It’s not always required to have a Review Activity or Manual Activity for a Service Request but you might have noticed that if you don’t have those then the complete button can take some time to appear for the technician to close the Service Request. When your techs are on the phones constantly and working multiple sessions this can become an annoyance. All they want to do is track the call in the ticket and move on. How about allowing them to track that call, save the ticket and move on to the next and have that ticket close itself?
I’m not sure if this applies to the OOB portal but using the Cireson portal, when adding new fields you need to map them to the Target ID of the field you are mapping to. One thing that cought me by surprise was trying to get Requested by User working on the portal for change management but no matter what I did the user was not filled out in the console change request.
Have you ever noticed that Service Requests have the user input from the portal on the front of the ticket but Incidents don’t. If you’re like most users of SCSM you have probably extended the incident or service request class with some generic fields so you can ask more questions on the portal and have fields to map to, if not I’ll save that for another post.
Anybody who works with SCSM knows the DW can be a finicky mistress. You have to treat her well or she will make your life miserable. Jobs failing, Cubes not processing. Rerruning jobs from the consoles gets you no where most of the time. I’ve had to deal with this on multiple occasions and it isnt fun when CAB is quickly approaching and no data is coming into the reports. This is one of my bigger issues so I thought I would share the information I recieved from Microsoft support on how to get things running smoothly again.
When I am dealing with Review Activities in Service Manager I always use Orchestrator to populate the reviewers. I try to hard code as little as possible into the templates so I have to maintain as little as possible. One requirement that I was given for a change management project I worked on was to use an AD group that would contain CAB voting members and use that group to populate the CAB review activity. One caveat to that was, no matter how big the AD group got, only 3 approvers where needed. The problem is, a review activity sets the approval threshold by percentage. If we had 10 possible CAB voters then I could set the threshold to 30% but if we added an additional 2 or 3 users to that group then 30% would no longer work and I’m not going to babysit that template as people come and go.