Skip to main content

Does anyone know how I can send the approval email to the reporting manager of the person added to the requested for field in a service request?

Currently, if a requester creates a service request, let’s say for access to a mailbox, and they request it for themselves, then the approval email goes to their reporting manager. That’s fine. But if a user makes the same request but for another user the approval email will go to the requesters managers and not the requested for’s manager.

We have a strict approval procedure where only a user’s director can approve requests for any access changes. For example, if a director requests access for one of his team to get access to something, we don’t want that approval email going to the directors reporting manager, the CEO. The approval would still need to be completed by the director. We have other examples where users might fill in on other teams, and users making requests on behalf of others.

One way to solve this would be for the requester in the requested for field to be changed to the requester, but I can’t see if that’s possible.

In the case below, the reporting manager of the person it’s requested for should give approval, not the requester

 

Hi Conor.

I can think of two possible ways (there may be others though) for achieving this:

The first would be your second option. As a matter of fact, we do have a Transitory (temporary) status used in a workflow to swap the values in Requested For and Requested By. The workflow grab both values, clear the fields, run a timer (the minimum is 60 seconds) and then put the values back on the fields but swapped.

You could add your current logic for getting the manager and sending the corresponding approval on the same workflow or on a different one.

Or, you could even check those values at ticket creation and perform the swap if the values are different (with your corresponding additional filters or conditions) and then you’ll have data properly setup right at the time of ticket creation.

 

The second approach I could think of is using API calls in a workflow in order to get the manager of the user in the requested for field, and then send the approval email to that contact.

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

Regards,


Does anyone know how I can send the approval email to the reporting manager of the person added to the requested for field in a service request?

Currently, if a requester creates a service request, let’s say for access to a mailbox, and they request it for themselves, then the approval email goes to their reporting manager. That’s fine. But if a user makes the same request but for another user the approval email will go to the requesters managers and not the requested for’s manager.

We have a strict approval procedure where only a user’s director can approve requests for any access changes. For example, if a director requests access for one of his team to get access to something, we don’t want that approval email going to the directors reporting manager, the CEO. The approval would still need to be completed by the director. We have other examples where users might fill in on other teams, and users making requests on behalf of others.

One way to solve this would be for the requester in the requested for field to be changed to the requester, but I can’t see if that’s possible.

In the case below, the reporting manager of the person it’s requested for should give approval, not the requester

 

Option 1, teach your user to use the built in Request For function. 
Then you can use the placeholder Requested for Manager. In your workflow you should always use that placeholders and if you the requester don’t use the For function it’s going to be them self. 

Option 2, as @eeha0120 is onto, using API to search for the 
https://api.freshservice.com/v2/#filter_requesters and https://api.freshservice.com/v2/#view_a_requester
I recommending using a drop down field with Source All users
Then you have access to the correct e-mail using placeholders. 


Thanks, option 1 and teaching requesters how to use the functionality is probably the best option, thanks


Reply