Do you need an IIS server for every IBM TRIRIGA application server?


Is it necessary to have a separate Microsoft IIS server for every IBM TRIRIGA application server?

It is not a requirement to have a separate Microsoft IIS server for every IBM TRIRIGA application server. Your IT team should determine if this is something that they want or need to do.

[Admin: To see other related posts, use the IIS tag.]

Continue reading

Advertisements

How do you have a generic service plan for three organizations?


So I’m trying to figure out the best way to set this up. I have a service plan that has a facilities project template. In the facilities project template, I have three project tasks. In each of those project tasks, I have assigned a specific responsible organization by work group.

So my questions are: If I have three organizations that want to use this same service plan, but they want each of the project tasks to be specific to their responsible organization by work group, how can I just have one generic service plan to satisfy all three organizations? Is there any method to accomplish this requirement in TRIRIGA?

[Updated 06.23.17]

Alright, after some research, I found out the best way to have a generic request class, service plan, facilities project template, and project tasks is by setting up a service agreement for each service provider. And within each service agreement, by creating a service assignment matrix (SAM) for all the possible combinations of request class, customer organization, and location or geography.

Secondly, in the service plan, set the project and task assignment rule to “Auto-Assign to Service Provider”. This will ensure that the workflow fires to check for associated SAM matching records to set the responsible organization for the facilities project record, and the project tasks.

If possible, I would request for a service assignment matrix (SAM) order of precedence and process flow, because it is really confusing functionality. I had to basically deconstruct the workflow to understand which values were being retrieved by the request class, service plan, service agreement, and SAM. Does anyone else have thoughts on the SAM? And tips on how best to maintain it?

[Admin: This post is related to the 11.10.16 post about updating your existing service matrix records, the 09.02.16 post about clarifying how service matrix records are generated, and the 12.11.15 post about finding the process flow diagrams.]

Continue reading

Serraview: Can traditional IWMS handle the modern workplace?


Integrated Workplace Management Systems (IWMS) were developed in the ’90s to address the technical limitations of sharing data between multiple real estate and facility management teams. The benefit of IWMS was having a single system for managing the entire real estate portfolio lifecycle. Since these systems were designed for traditional office space, progressive companies are starting to doubt the ability of IWMS to support the transition to the modern workplace…

It is no secret that IWMS are cumbersome to use, which results in companies hiring high-priced consultants for implementations. Paired with its lack of features and flexibility, IWMS frequently exceed their original prices due to customization…

To combat these issues, progressive companies are leveraging (IWMS 2.0) best-of-breed space management technology to augment their existing investment in traditional IWMS to support their modern workplaces. Space management technology is able to address the new requirements of modern workplaces such as neighborhoods, seating ratios, real-time utilization, and highlighting the differences between actual usage of space and allocation of space.

To learn more about IWMS in the modern workplace, download our white paper: “Can Traditional IWMS Meet the Requirements of the Modern Workplace?”

[Admin: To see other related posts, use the Serraview tag or IWMS 2.0 tag.]

Continue reading

Is there a way to set up parallel or peer approvals for a group?


We have a requirement to approve a record if anyone (not everyone) from the list approves it. For example, the approval requirement for contracts contains two users, A and B. If user A approves a contract, then it gets approved without user B. And vice versa, if user B approves it first, then user A is skipped. Can we do this?

Recently, I had an opportunity to test this, specifically, two users at level 1 and two users at level 2, etc. After speaking with the development team, each user at each level must approve the record. This is working as designed. There is no plan to change that behavior at this time. I believe that there is an open RFE to request the functionality in a future release. I suggest either opening an RFE or voting for the existing RFE if you need that functionality.

[Admin: This post is related to the 10.21.15 post about group approvals. To see other related posts, use the Approvals tag.]

Continue reading

IV96283: Copying blank spaces into a required field is still saved


If you make a field required, such as the “Description” field, and you copy and paste spaces from a Word document into the “Description”, you will be able to submit the request. Essentially, you have a submitted record, where the “Description” is required but still blank. Meanwhile, if you attempt to create a request with a “Description” where you manually enter the spaces, it will not let you submit it.

Moving forward, a text field value containing only spaces and/or carriage returns will be considered as empty, and will fail the required field validation, if applicable.

Continue reading

What are the minimum database permissions required by TRIRIGA?


I found this technote on the minimum required database permissions for TRIRIGA:

Following are the minimum permissions.
Anything else is untested and unsupported.

ALTER USER $dbuser$ QUOTA UNLIMITED ON $data_tblspace$;
ALTER USER $dbuser$ QUOTA UNLIMITED ON $index_tblspace$;

GRANT ANALYZE ANY TO $dbuser$;
GRANT CREATE VIEW TO $dbuser$;
GRANT CREATE TABLE TO $dbuser$;
GRANT ALTER SESSION TO $dbuser$;
GRANT CREATE SESSION TO $dbuser$;
GRANT CREATE SYNONYM TO $dbuser$;
GRANT CREATE TRIGGER TO $dbuser$;
GRANT CREATE SEQUENCE TO $dbuser$;
GRANT CREATE PROCEDURE TO $dbuser$;
GRANT DROP PUBLIC SYNONYM TO $dbuser$;
GRANT CREATE PUBLIC SYNONYM TO $dbuser$;
GRANT CONNECT TO $dbuser$;

ALTER USER $dbuser$ DEFAULT ROLE CONNECT;

But the following permissions are restricted for our customer:

ANALYZE ANY
ALTER SESSION
DROP PUBLIC SYNONYM
CREATE PUBLIC SYNONYM

Can you tell me if these permissions are only needed for installation? Or are they also required for runtime?

The IBM TRIRIGA product team does not test nor validate lower permissions than what is documented. All permissions granted to the user are required for the support of TRIRIGA, and removing permissions can lead to unexpected behavior, performance problems, and possibly data corruption.

Continue reading