| Author |
Message |
|
|
Hi All,
Been a while since i've been online here! But in the process of doing another SysAid deployment, so thought it was time to catch up on the latest news, bug everyone with a few questions.
The new deployment i'm doing will take place in a global company with 4 offices across the world, some with local IT support and others where we do a lot remotely or call in third party contractors.
The last couple of SysAid deployments have been pretty straight forward as i could communicate face to face with the staff, and beat them with a stick if they didn't obey. However in this case of doing alot remotely i'm having trouble working out the simplest way of deploying and training the end user.
What i'm after are some ideas from people who have done similar deployments.
So far i have been thinking of getting some banners/advertising items made up which can be put up in all the offices as well as circulated to the users. Also thinking maybe some cheat sheets on using the end user portal might come in handy..
Post away 
|
|
|
Hmm, All looks the same. Only thing i can think of is that the SR is indeed set to "suspended"? Other than that... Haim??
Cheers,
Troy
|
|
|
|
Can you post a couple of screen shots of your escalation settings screen, i'll compare them to mine and see if there's any difference.
|
|
|
Hi Wayne,
Should work ok. I have testing a similar setup, whereby we change the status to complete, then ask the users to confirm that the job is close before manually changing the status to verified complete. We have also put an escalation rule in place, whereby if the job is marked as verified complete within 3 days the status is changed automatically. This works fine for us.
I did note that there was two options with the escalation rule. Time from start, and time from last modified. I would expect that the last modified time would be the last time someone opened the SR. So if in that 30 days since last modified, someone opens it to view the details, it would change the last modified date and extend the "30" day period.
Maybe try setting it to a shorter period, IE a couple of hours and see if that works?
|
|
|
I should also mention this run's on a windows print server here, however i would imagine it probably would run on most OS's. 
|
|
|
Hey Oblix!
We've just recently gone down the same path, so happy to give you some feedback.
We outlined the following requirements:
- Secured Printing (either via PIN number or some other means)
- Report on printing usage by user, department or even project if needed
- Central printing pool (users print to single printer, then are able to print to any printer)
- Control print usage, IE the ability to restrict a particular user/department to a budgeted print allowance
Being all our mulitfunction copiers are Canon, i discussed this with them first off. There proposal was to implement a software called UniFlow. Like most softwares these days, uniflow is made up of a bunch of different modules, so it was quite easy to taylor particular modules to our requirements.
With the selected modules we met all the requirements and in some cases exceeded them. A good example being secured printing. As i'm sure most people know, in time's gone by HR/Management often had their own desk printers as they were always printing off confidential stuff. These printers were always high cost, and unreliable, not to mention a general pain in the ass to manage! With UniFlow we implemented swipe card access using our existing building access cards.
Now when a user wants to print, they print to an input printer. Then they can walk up to any printer in the building and swipe their access card and print off there documents. It's really very cool! It also comes in handy if you need to take a printer down for maitenance, as it just means they have to swipe onto a different printer. No having to go add another printer, then print to that, then when you bring the original printer back online it spews out 300 jobs that people queued up.
The other benefits we gained:
- A reduction in waste printing. Usually people would send a few things to the printer but then either not collect them, or the prints would get moved/lost etc and would have to be reprinted. Now nothing gets printed off until the user logs onto the printer and selects print. Another reduction of waste printing was through people sending the job twice, or sending it to print and spotting a typo. Because they have to select the document before they print it, they have the option of deleting jobs they don't want.
- The benefit to send print jobs to the printer all day, then spend 5 minutes in the afternoon to print everything off at once.
There's a bunch of options in the system that we haven't yet played with and i'm looking forward too. These include least cost printing, for example if you have a small laser printer that costs you 20cents per page to print a standard A4 B&W page, and a high volume printer that only costs you 1.1cents per same A4 B&W page. You can enforce that the document can only be printed to the high volume printer, thus reducing printing costs.
Another one is the ability to set rules for local desktop printers. You can integrate them into UniFlow, and setup rules so the user can print X prints per day/week/month, and the rest redirect to a larger printer. You can say for example any document over 10 pages won't print to the local printer.
It's really quite configurable and flexible. The best part is it's not actually a Canon product, it's made by another firm somewhere in the UK, so it should work with pretty much all printers.
Any questions ask away
|
|
|
|
Anybody? Am i going about this the wrong way maybe??
|
|
|
Hi All,
I'm interested to hear how you handle closed jobs that aren't completed?
As we're using Sysaid more and more i'm coming across more instances of jobs that a technician has closed believing to be complete, only to have the end user come back a few minutes/hours/days later having the same problem.
My intention would be to have to end user verify the completion of each job by either the below feature request, or using the current way of opening a link to the SR and ticking the closed box and submitting it which would change the status from closed/complete to verified complete. I have also put in place an escalation rule whereby if its still sitting as closed and hasn't changed after 3 days its considered abandoned/completed and automatically changed to verfied complete
I should point out that sometimes things obviously aren't tested completely before the job is closed, however there's always going to be similar issues to this even if tested.
What i want to avoid is too much extra work for both the end user and the tech's as we are a smallish bunch.
Tell me how you manage the problem and/or give me some suggestions to my solution.
Cheers,
Troy
http://www.ilient.com/Sysforums/posts/list/0/865.page
|
|
|
|
Will do... Thanks Haim.
|
|
|
Hi Haim,
Thanks for your answer, speedy as usual
Your solution will work, however i was hoping there would be a way that the link could actually set the status to verified closed, without the end user having to tick a box and hit OK.
IE when the End user clicks on the link they are taken to a page that basically just says "Thankyou for verifying your service request #ID is closed. If you have any further problems please raise a new SR via the preferred methods." and then behind the scenes would change the status from closed to verified closed.
Cheers,
Troy
|
|
|
Sorry for dragging up an old thread, but didnt think my question warranted a new one.
Is it possible for me to send a link in the closed email which the end user can click and change the status to verified closed or open?
What we would like to do, is once a SR is completed to our satisfaction set it to complete. Apon being set to complete, an email would be sent to the end user stating that we beleive the SR to be finished, if you agree click here (which would then take them to a page and change the status to verified complete.
I've worked out that by using an escalation rule we can automatically change the status automatically after X period to verified closed.
Cheers,
Troy
|
|
|
That is absolutely positively brilliant!
|
|
|
I also cop this question a fair bit, and being that the corporate devices we use are approved by a product council in Norway i contacted them to find the logic behind the decision.
There response was that there not used for a miriad of reasons, however the main reasons being
1) Provisioning differences. In a central service desk environment where you control numerous devices in different locations, the ability to control the device via standard group policies (in the case of windows mobile devices) is paramount.
2)PKI certificates, which are another means of security are note supported by non windows mobile devices.
I also find that from a user perspective a windows mobile device being based on windows in general is alot easier for a user to get used to when compared with the iphone or similar interfaces.
|
|
|
We use whatever the clients want. However i personally prefer firstname.lastname. Just keeps it uniform and organised...
|
|
|
|
I use firefox mainly, but use IE with sysaid. However i have found that the interface becomes more and more sluggish to longer you have it open.
|
|
|
