Use Operator Full Name

[lomah]

I wonder if anyone has any ideas as to how best to achieve the following:

Our SC Operator IDs (name in the operator file) are the same as our network login IDs. Our Contact IDs (contact.name in the contacts file) are also the same as our network login IDs, as we wanted a way to easily identify our people uniquely, using their login ID.
So, our operator and contact IDs are the same, and have nothing to do with a person's name. For example, Joe Bloggs may use operator and contact IDs VJB10. However, we want the "Use Operator Full Name" option, set in the Service Management environment, to still display the operator's real name, i.e. Joe Bloggs, as we want all references to an operator in SM to show the full name. This would apply to added.by, updated.by, closed.by, activity entries etc. I have added fields for first and last name to the operator table, and populated them from the related contact record.
I was thinking about changing the full.name field in the operator record to be a concatenation of the first and last names, which would work, but I'm not sure if there would be any implications in other areas in doing this.
Does anyone have any ideas?

[outlance]

I was thinking about changing the full.name field in the operator record to be a concatenation of the first and last names, which would work, but I'm not sure if there would be any implications in other areas in doing this.
Does anyone have any ideas?

I don't see any problem calculating the full.name in formatctrl operator like: full.name in $file=nullsub(first.name in $file, "")+nullsub(last.name in $file, "")

[lomah]

Thanks, outlance.
I suppose I would also have to change the link from operators to contacts, as currently this uses the full.name field.

I don't see any problem calculating the full.name in formatctrl operator like: full.name in $file=nullsub(first.name in $file, "")+nullsub(last.name in $file, "")

[outlance]

Thanks, outlance.
I suppose I would also have to change the link from operators to contacts, as currently this uses the full.name field.

You could remove the link line.

I have never seen an implementation using [last.name], [first.name] as unique key contact.name. In big organizations there's always the possibility to have duplicates.

In actual system I work on (using AssetCenter as leading system for contacts) both - operator name and contact.name are identical - this helps integrating both data. Maybe in a new release HP architects change it

In such an environment (operator name=contact.name) you could create a link line for field "name" that fills "name" from "contact.name" and that fills variables called $L.xyz.first.name, $L.xyz.last.name from "first.name" and "last.name"

and in post expressions (link details) you create an expression like:
full.name in $File=nullsub($L.xyz.last.name, "")+", "+nullsub($L.xyz.first.name)
cleanup($L.xyz.last.name);cleanup($L.xyz.first.nam e)

Greets,

Lars

[lomah]

Thanks again, outlance. This, strangely enough, was the solution I came up with. I have never understood why Peregrine always insisted on having the contact.name as Last Name, First Name out-of-the-box, as in reality it is very unlikely that any company would use it. However, the out-of-the-box system has a lot of quirks like that. I keep telling them that they should spend more time getting the out-of-the-box system looking and working better. Maybe HP will ....

You could remove the link line.

I have never seen an implementation using [last.name], [first.name] as unique key contact.name. In big organizations there's always the possibility to have duplicates.

In actual system I work on (using AssetCenter as leading system for contacts) both - operator name and contact.name are identical - this helps integrating both data. Maybe in a new release HP architects change it

In such an environment (operator name=contact.name) you could create a link line for field "name" that fills "name" from "contact.name" and that fills variables called $L.xyz.first.name, $L.xyz.last.name from "first.name" and "last.name"

and in post expressions (link details) you create an expression like:
full.name in $File=nullsub($L.xyz.last.name, "")+", "+nullsub($L.xyz.first.name)
cleanup($L.xyz.last.name);cleanup($L.xyz.first.nam e)

Greets,

Lars

[outlance]

I keep telling them that they should spend more time getting the out-of-the-box system looking and working better.

That's a good idea

What I really do not understand: Why don't they have a standard function that allows you to search an incident from Call open form and assign relate this call to the selected incident. This is a standard function in many other tools.... there are a lot other issues like that...

BUT otherwise you have the flexibility to adapt ServiceCenter to your specific needs and that's WHY ServiceCenter has established.

Have a nice day,
Lars