We were wondering if there was a way to set a
rule that will stop automatic approval routing for people who are already
As it stands, we have the following dispatch’r rule setup to require approval from a user’s reporting manager whenever they request something from our Service Catalog that costs more than $100:
The problem with this though is that if the requesting user is already defined as a manager within the company and has full permission to be approving things, that manager’s request will still be routed to the person above him.
For Example: The manager of our Geo department requests a new laptop for one of his employees. Even though this requester is already a manager and has every right to be ordering equipment within his department, this rule will still apply and route an approval to our CEO who is above him in our corporate hierarchy.
Is there a way to implement an option for conditions where a Requester Title DOES NOT INCLUDE. As of now, the only option under Requester Title is "Includes Any"
I was just wondering if we can change the way a manager requests for a new laptop.
Can I make a suggestion? There's an option to request an item for someone else. If the manager of the Geo department can enter the email ID of the actual requester i.e one of his employees then the approval wouldn't go to the CEO but would come back to the manager. This way, the ticket is also logged under the actual requester's name and makes for a more accurate service request report.
Of course, this is an assuming that the above said email ID is available. If not, then this might not be the actual solution.
You've also made an interesting suggestion for us regarding the "Does not include" option. Something for us to think about :)
Hope this helps!
Thank you for the response! That certainly would make things easier for existing employees.
Our issues would still be if the manager was requesting one for himself, or if it was for an employee who had just been hired but had not yet started and been put in the system, both would still be sent up the chain.
I know that we would love to have a "Does not Include" option, thank you for looking into this!
I'll make sure we're considering that option, it would definitely help.
Thanks for bringing this up, Chelsea :)