Re: SRM Question Conditions
Jason, Assuming that you map your Q&A answers to SR Type fields on the Service Request, PD can use the values from these fields in the process to determine the path to follow in the process, or use within actions (email messages, pushing to other forms, etc) Additionally, when the process creates a fulfilment request, it can store the id of the request created to be referenced in further actions should you need to read values from or update later on in the process. Regards, Chris From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Jason Miller Sent: 29 July 2013 23:20 To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: SRM Question Conditions ** That is exactly it, no SRM:AppInstanceBridge records if the SRD uses a PD process instead of a PDT. I had to hit my archive to refresh my memory. The impact is: 1. When an SR is cancelled the fulfillment request is not cancelled 2. When a fulfillment request is cancelled/completed the SR is not cancelled/completed (or any other status update for that matter) 3. Work Info entered in the SR cannot be seen in the fulfillment request 4. Work Info entered in the fulfillment request cannot be seen in the SR 5. Getting the following error when trying to open the SR from the fulfillment record (View Service Request button) * A failure occurred because the Web Path of the remote server is not configured in the AR System Server to Key Map form. (ARERR 9284) * We noticed in the database that the SRMSRegistryInstanceID column in the Change Request is NULL on the PD created request. If I update the record with the CAI:AppRegistry ID for SRM the button starts to work but the other 4 symptoms remain. * We found that we can hard code the value of SRMSRegistryInstanceID in the Process Designer and #5 is no longer an issue. Chris, Can you give an example of "PD processes can still interact with the service request for your Q&A answers or the fulfilment requests created"? Jason On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Chris Jones wrote: ** You are both correct. PD will set the srinstance id field on the fulfilment request but it does not create the additional entry in APP:Instance Bridge form (I think this is the form name, I don't have access to a server right now.) There were plans to introduce this but not sure on the current situation. PD processes can still interact with the service request for your Q&A answers or the fulfilment requests created. Chris --- Original Message --- From: "Tauf Chowdhury" Sent: 29 July 2013 20:23 To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: SRM Question Conditions ** Jason, Interesting that the relationship between SR and Fulfillment is not there. I had worked extensively with the Abydos team and specifically requested that functionality and from what I remember, they built that in. Maybe it got dropped in translation when BMC acquired them. Chris Jones should be able to answer this. >From what I remember, the "create request" task in PD is just a push to the interface forms right? You could probably do a set fields $service request ID$ or the instance ID into the SRID fields o the interface form you're trying to push to. I remember the one thing that was missing was if you had a task to create a change/incident from within another change/incident, it wouldn't push the relationship to the respective Associations form. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 29, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Jason Miller wrote: ** 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+S RD 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 impo
Re: SRM Question Conditions
That is exactly it, no SRM:AppInstanceBridge records if the SRD uses a PD process instead of a PDT. I had to hit my archive to refresh my memory. The impact is: 1. When an SR is cancelled the fulfillment request is not cancelled 2. When a fulfillment request is cancelled/completed the SR is not cancelled/completed (or any other status update for that matter) 3. Work Info entered in the SR cannot be seen in the fulfillment request 4. Work Info entered in the fulfillment request cannot be seen in the SR 5. Getting the following error when trying to open the SR from the fulfillment record (View Service Request button) - A failure occurred because the Web Path of the remote server is not configured in the AR System Server to Key Map form. (ARERR 9284) - We noticed in the database that the SRMSRegistryInstanceID column in the Change Request is NULL on the PD created request. If I update the record with the CAI:AppRegistry ID for SRM the button starts to work but the other 4 symptoms remain. - We found that we can hard code the value of SRMSRegistryInstanceID in the Process Designer and #5 is no longer an issue. Chris, Can you give an example of "PD processes can still interact with the service request for your Q&A answers or the fulfilment requests created"? Jason On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Chris Jones wrote: > ** > You are both correct. PD will set the srinstance id field on the > fulfilment request but it does not create the additional entry in > APP:Instance Bridge form (I think this is the form name, I don't have > access to a server right now.) > > There were plans to introduce this but not sure on the current situation. > > PD processes can still interact with the service request for your Q&A > answers or the fulfilment requests created. > > Chris > > --- Original Message --- > > From: "Tauf Chowdhury" > Sent: 29 July 2013 20:23 > > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: SRM Question Conditions > > ** > Jason, > Interesting that the relationship between SR and Fulfillment is not there. > I had worked extensively with the Abydos team and specifically requested > that functionality and from what I remember, they built that in. Maybe it > got dropped in translation when BMC acquired them. Chris Jones should be > able to answer this. > From what I remember, the "create request" task in PD is just a push to > the interface forms right? You could probably do a set fields $service > request ID$ or the instance ID into the SRID fields o the interface form > you're trying to push to. > I remember the one thing that was missing was if you had a task to create > a change/incident from within another change/incident, it wouldn't push the > relationship to the respective Associations form. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 29, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Jason Miller wrote: > > ** 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> 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
Re: SRM Question Conditions
Which version of SRM are you on? I believe in latter versions you can have conditions on conditions on conditions. We don't recommend more than 5 levels or so as it gets confusing, but you can have conditions on conditions. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Vyom Labs Support Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 3:36 AM To: 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_ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
Re: SRM Question Conditions
You are both correct. PD will set the srinstance id field on the fulfilment request but it does not create the additional entry in APP:Instance Bridge form (I think this is the form name, I don't have access to a server right now.) There were plans to introduce this but not sure on the current situation. PD processes can still interact with the service request for your Q&A answers or the fulfilment requests created. Chris --- Original Message --- From: "Tauf Chowdhury" Sent: 29 July 2013 20:23 To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: SRM Question Conditions Jason, Interesting that the relationship between SR and Fulfillment is not there. I had worked extensively with the Abydos team and specifically requested that functionality and from what I remember, they built that in. Maybe it got dropped in translation when BMC acquired them. Chris Jones should be able to answer this. >From what I remember, the "create request" task in PD is just a push to the interface forms right? You could probably do a set fields $service request ID$ or the instance ID into the SRID fields o the interface form you're trying to push to. I remember the one thing that was missing was if you had a task to create a change/incident from within another change/incident, it wouldn't push the relationship to the respective Associations form. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 29, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Jason Miller wrote: ** 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> 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] *On Behalf Of *Tauf Chowdhury > *Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2013 6:42 AM > > *To:* 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> 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
Re: SRM Question Conditions
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" 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 th
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> 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 *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> 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] *On Behalf Of *Tauf Chowdhury *Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2013 6:42 AM *To:* 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> 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 *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 conditio
Re: SRM Question Conditions
Jason, Interesting that the relationship between SR and Fulfillment is not there. I had worked extensively with the Abydos team and specifically requested that functionality and from what I remember, they built that in. Maybe it got dropped in translation when BMC acquired them. Chris Jones should be able to answer this. >From what I remember, the "create request" task in PD is just a push to the interface forms right? You could probably do a set fields $service request ID$ or the instance ID into the SRID fields o the interface form you're trying to push to. I remember the one thing that was missing was if you had a task to create a change/incident from within another change/incident, it wouldn't push the relationship to the respective Associations form. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 29, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Jason Miller wrote: ** 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> 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] *On Behalf Of *Tauf Chowdhury > *Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2013 6:42 AM > > *To:* 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> 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 Be
Re: SRM Question Conditions
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 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 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" 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> Fol
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> 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] *On Behalf Of *Tauf Chowdhury > *Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2013 6:42 AM > > *To:* 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> 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 > *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 > >
Re: SRM Question Conditions
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] On Behalf Of Tauf Chowdhury Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:42 AM To: 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" 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 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"
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> 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 *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 Follow Vyom Labs http://twitter.com/#!/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 *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_ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
Re: SRM Question Conditions
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 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 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"
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: <http://www.vyomlabs.com> www.vyomlabs.com Follow Vyom Labs <http://twitter.com/#%21/vyomlabs> http://twitter.com/#!/vyomlabs || <http://www.linkedin.com/company/vyom-labs> 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 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_ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
Re: SRM Question Conditions
Hi Tauf, Yes i was looking for the same, Thanks for your response . Regards, Dinesh kumar, On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Roger Justice wrote: > ** > Process Designer that was Abydos, can allow multiple condition's. A user > can answer 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5. PD will allow the output to be 4 > different tasks that the input from the answer will be the qualification. > Answer = 1 go to A, Answer =2 go to B and so forth. > -Original Message- > From: Tauf Chowdhury > To: arslist > Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 2:39 pm > Subject: Re: SRM Question Conditions > > Dinesh, > You weren't very detailed but let me take a guess and give you examples. > Lets say you have a question and the answers are Yes and No. You would > click on the question on the left after you add the 2 choices and then > click Add Condition. You have to then pick whether it is for the Yes > or No choice. You then should highlight the choice you picked the > condition for. You then have to add the "sub" questions under the > choice. Lets say you did that for choice "Yes. " You then need to > rinse and repeat for choice "No" if you need condition questions under > that choice. > In 7.6.04, you can only go 1 level deep on conditions. What that means > is you can't go and add conditions for the questions you added under > choice "Yes" in the example. > In v8.x of SRM, you're able to add multi level conditions. > Hope this answers your question and doesn't confuse you further as you > sink down the SRM rabbit hole. :) > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 28, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Dinesh Kumar wrote: > > > ** > > 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_ > > ___ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years" > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
Re: SRM Question Conditions
Process Designer that was Abydos, can allow multiple condition's. A user can answer 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5. PD will allow the output to be 4 different tasks that the input from the answer will be the qualification. Answer = 1 go to A, Answer =2 go to B and so forth. -Original Message- From: Tauf Chowdhury To: arslist Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 2:39 pm Subject: Re: SRM Question Conditions Dinesh, You weren't very detailed but let me take a guess and give you examples. Lets say you have a question and the answers are Yes and No. You would click on the question on the left after you add the 2 choices and then click Add Condition. You have to then pick whether it is for the Yes or No choice. You then should highlight the choice you picked the condition for. You then have to add the "sub" questions under the choice. Lets say you did that for choice "Yes. " You then need to rinse and repeat for choice "No" if you need condition questions under that choice. In 7.6.04, you can only go 1 level deep on conditions. What that means is you can't go and add conditions for the questions you added under choice "Yes" in the example. In v8.x of SRM, you're able to add multi level conditions. Hope this answers your question and doesn't confuse you further as you sink down the SRM rabbit hole. :) Sent from my iPhone On Jul 28, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Dinesh Kumar wrote: > ** > 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_ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
Re: SRM Question Conditions
Dinesh, You weren't very detailed but let me take a guess and give you examples. Lets say you have a question and the answers are Yes and No. You would click on the question on the left after you add the 2 choices and then click Add Condition. You have to then pick whether it is for the Yes or No choice. You then should highlight the choice you picked the condition for. You then have to add the "sub" questions under the choice. Lets say you did that for choice "Yes. " You then need to rinse and repeat for choice "No" if you need condition questions under that choice. In 7.6.04, you can only go 1 level deep on conditions. What that means is you can't go and add conditions for the questions you added under choice "Yes" in the example. In v8.x of SRM, you're able to add multi level conditions. Hope this answers your question and doesn't confuse you further as you sink down the SRM rabbit hole. :) Sent from my iPhone On Jul 28, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Dinesh Kumar wrote: > ** > 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_ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
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. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
