want to be able to select multiple SR's and submit them all at once. The out of the box Cart feature pretty much takes care of this need. Although, since one of their scenarios is 3 pieces of access for 5 people as one request, the Cart solution doesn't help when there are multiple requestees. Anyway, I'm being pushed down a path of building out an AIF to deal with all of this, but I don't relish the idea of trying to incorporate the individual SRD questions into the AIF, plus the maintainability of it. Seems like they want me to completely rebuild SRM. So... does anyone have any thoughts on this? Suggestions of out of the box features I could use (SRM 2.2) to satisfy their need? ITIL Best Practices that I can shield myself with? Approaches that will help them see the light? Favorite brands of rum? Thanks, Thad _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
Re: SRM 2.2 - Multiple Requestees, Multiple Services
Hey Thad, Been there done that... I can tell you from my experience that you should avoid it if you can. We have a single AIF that a requestor can add multiple users to while also requesting multiple bits of access. SRM, like any application that allows users to request services should be about the customer experience, and I can tell you now that adding in this type of functionality will make your form too hard to fill in and understand for the average user requesting access, particularly if you go down the same path that we did and make the access selection a drop-down menu which then gets added to a table on the form. I would go back to the customer and really drill down a lot deeper into the requirements you mentioned, questioning the business value and reasoning behind each one. Questions like How many of your customers are likely to need a batch user request option?. Is the development time needed to produce this nice to have functionality worth it? In terms of approaching the problem, I would look at creating a separate service for batch requests which gives the customer a link to an excel spreadsheet template that they need to fill out with the appropriate info. Get them to attach this spreadsheet to the batch service and then investigate a method of importing that data into a loader form which you could then manipulate and drive into SRM from there. Regards, Ben From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Thad Esser Sent: Friday, 12 August 2011 10:24 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: SRM 2.2 - Multiple Requestees, Multiple Services ** Hi, ARS 7.1 SRM 2.2 ITSM 7.0.3 I am being given a scenario having to do with SRM that I'm hoping someone has faced and can provide advice. We are working on bringing our current system access requests into SRM from an outdated in-house application. The customer is asking for a way that a single person (say, a manager) could request the same service (a system access request) for multiple people. The request on behalf of functionality requires them to first select the person, then fill out the SR, and then do it again for each person. What they would like is to be able to fill out the SR once, select all of the people, then submit it. They consider this one request and would like to track it as a single entity. They would also like any of the people on the request to be able to track the status of the request. They are being ambiguous on whether one approval would suffice, or if there should be an approval for each user. I'm pushing them to accept that each person/access combo is a separate request, but then they want a common identifier to tie them all together. Additionally, they want to be able to select multiple SR's and submit them all at once. The out of the box Cart feature pretty much takes care of this need. Although, since one of their scenarios is 3 pieces of access for 5 people as one request, the Cart solution doesn't help when there are multiple requestees. Anyway, I'm being pushed down a path of building out an AIF to deal with all of this, but I don't relish the idea of trying to incorporate the individual SRD questions into the AIF, plus the maintainability of it. Seems like they want me to completely rebuild SRM. So... does anyone have any thoughts on this? Suggestions of out of the box features I could use (SRM 2.2) to satisfy their need? ITIL Best Practices that I can shield myself with? Approaches that will help them see the light? Favorite brands of rum? Thanks, Thad _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ This e-mail is sent by Suncorp Group Limited ABN 66 145 290 124 or one of its related entities Suncorp. Suncorp may be contacted at Level 18, 36 Wickham Terrace, Brisbane or on 13 11 55 or at suncorp.com.au. The content of this e-mail is the view of the sender or stated author and does not necessarily reflect the view of Suncorp. The content, including attachments, is a confidential communication between Suncorp and the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this e-mail, including attachments, is unauthorised and expressly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately and delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Is there any better way (using some tools / utilities) to pull data from AR Schemas on Oracle database without using AR ODBC?
Hello, We have put our old Remedy Legacy System ( 6.3) system in read only mode after the ITSM launch last year in July. We are now working on decommissioning the old Remedy system but we need to keep the data in the Remedy system intact for auditing / reporting purpose. The version of the Remedy we are running on is dependent upon PA-RISC processor which HP doesn't sell any more. So if the hardware was to fail and we were beyond vendor support , we would not be able to restore remedy on another HP Server. So we are exploring options to pull Remedy report / data without going through the application server. The data we are targeting is from Helpdesk and Change forms and its associated join forms. One way to get the data from Oracle is via Oracle ODBC (DB is Oracle) and as per our reporting team's suggestion creating reports using Oracle ODBC from Crystal will not be feasible as some of the data stored in database tables are in numbers. E.g date fields, date in Work log field and drop down fields. Is there any better way ( using some tools / utilities) to pull this data from AR Schemas on Oracle database? Did any of you face this scenario when your company was migrating from 6.3 to 7.x? I would really appreciate for your valuable suggestion here. Note: Our current ARS version is 7.5 and ITSM version is 7.6.00 but in 2 weeks time we will be on AR 7.6.04 SP1 and ITSM 7.6.04 SP1. Our new database is oracle Thanks...Swanand ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
