Marcelo: I can't speak to OLAs specifically, but we run ITSM 7.6.04 SP2, and the behavior we see with our Response and Resolution SLAs is exactly like what you describe for the OLAs as far as none of the service targets disappearing from the ticket. I can think of some instances where our users WANT to know what happened in the prior SLA as a part of understanding its overall history.
So, for our reporting, we have to figure out which service targets don't apply and filter those out. In Analytics, sometimes we can do that at the query level and add 'Progress' != "Detached" as a qualification, but occasionally we have to do it at the report level. Because our primary SLA is based on Priority, the Priority appears in the SLA name. So, for instance, in a recent report I created, I set up two variables that figured out what priority appeared in the Service Target name, then a third that I set to "Match" if the priority matched the current priority of the ticket and "No Match" if it didn't. Then I set a filter on my report that showed only those instances where this third variable is "Match". Because we dump our reports to Excel by default and have our users pick those up off our server, they can't come in and play with the filters (and get themselves confused!) the way they could if we let them log into Analytics directly. HTH, Natalie Stroud SAIC @ Sandia National Laboratories ARS-ITSM Tester Albuquerque, NM USA [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> ITSM 7.6.04 SP2 - Windows 2003 - SQL Server 2008 From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rajesh Nair Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: SLA behavior funk ** Guru's Correct me if i am wrong. If the slm are configured In groups.The 2nd sla will always take the start time of the earlier and calculate the time, and if the goal has passed when the Sla got attached it says missed On 8 Mar 2013 00:22, "Martinez, Marcelo A" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > ** > Hello list, > ARS/ITSM 7.6.04 > I have a case where OLAs are not behaving properly. In this case, an incident > was submitted as a medium "service request", but after review I changed it to > a medium "service restoration". When I did that, I would expect that the > request OLAs would detach and the restoration OLAs would attach. What I'm > seeing is that only one of the "request" OLAs is being detached. > Additionally, I'm not used to seeing the "Detached" OLAs stick around.. > > I have configured 4 target groups. One for each: restoration response, > restoration resolution, request response, request resolution. Each contains > Low, Medium, High, Critical service targets. > > > In ITSM 7.0.03, when an incident was changed from Medium to Low, the Medium > targets would "disappear" and the Low targets would "appear". Same goes for > when the incident was changed from request to restoration. > > There are 2 issues with the sample above. First is that the incident now > appears to have missed a target when it did not. Second, is that since there > are 3 OLAs attached to this incident it will skew reporting. > > Thanks, > Marcelo Martinez > > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
