Flow for automatic closing On Hold Incident

[AdamUMC]

Hi there,

I'm trying to create a flow with the "Flow Designer", that automatically closes Incidents that are for a 6 days On Hold with reason "Awaiting Caller". 

I managed to setup up the following configuration (in order):
1.) TRIGGER AT INCIDENT where (Incident state changes to ON HOLD, and State changes to ON HOLD, and On hold reason changes to AWAITING CALLER, and checkbox for automatical closing changes to true).
2.) UPDATE AT INCIDENT RECORD: with work note and message about checkbox checked / automatic closing activated.
3.) TIMER: For flow delay of 3 days.
3.) UPDATE AT INCIDENT RECORD: Sends reminder to the Caller by adding a new Additional Comment.
4.) TIMER: For flow delay of 3 days (total 6 days).
5.) UPDATE AT INCIDENT RECORD: Closes the Incident and sends a Resolution Note.

This flow does work in a way, but it does not stop after receiving an answer from the Caller in the form of a new Additional Comment. It continues to work and closes Incidents which got response and should not have been closed but remain open. Only responseless Incidents should become automatically closed.

Several Business rules control the Incident State, State, On Hold Reason and checkbox value after updating or re-opening an Incident. Still this problem keeps happening, which says me the problem lays in the flow.

The question is where and how to solve this? Is it even possible? The hardest part is to implement the required waiting time (expressed in days) + meantime checks for new additional comments.

If anyone has ideas, I would appreciate. Thanks!

[Josh Pirozzi]

Hey @AdamUMC ,

We handle that outside of the Flow in a Business Rule. (See screenshots).

Thanks!

-Josh

[AdamUMC]

Thanks @Josh Pirozzi !

I had already some Business Rules who were maintaining details like this. 
However, I was in doubt if it was needed to continue with them or to build an (alternative) solution within Flow Designer.

Thanks for all screenshots. As far as I can see, it works very well now. 
This is how it looks now at the moment:

The waiting time as seen here is 3 minutes instead of 3 days because of testing reasons. 🙂

Actually I wanted this "If" statement to man with a condition like "if ... CHANGES to TRUE or FALSE", but that seems not possible. Only "if ... IS or IS NOT TRUE or FALSE. But it seems to work correctly as shown here below as well.

I have two more questions:
1.) What is the difference between "Do the following in Parallel" and "Do the following until"? I used the first option, the second one seems only usable for one(1) condition each time?
2.) I can't use this option again at the same Incident. Once used once, the workflow seems to want to do nothing more on the same incident (when trigger conditions are met again).

Thanks again!

[AdamUMC]

I solved all my questions and/or problems today:

PROBLEM: I can't use this option again at the same Incident. Once used once, the flow seems to want to do nothing more on the same incident (when trigger conditions are met again).
SOLUTION: Set "Run Trigger" (see screenshot here below), correctly;
NOT "Once" but "Only if not currently running" (sort of insurance that the flow must have been ended to trigger the same flow again). The other two options can be suitable as well.

QUESTION: Actually I wanted this "If" statement to man with a condition like "if ... CHANGES to TRUE or FALSE", but that seems not possible. Only "if ... IS or IS NOT TRUE or FALSE. But it seems to work correctly as shown here below as well.
SOLUTION: Using "CHANGES" in this condition is not needed, because the system (flow) waits for 3 minutes and AFTER this 3 minutes are fulfilled, it actually checks IF my checkbox is NOT checked on. IF YES, the flow continues the next steps. IF NO, the flow ends itself. 
If you would like to use "CHANGES" in this condition, the system (flow) would need to check always or frequently at least if the checkbox is checked on or not; it's an contineous cycle. Checking AFTER this 3 minutes is NOT contineous cycle and there for only "IS" or "IS NOT" are available within this condition statement.

My English is not very well, so I hope the reader can understand this input and consider it as useful.

Note: My business rules manage the check on and check off this checkbox.

@Josh Pirozzi: Thanks for all help, I appreciate! I'll accept your first answer as solution.

[Josh Pirozzi]

Hi @AdamUMC !

That is fantastic that you were able to find the solutions! I'll share what you've discovered/developed with my team as well.

Thanks!

-Josh