Looking for guidance on how best to use REQ, RITM and SCTASK.

bostonsnow
Kilo Guru

‎10-04-2017 07:43 AM

Hello,

We went live with SNOW in May and the biggest pain point across the board by far has been using the Service Request module, specifically how to use REQ, RITM and SCTASK. The 3 record system is causing major confusion across the requestors, fulfillers and even the admins.

Requestors track their Service Requests on the Service Portal via the RITM record. However, request fulfillers work out of the SCTASK. If they have all the required information, they fulfill the request and close the SCTASK which we have set up to auto-close the RITM and REQ.

However, there are situations where there is 2 way communication required between the fulfiller and the requestor. Currently, when this situation arises we have the fulfiller post their message to the Additional Comments field on the RITM. The requestor then replies and the response is posted back to the RITM. The issue is that this requires the fulfiller to monitor 2 records (RITM and SCTASK) for one request.

The problems I am trying to solve are:

        1. Ensure fulfillers only need to work out of one record for a request.

        2. Ensure fulfillers can have a 2 way conversation with the requestor from this one record.

I am considering adding the Additional Comments field to the SCTASK form and have these comments auto-post to the RITM so they are visible to the requestor. However, when the requestor responds their reply gets posted to the RITM and the fulfiller would then need to check the RITM. Should I then have the reponse posted to the SCTASK? I feel like we are bending over backwards and applying excessing custom configuration just trying to make this 3 record request model work for us.

Has anyone else run into this situation? If so, how do you resolve it?

Any guidance here would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Mike

  • 6,839 Views
16 REPLIES 16

Kalaiarasan Pus
Giga Sage

‎10-20-2017 07:30 AM

Below is our current requests design.



  • REQ is totally suppressed from the users. This means we have changed the order screen and displays only the RITM related information when requests are submitted.
  • End users (requestors) only take action on the RITMs.
  • Fulfillers work on the catalog task only.
  • Custom buttons are added on Task and fulfillers can use it to request additional information from requestor if required. This copies the comment to RITM. This also changes the state of the RITM and Task denoting that it is pending customer input.
  • When the RITM is in the pending input state, a button is shown to the requestor that will allow the requestor to provide clarification. Comments added are copied back to the task that raised the clarification.
  • Notifications are sent when the clarification is requested and when they are answered.
  • Reset the states of Tasks and RITMs to the original state when the clarification is provided.


At no point in the workflow are we exposing either the end users or the fulfillers to the REQ numbers. They only deal with RITM and Tasks for everything.



Hope that helps.


0 Helpfuls

bostonsnow
Kilo Guru
In response to Kalaiarasan Pus

‎10-20-2017 07:45 AM

Thank you Kalaiarasan P for this detail. This is very close to our setup. I just had some questions on these two items and how you went about it...



  • Custom buttons are added on Task and fulfillers can use it to request additional information from requestor if required. This copies the comment to RITM. This also changes the state of the RITM and Task denoting that it is pending customer input.

              Question: Does the request for additional information text get created as an Additional Comment on the SCTASK that is auto-copied to the RITM Activity log?



  • When the RITM is in the pending input state, a button is shown to the requestor that will allow the requestor to provide clarification. Comments added are copied back to the task that raised the clarification.

            Question: What field are these comments posted to? Additional Comments?


0 Helpfuls

Kalaiarasan Pus
Giga Sage
In response to bostonsnow

‎10-20-2017 07:54 AM

1 - Work notes on Task.


2 - On click of the button a dialog box to allow the user to enter the comments (UI page). But I guess a better design would be to make additional comments fields mandatory and use it to drive the process.


0 Helpfuls

HugoFirst
Kilo Sage

‎10-20-2017 10:55 AM

Michael,   you are getting lots of great advice from various people and I am learning too as I read this sage advice.


There is yet another option you can consider for 2 way communication.   And that is the email client on the form.


Your full-filler can use the email client to send a message directly to the requester, or any one else for that matter.


This message will also appear in the record's activity log, as will any replies that come back.   This could be done in either the task or ritm record.



email_client.png


Preview file
48 KB

bostonsnow
Kilo Guru
In response to HugoFirst

‎10-20-2017 11:06 AM

I like this suggestion Steve! We would have to ensure the following happens:



1. Only the RITM# is referenced in the email subject and body



      Question: Would this be done configured in a mail template?



2. The email response is posted to the RITM



        Question: Inbound Action?



3. The email response posted to the RITM is copied to the SCTASK



        We know how to do this.


0 Helpfuls