Multiple Queries and some possible bugs?
Hi,
We implemented SD+ about 4 weeks ago now and have been using it regularly. It is very effective thus far for us and fulfilled a lot of our requirements. However, we are having some problems. I'm not sure whether these are due to shortcomings in the current version or bugs. Also, some of the items listed here are ideas we have on how the system could be of more benefit to us:
1) Is it possible to make entering a 'resolution' mandatory before a Request is closed?
2) Is it possible to enforce a workstation selection before a new Request is saved?
3) We are currently unable to add attachments to notes. We understand this may be planned for a future release?
5) There is no spell-check capability on notes, resolutions or solutions. Are there plans to introduce one?
6) We are unable to make use of the email facility as we are dependent on SMTP authentication. We understand this is being developed?
7) The 'admin' account uses up one of the technician licenses. Given we want to make use of all our licenses; we would need to rename this account and change the password. Is this possible?
8) In Purchase Orders, it doesn't appear to be possible to put in a negative price adjustment.
9) We have a fairly comprehensive Active Directory User Base and its good you provide an Import users facility for Requestors. However, this is an initial action and as new users arrive and old users leave, this needs to be amended. Is there any way of reducing the admin overhead here by having a more dynamic link to Active Directory? Or perhaps the option 'not' to overwrite a user if they are already present within SD+?
10) The Search facility will only do a simple search. For example, searching for the word "or" brings up every word containing this combination of letters. Are there any plans to extend the search facilities?
11) We don't always receive all our Purchase Orders in one go. Occasionally there can be a significant period in between receiving items. Are there plans to introduce a method for receiving 'part' of a purchase order?
12) We have a strong requirement to input repeating Requests. (E.g. a daily backup check). Are there plans to introduce a method for doing this? If it isn't an immediate item planned, what suggestions would you offer?
13) Will it be possible for Requestors to add notes?
14) Technicians typically leave their filter on 'My Open Requests'. Is there any chance we could display all �unassigned� Requests to all Technicians. Hence they would know without having to change view that there are pending items? Or even perhaps a listing on the Dashboard just displaying the number of �unassigned� Requests?
15) Are there plans to expand SD+ to cover physical location map of workstations?
16) There are a number of reports that could be very beneficial to us. These include reports detailing Requests by workstation & detailed (not summary) closed Request/Requests received reports.
17) The 'Closed Request by date by technician' report & 'Requests Received by date by technician' report generates an exception report 'The server encountered an internal error () that prevented it from fulfilling this Request.'
18) Are there plans to increase the filter/sort capabilities? Currently you can't filter/sort by technician, priority or category.
19) As the manager for the team, it would be good to be able to get an instant overview of how many Requests for all technicians are 'on hold', 'open', 'overdue', etc. Would it be possible to configure the Dashboard to display items this way for a manager?
20) Are there plans to include hyperlinking?
21) Would it possible to 'link' Requests without 'merging' them? For example, Request 5 can only be completed once Request 4 is completed.
22) Are there plans to allow customisation of display fields? For example, under Requests, it would be good to add columns like Request ID, Location, and Department etc.
23) There isn�t an option to print asset or workstation details other than the normal browser print process. Are there plans to introduce a button as with �print preview� for Requests?
24) The default view keeps returning to 25 views per page. We understand this is being addressed in a new release?
25) Are there plans to improve the method by which emailed Requests are categorised? Currently, they adopt whatever defaults are specified. It would be good if rules could be setup to interpret Subjects and categorise, prioritise and allocate appropriately.
26) Another key item would be the ability to schedule Requests to begin at a later date. For example, a Request that is not to be initiated until the weekend.
27) Could an option be added so 'on hold' could be set for a definitive period? For example, a Request would remain �on hold� for 2 days and then revert to �Open�, hence reinitiating the timer.
28) A possible bug here - It appears that putting a Request �on hold� doesn't actually stop the timer. Consequently the Request still goes overdue?
29) Configuring an SLA for 5 days does not actually list a completion date as with priorities specified in hours. This causes a problem with Requests never actually becoming overdue at all!
30) Once a Request has received an overdue flag, adjusting the completion date does not remove this flag. These Requests are still listed in the overdue reports.
Otherwise, we definitely appreciate the product and have are resounding thumbs up for the developers!
We implemented SD+ about 4 weeks ago now and have been using it regularly. It is very effective thus far for us and fulfilled a lot of our requirements. However, we are having some problems. I'm not sure whether these are due to shortcomings in the current version or bugs. Also, some of the items listed here are ideas we have on how the system could be of more benefit to us:
1) Is it possible to make entering a 'resolution' mandatory before a Request is closed?
2) Is it possible to enforce a workstation selection before a new Request is saved?
3) We are currently unable to add attachments to notes. We understand this may be planned for a future release?
5) There is no spell-check capability on notes, resolutions or solutions. Are there plans to introduce one?
6) We are unable to make use of the email facility as we are dependent on SMTP authentication. We understand this is being developed?
7) The 'admin' account uses up one of the technician licenses. Given we want to make use of all our licenses; we would need to rename this account and change the password. Is this possible?
8) In Purchase Orders, it doesn't appear to be possible to put in a negative price adjustment.
9) We have a fairly comprehensive Active Directory User Base and its good you provide an Import users facility for Requestors. However, this is an initial action and as new users arrive and old users leave, this needs to be amended. Is there any way of reducing the admin overhead here by having a more dynamic link to Active Directory? Or perhaps the option 'not' to overwrite a user if they are already present within SD+?
10) The Search facility will only do a simple search. For example, searching for the word "or" brings up every word containing this combination of letters. Are there any plans to extend the search facilities?
11) We don't always receive all our Purchase Orders in one go. Occasionally there can be a significant period in between receiving items. Are there plans to introduce a method for receiving 'part' of a purchase order?
12) We have a strong requirement to input repeating Requests. (E.g. a daily backup check). Are there plans to introduce a method for doing this? If it isn't an immediate item planned, what suggestions would you offer?
13) Will it be possible for Requestors to add notes?
14) Technicians typically leave their filter on 'My Open Requests'. Is there any chance we could display all �unassigned� Requests to all Technicians. Hence they would know without having to change view that there are pending items? Or even perhaps a listing on the Dashboard just displaying the number of �unassigned� Requests?
15) Are there plans to expand SD+ to cover physical location map of workstations?
16) There are a number of reports that could be very beneficial to us. These include reports detailing Requests by workstation & detailed (not summary) closed Request/Requests received reports.
17) The 'Closed Request by date by technician' report & 'Requests Received by date by technician' report generates an exception report 'The server encountered an internal error () that prevented it from fulfilling this Request.'
18) Are there plans to increase the filter/sort capabilities? Currently you can't filter/sort by technician, priority or category.
19) As the manager for the team, it would be good to be able to get an instant overview of how many Requests for all technicians are 'on hold', 'open', 'overdue', etc. Would it be possible to configure the Dashboard to display items this way for a manager?
20) Are there plans to include hyperlinking?
21) Would it possible to 'link' Requests without 'merging' them? For example, Request 5 can only be completed once Request 4 is completed.
22) Are there plans to allow customisation of display fields? For example, under Requests, it would be good to add columns like Request ID, Location, and Department etc.
23) There isn�t an option to print asset or workstation details other than the normal browser print process. Are there plans to introduce a button as with �print preview� for Requests?
24) The default view keeps returning to 25 views per page. We understand this is being addressed in a new release?
25) Are there plans to improve the method by which emailed Requests are categorised? Currently, they adopt whatever defaults are specified. It would be good if rules could be setup to interpret Subjects and categorise, prioritise and allocate appropriately.
26) Another key item would be the ability to schedule Requests to begin at a later date. For example, a Request that is not to be initiated until the weekend.
27) Could an option be added so 'on hold' could be set for a definitive period? For example, a Request would remain �on hold� for 2 days and then revert to �Open�, hence reinitiating the timer.
28) A possible bug here - It appears that putting a Request �on hold� doesn't actually stop the timer. Consequently the Request still goes overdue?
29) Configuring an SLA for 5 days does not actually list a completion date as with priorities specified in hours. This causes a problem with Requests never actually becoming overdue at all!
30) Once a Request has received an overdue flag, adjusting the completion date does not remove this flag. These Requests are still listed in the overdue reports.
Otherwise, we definitely appreciate the product and have are resounding thumbs up for the developers!
