Substatus for case status awaiting info

[Daniela18]

I have a requirement to adhd Substatus for case status awaiting info

Similar to incident,

status: awaiting info

substatus: awaiting user or awaiting other 

reason is for internal grouping to see what is awaiting user and what is awaiting info in related tasks. They feel like action status is not enough. But I feel like this is confusing for the user as the case is in my eyes simply open.

I know How to make the Change, i just don’t know if it’s a good idea, does anyone else use substate or any to give some advice here? 

[Mahesh Kumar3 · Accepted solution]

Hi @Daniela18 ,

It is very common practice to introduce sub state field in CSM as only state field doesn't fulfill the full requirement.

I have multiple options under On-Hold for example - Awaiting Change/ Pending with Customer/ Pending with Vendor and many more.

Though it's a customization but will be very useful. Even it can be used for reporting.

[Daniela18]

Out of curiousity, how is it used.

if a case has an underlying incident, is the state then on hold - pending 3rd part for example?

I can understand the need for Substatus but I just feel like they basically want to create an incident from a case and then set it to on hold - pending other and I just don’t know if that is correct

[Jonathan Zur]

Hi Daniela,

did you consider Case Action Status instead of Substate?

[Daniela18]

Yes, that is what I am advising them to use but they just don’t feel it is enough. They worked before in itsm solely so going into CSM is different for them when it comes to status. In incident they used state + substate and now they use case action status and state but they feel like they are missing substate. Example is if they are just pending a date, in incident they used pending other to keep track of the different status more easily and they are missing that in case. Sometimes they gave contact with vendors and want to choose substate for pending vendor etc