Triggering a new ticket on custom field change

Hi everyone,

Please forgive the cross-post from the AT list. It seems appropriate
given the topic. (Orginal thread included below for context.) The
question below deals with the proper place to store requests for change
(RFCs) in an RT/Asset Tracker system.

My original plan was to create a new Asset Type in AT for RFCs. Todd
and Torsten think that using tickets for RFCs make more sense. I’m
prepared to be convinced either way. Here are some pros and cons as I
see them.

RFCs in Asset Tracker
(+) more true to the ITIL CMDB concept
(+) easy links between RFCs and other Assets (Configuration Items in
ITIL-speak)
(-) no scrip support
(-) no support for longer form text data
(-) no file attachments

RFCs as tickets
(+) scrip support
(+) file attachments
(+) new RFC creation via email or other API
(-) possible conceptual discontinuity between “tickets” and RFC

I’d appreciate any feedback from anyone else who’s considered using RT
this way.

-Tim

Hi Todd & Tim,

from my point of view, i think Todd is right, an RFC is bound to a
Asset but
don’t need to exsist inside the CMDB.

Btw: In the RT Users Group a small Sub Project ITIL starts and i
think it is
a good idea also to CC the RT- Users for this, i’m not sure if all
involved
RT- Users are also inside the AT List.

And i think RT together with AT is the perfect tool to support the
ITIL
process.

@Tood: What do you think about the Date Fields for a asset as i wrote
into
your Wishlist? This is import for most items, how hard is it to code
this
into AT?

Mit freundlichen Gruessen / With kindest regards

Torsten Brumm

Kuehne + Nagel
Ferdinand Strasse 29- 33
20095 Hamburg
Germany

Tel: +49 40 329 15 199
Fax: +49 40 329 15 500
Www: www.kuehne- nagel.com

----- Original Message-----
From: at- users- bounces@lists.chaka.net
[mailto:at- users- bounces@lists.chaka.net] On Behalf Of Todd
Chapman

Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:22 PM
To: Tim Wilson
Cc: at- users@lists.chaka.net
Subject: Re: [at- users] Triggering a new ticket on custom field
change

Why would you make an RFC an assets? I would think it would
be a ticket.

There is no scrips system for assets. Someday…

I’d like to create a custom field called “status” in my request
for

change (RFC) asset type that would be set to “Approved” upon
review

(and
approval) by my Change Manager.

Once the RFC is approved I’d like to create a ticket in a
different

queue and link it back to that RFC. Can that ticket creation and
linking be automated?

  • Tim


Tim Wilson, Director of Technology
Buffalo- Hanover- Montrose Schools
214 1st Ave NE Buffalo, MN 55313
ph: 763.682.8740 fax: 763.682.8743 http://www.buffalo.k12.mn.us

Tim Wilson, Director of Technology
Buffalo-Hanover-Montrose Schools
214 1st Ave NE Buffalo, MN 55313
ph: 763.682.8740 fax: 763.682.8743 http://www.buffalo.k12.mn.us

Hi Tim, RT/AT Users,

from the ITIL process i think it can only be point 1, that RFC’s has to be
stored inside RT, because of AT is the CMDB and a RFS is changing only a
asset inside the CMDB, but it is still a RFC and not a Asset. So what we
need is the ability to change the asset after the RFC is commited and done,
at its best per script.

Torsten2006/9/29, Tim Wilson twilson@buffalo.k12.mn.us:

Hi everyone,

Please forgive the cross-post from the AT list. It seems appropriate
given the topic. (Orginal thread included below for context.) The
question below deals with the proper place to store requests for change
(RFCs) in an RT/Asset Tracker system.

My original plan was to create a new Asset Type in AT for RFCs. Todd
and Torsten think that using tickets for RFCs make more sense. I’m
prepared to be convinced either way. Here are some pros and cons as I
see them.

RFCs in Asset Tracker

(+) more true to the ITIL CMDB concept
(+) easy links between RFCs and other Assets (Configuration Items in
ITIL-speak)
(-) no scrip support
(-) no support for longer form text data
(-) no file attachments

RFCs as tickets

(+) scrip support
(+) file attachments
(+) new RFC creation via email or other API
(-) possible conceptual discontinuity between “tickets” and RFC

I’d appreciate any feedback from anyone else who’s considered using RT
this way.

-Tim

On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 2:52 AM, in message 003501c6e2d3$10990b40$61fd3f0a@dew04141, “Torsten Brumm” torsten.brumm@kuehne-nagel.com wrote:
Hi Todd & Tim,

from my point of view, i think Todd is right, an RFC is bound to a
Asset but
don’t need to exsist inside the CMDB.

Btw: In the RT Users Group a small Sub Project ITIL starts and i
think it is
a good idea also to CC the RT- Users for this, i’m not sure if all
involved
RT- Users are also inside the AT List.

And i think RT together with AT is the perfect tool to support the
ITIL
process.

@Tood: What do you think about the Date Fields for a asset as i wrote
into
your Wishlist? This is import for most items, how hard is it to code
this
into AT?

Mit freundlichen Gruessen / With kindest regards

Torsten Brumm

Kuehne + Nagel
Ferdinand Strasse 29- 33
20095 Hamburg
Germany

Tel: +49 40 329 15 199
Fax: +49 40 329 15 500
Www: www.kuehne- nagel.com

----- Original Message-----
From: at- users- bounces@lists.chaka.net
[mailto:at- users- bounces@lists.chaka.net] On Behalf Of Todd
Chapman

Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:22 PM
To: Tim Wilson
Cc: at- users@lists.chaka.net
Subject: Re: [at- users] Triggering a new ticket on custom field
change

Why would you make an RFC an assets? I would think it would
be a ticket.

There is no scrips system for assets. Someday…

On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 02:06:51PM - 0500, Tim Wilson wrote:

I’d like to create a custom field called “status” in my request
for

change (RFC) asset type that would be set to “Approved” upon
review

(and
approval) by my Change Manager.

Once the RFC is approved I’d like to create a ticket in a
different

queue and link it back to that RFC. Can that ticket creation and
linking be automated?

  • Tim


Tim Wilson, Director of Technology
Buffalo- Hanover- Montrose Schools
214 1st Ave NE Buffalo, MN 55313
ph: 763.682.8740 fax: 763.682.8743 http://www.buffalo.k12.mn.us


Tim Wilson, Director of Technology
Buffalo-Hanover-Montrose Schools
214 1st Ave NE Buffalo, MN 55313
ph: 763.682.8740 fax: 763.682.8743 http://www.buffalo.k12.mn.us


http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com
Commercial support: sales@bestpractical.com

Discover RT’s hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O’Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com

MFG

Torsten Brumm

http://www.torsten-brumm.de

I don’t know about ITIL and what is RFC in this concept :slight_smile: but I want
to comment on “(-) no file attachments”

Later RT versions have support for binding transactions to any objects
in RT. You can see it in action via WebUI:
RT->Configuration->Groups->->History.
Attachments are sticked to transactions, consequently you can add
attachments to any objects. :slight_smile: Sure, you should code a little to do
that.On 9/29/06, Tim Wilson twilson@buffalo.k12.mn.us wrote:

Hi everyone,

Please forgive the cross-post from the AT list. It seems appropriate
given the topic. (Orginal thread included below for context.) The
question below deals with the proper place to store requests for change
(RFCs) in an RT/Asset Tracker system.

My original plan was to create a new Asset Type in AT for RFCs. Todd
and Torsten think that using tickets for RFCs make more sense. I’m
prepared to be convinced either way. Here are some pros and cons as I
see them.

RFCs in Asset Tracker

(+) more true to the ITIL CMDB concept
(+) easy links between RFCs and other Assets (Configuration Items in
ITIL-speak)
(-) no scrip support
(-) no support for longer form text data
(-) no file attachments

RFCs as tickets

(+) scrip support
(+) file attachments
(+) new RFC creation via email or other API
(-) possible conceptual discontinuity between “tickets” and RFC

I’d appreciate any feedback from anyone else who’s considered using RT
this way.

-Tim

Best regards, Ruslan.