Home Service Manager Portal Feature Requests
We appreciate you taking the time to vote and add your suggestions to make our products awesome! Your request will be submitted to the community for review and inclusion into the backlog.

We recommend reviewing what is submitted before posting, in case your idea has already been submitted by another community member. If it has been submitted, vote for that existing feature request (by clicking the up arrow) to increase its opportunity of being added to Cireson solutions.

For more information around feature requests in the Cireson Community click here.

Add copy to new to change requests

Could you add the “copy to new” feature into changes requests. It is a great feature in the Incidents and Service request and could add value in the changes requests. We often have scenarios where the same change is logged and the only thing that really changes is the date and time. This would reduce the amount of time it takes to submit these "repeat changes" down to a minute or so. 
3 votes

Duplicate · Last Updated

This is a duplicate of discussion 275.


  • Options
    Tom_HydeTom_Hyde Customer Advanced IT Monkey ✭✭✭
    Isn't this just a Standard Change? I'd recommend just creating template(s) for frequent and well understood changes.
  • Options
    Mike_ParryMike_Parry Customer IT Monkey ✭
    edited July 2016
    We have templates but don't want to create loads of templates as it clutters the environment. By adding this feature people could return to the prior change and re-log it. One could also say that for Service Request we also have templates , so why not just use those.
  • Options
    Adam_DzyackyAdam_Dzyacky Product Owner Contributor Monkey ✭✭✭✭✭
    Seems to be a classic SCSM battle - "textbook procedure" seems to be to the effect of "Template a Standard Change" but user flexibility/wants are "Allow me to try to create a re-occuring change by copying to new"

    I've always seen both sides of this.
  • Options
    Leigh_KildayLeigh_Kilday Member Ninja IT Monkey ✭✭✭✭
This discussion has been closed.