Standard change tasks created prior to "implement" or "schedule"

[Quinten]

Good morning ServiceNow enthusiasts

Could somebody explain to me the actual reason why the tasks defined within a standard change template are created and assigned PRIOR to the implementation phase? I do understand they are pre-approved changes, but even if it's a standard change, I would expect the tasks to be created only when it reaches the implement phase to avoid executing the change outside of the agreed change window.

If somebody could explain this to me potentially with some sources, I would appreciate that.

Thanks and best regards

Quinten

[Dr Atul G- LNG]

Hi @Quinten 

A standard change always moves to the Scheduled state, where the team can allocate resources based on the planned start/end time and the implementation plan.

But what in ServiceNow prevents the users from executing the change before the agreed change window?

Atul:Out-of-the-box, it’s not available. However, you can build a custom logic to restrict the execution of changes before the start date/time.

[Ryan S]

This is exactly what I'm researching now as well. I was finding it very counter-intuitive to have tasks created ahead of time for Changes when on Service Requests everything is 'just-in-time.' The discussion here certainly helps me reframe it so teams can see the upcoming work. Now it gets me wondering why the same approach isn't applied on Service Requests? You can make the same argument that teams want to know the upcoming work and be able to plan. In either case, there's always the potential the work doesn't actually need done (some approval is rejected or task is cancelled). There's the added issue of inconsistency in task generation, so teams have to learn their "upcoming" work doesn't exist in most cases, only on changes and in that case it's only on standard changes and in that case it's only if the standard change has template tasks. This could be very confusing for users.

I do think if tasks are generated ahead of time there'd need to be some additional configuration to prevent them from actually starting the task ahead of time. Maybe a form notification as well ("this task hasn't reached its start date").

[Quinten]

Thank you for the acknowledgement. I really like your idea of the message "this task hasn't reached it's start date" or just the general concept of simply showing a message. A simple but non-invasive work around that could get the job done.