Forrester's Total Economic Impact of Freshservice on IT Service Management Download Report

Start a new topic
Implemented

ITIL Standard Changes

 In ITIL the idea of standard changes is changes that have a standard rollout and backout plan. It would be awsome if it was possible to define these standard changes in Freshservice, and then when selecting af change as a standard change be able to select what kind of change and then have the fields automatically filled out from that standard change.


7 people like this idea

Totally!  I have been wishing that I could create many standard sub types.  For more granular tracking of what types of standard changes we're performing more often.  Drum up some solutions to reduce the number of these types of changes etc.


Definitely leaving a like on this.

It would be nice if you could customise the change plan in any way!

Any improvement?

Hi Jere and others


We recently launched a feature -  Form Templates where admins can define preset values for different types of Tickets and Changes.


Example: for a standard change to the server, details like rollout plan and backout plan can be saved and made available as a reusable template to the agents. So, while raising the change agents will just choose the applicable template and details will get automatically filled.


For more details please refer to: More on Form Templates


Regards

Rishul

Freshservice Product Management

It would still be far more useful to be able to edit the form not just pre-fill your form with some information.

The problem I'm seeing here, is that you can create a Form template for Standard changes, but in order to use that template, you have to allow selection of that change type in the Form fields. This means that agents seeking to bypass the approval process can specify a Standard change even when approval has not been received.


Another problem with the current change setup, is if the CAB is small. If a member of CAB creates a change, then they could potentially approve their own change, which would also bypass the whole point of change control. We could specify that approvals need to be made by the majority of CAB members, but if CAB is just 2 people, that doesn't help. We are left with just having the honor system. It would be nice if it were built in that approvals cannot be made by requesters.


I could write automations around both of these conditions, but that seems to be like going around your fingers to get to your thumb. Change control should be exactly that - controlled.

Login or Signup to post a comment