Additional comments on req vs ritm vs sc_task

varunp · ‎11-30-2017

Hi All,

We are implementing a service now from scratch. I am seeing there are additional comments on Request, RITM as well as on Sc_Task.

The requester can only see additional comments of Request from Portal. And fulfiller can only see the additional comments from sc_task.

I want to know what is the best practice of using the additional comments.

Should I copy Request additional comments to sc_task and vice-versa so that requester and fulfiller both see the same additional comments and skip the RITM additional comments because it is of no use? If I do the same then how do I avoid the infinite loop?

In my organization, 1 Req will only have 1 RITM, but 1 RITM can have more than 1 task. If I need to copy Request additional comments to task, I need to copy in all sc_task. And when any fulfiller will add any additional comments on sc_task, I need to copy it to Request so that requester can see the fulfiller comments on Portal.

Any comments would be helpful.

Andrew Wortham · ‎11-30-2017

Hello Varun,

This is a very common question! Best practice in my experience is to hide the REQ for end users. Typically it is easier for the end users to deal with a single ticket and the RITM level is the natural ticket for them to know. However, this does take a bit of configuration. Including changing the portal to show RITMs in the menus and lists. And changing the notifications to navigate to the portal (this needs to be changed regardless)

As to end user - fulfiller communication, the RITM is often the place where this should occur, set up notifications / inbound actions on the RITM and train fulfiller to go up a level to communicate since sc_tasks just have work notes. I have seen and implemented business rules for some clients that carry additional comments up to the RITM and back down so that fulfillers can live at the task level while end users only see RITMs. Both work.

If you opt to try and use REQ as the point of contact you will have to add additional comments and work notes to the REQ.

In short no matter what you choose there is going to be some configuration involved and the most important part is that you get to a process that works for both the end users and fulfillers. But I would recommend using the RITM as the primary record for communication.

Best,

Andrew

View solution in original post

Fraggle Rock · ‎08-12-2021

HI there i have tried to use your code snip it but the below error any ideas

Catherine16 · ‎08-03-2020

Thank you. It worked for me too.

Snehal2 · ‎08-04-2020

Glad to hear this. 🙂

sarahleighton · ‎12-08-2020

Hi

I used this business rule code to copy comments from the RITM to tasks - however it is only copying the comments to the first task, and not any other task attached to the ritm (even when there are more tasks open at that time).

Did anyone else find this? Can anyone suggest what might be happening please?

Thanks very much,

Sarah

jwelton · ‎06-08-2022

Hi -

Thank you for this solution. I agree that working at the RITM level is the best solution but, unfortunately, it's a big change, plus we have workflows that spawn multiple SC Tasks that are assigned to multiple groups at the same time so the RITM cannot be assigned to one group or person. That said, I copied and implemented the BRs for "Copy Comments from RITM to SCTASK" and "Copy Comments from SCTASK to RITM" in our Rome instance.

For me, the customer comments are copied to all the tasks in the workflow including timestamps, even if the task is resolved/closed and even if the timestamps are the same. Any ideas on why that is?

I also get the following warning/error on the line that reads "var regex= new RegExp('\n');" : Unexpected control character(s) in regular expression: \x0a. Can you recommend a solution for this?

Thank you in advance for any help or advice you might have.

Thank you very much,

Jeff