I am trying to build a workflow/field update such that;

Worklfow:   contact Status = Former Employee.     Status is a picklist

Field Update:  remove all values in the multi-select picklist Q2  

But the Field Update field choice doesn't seem to offer multi-select picklists as choices of fields to update

How can I accomplish this?

Is there a way to make Assignement Rules run on existing (not new) cvase records?   We have a situation where exisitng cases that meet a set of criteria are assigned to a queue by workflow.  Is there a way to then re-assign these cases from the queue to various owners using Assignement Rules? 

We currently have Cases linked to Accounts that are created by:

• Self-Service Portal Users (all of these cases have a Contact)
• Email-to-Case (most are from recognized Contacts who may or may not be SSP user, but many are from folks at our Account who are neither a Contact nor an SSP user)
• Our internal SF users speaking on the phone to customers (all of these cases have a linked Contact and Account)

All of our Self Service Portal Users are super-users.  Any one of them can see all Cases linked to their Account, irrespective of which of the above paths were used to create the case.  This is a critical feature.

We would like to move away from the Self Service Portal and move all our active SSP users to the Customer Portal.  However, they must be able to see all the Cases at their Account.

We know their is no super-user feature in the Customer Portal, but have been told by Salesforce.com that we can effectively create it with Public Groups and Case Sharing Rules.  But can we really?

We can only put Users into Public Groups.   With a Case Sharing Rule that uses the Public Group, we can enable all of the Customer Portal Users to see each others cases.  But, they cannot see the Cases linked to their Account that were created by or for non-portal users. 

Is there a solution for this?

We are planning on moving from the Self Service Portal to Customer Portal.  I have 2 questions:

#1  -  Super Users:  All of our current SSP users are super-users.  We want all contacts at our customers to be able to see, comment and add attachments to all cases for their account.  How do we replicate this sharing in the Customer Portal?

#2  -  We will also begin using parent-child relationships with some accounts.  For these accounts we will want contacts at the parent to be able to see, comment and attach to cases of parent and all children, but contacts of the children to only have rights to all cases at their account, like #1 above.  How would we set this up?   I believe we will need to use sharing rules, but more specific advice would be welcome.

I need advice.

We want to build an account hierarchy of parent accounts and child accounts (no deeper), with a related list on the parent account and the parent account field on the child account pointing back to the parent.  We have done this - so far so good.

Next, we need the contacts at the parent account to be able to create cases for the child accounts either thru customer portal or by our support group creating cases for them.  The contacts at the parent accounts need to be able to see, add comments and attachments to these cases at their child accounts.

Do we need a sharing rule?  at account or case?  or ???

We need a better way to have conversations/tasks between Level 1 and Level 2 Support.

Background:  In our shop, difficult support cases can be escalated to Level 3 Support for assistance.   Level 3 never closes cases, just provides advice or fixes and returns cases  to Level 1 or 2 who communicates the fix to our customer.  We have the ability to move cases up and down (1-2-3-2-1).   However, this is being used is a way I didn't anticipate when I designed it.

Problem:  Level 3's return a case to the Level 2 rep (the system knows who it was) when they want him/her to answer a question about the case and the Level 2 then returns it to the Level 3 rep with an answer as an internal comment.   So, what's happening is that they are using the Escalate/Return process just to have a conversation about a case.  This was never  intended.  It's add too much delay into the case flow.

Needed:  I would prefer that the probable case solver keep ownership of the case but have a trackable way to ask a question of the L2 (or any SF user) or ask for documentation, etc.  Sending emails is no good.  They get lost and don't have any tracking.  Same with case comments.     Can I associate tasks with case?  Can I use Chatter?   Is there a better way to solve this?

Ideas welcome!   

I would iike to display the name of the original case owner on the case page after a case is reassigned.  I have created a field Level 1 Owner Id where I capture the original owner id upon reassignment.  But, I have been unable to figure out how to the display the name of the original owner from the id value stored in  Level 1 Owner Id.  There must be a way..  Please help.

The following trigger,  and an alternative suggested on this board, do not work as planned because the IF always evaluates to FALSE, even when the account manager field is non-blank.

Original Failing Trigger

trigger OpportunityTrigger on Opportunity (before ​insert) {

  for(Opportunity o : Trigger.new) {
    String accountManager = (String)o.Q2_Account_M​gr__c;
    
    if((accountManager != null && accountManager.l​ength() >= 15)) {      
      o.OwnerId = o.Q2_Account_Mgr__c;  
    } } }

Suggested Alternative

for (Opportunity o : trigger.New) {

if (o.Q2_Account_Mgr__c != null) {

o.OwnerId = o.Q2_Account_Mgr__c;

Related Info

• field Q2_Account_Mgr__c is a lookup field on the Account record that is related to a User
• Irrespective of whether this field conatins data or is empty, the IFs in either trigger always evaluate to FALSE

Is the problem that since this trigger runs on the Opportunity that it can't see a lookup field on the Account?  Or ??

This trigger was written by a consultant, but it doesn't work.  I think it is becuase we have account managers whose names are less than 15 characteers long.  It is suppose to add the correct account manager as owner of the new opportunity as long as the account manager field on the account isn't empty.  Comments?  How do I fix if true?  Obvisously, setting 15 to 5, but what is the process to change it?

trigger OpportunityTrigger on Opportunity (before insert) {

  for(Opportunity o : Trigger.new) {
    String accountManager = (String)o.Q2_Account_Mgr__c;
    
    if((accountManager != null && accountManager.length() >= 15)) {      
      o.OwnerId = o.Q2_Account_Mgr__c;  
    }
  }

}

Is there a way to validate a lead owner so it cammot be changed to a non-sales person by checking the profile or role of the new owner?

Something like: 

AND (
             ISCHANGED(OwnerId),                                      /* If Owner is changed */ 
            OwnerId.profilename    <>    "Q2 RSM"            */  New owner not salesrep  */

              /* IS THERE A FIELDNAME FOR THE PROFILE OR ROLE OF THE LEAD OWNER? */ 

          )

          

Is there a way to send an alert email to the case owner if a new email is posted to his/her case?

Backbround:  Most of our customers are banks.  They submit cases to us via email, phone and the self-service portal.  But we have situations where cases get submitted for the banks by others.  There are parent companies and third party service companies that submit cases for our shared customer banks.  Currently, these cases get linked to the 3rd party/parent account, since SFDC recognizes the contact and/or email address, which is corrently at the parent.  But this causes us problems.  We would really like to have the case linked to the actual bank (account) that has the problem, not to the submitter's account.

I have considered writing a validation rule to force the reps to change the linked account in teh case to the actual account when it is linked to a parent/3rd party account.  But this creates a new problem in that that 3rd parties won't be able to see the cases in the self service portal.

So, is there a way for 3rd parties/parents to submit cases for our shared customers where the case is linked to the actual account with the issue but where the case can be tracked by the 3rd party?

Can we do this with Customer Portal?   which we currently don't use?   or is there some other way?

We have 4 possible values for case origin (Email, Web, Phone, Proactive).  We assign Email from Email-to-Case.  We assign Web for Web-to-Case.  When SF users create a case in SF, they can pick from all four origins.  I would like to restrict them from picking Email or Web.  Allowing only Phone or Proactive.

I have attempted to write a validation rule that knows when a case is new and from Email-to-Case or Web-to-Case allowing Weba nd Email, but preventing it for SF users except admins.  All attempts makes Email to Case fail with:

Email-to-Case: Error(s) encountered while processing

The following errors were encountered while processing an incoming email:

FIELD_CUSTOM_VALIDATION_EXCEPTION : Origin Email/Web is invalid for user created cases

It's clear I don't understand how to identify Email-to-Case cases.  It works as desired for SF users and Web-to-Case.

Here my validation rule (about version 12!):

AND   ( ISNEW(),                                                                                                if record is new
              NOT OR (   ISBLANK(Case_Owner__c) ,                                           if  owner blank (made Web-to_Case work) OR
                                   Case_Owner__c    = "Technical Support Queue",             if owner is queue (default owner for record types
                                   Case_Owner__c    = "Services Request Queue",
                                   Case_Owner__c    = "Jocie Garrett",                                  if default case owner

                                   CreatedBy.LastName  = "Garrett",
                                   $Profile.Name         =  "Q2: Systems Administrator",
                                   $Profile.Name         =  "System Administrator"   ),               if any of these don't create error
              OR           (   ISPICKVAL(Origin,  "Web") ,                                           if if not, error if origin = Email or Web
                                   ISPICKVAL(Origin,  "Email")  )
           )

But, as I said, this causes Email-to_Case to fail when it tries to set origin to Email.

We have a custom button on our case layout screen "New Opportunity" that when clicked creates a new Opportunity.  This new oppportunity has a custom field Related Case that gets loaded with the case number of the case we were on when we clicked the button.  So we have a useful link from Opp to parent Case.  

But, when looking at the case we have no indication that there is a related Opportunity.  Is there a way to have a Related Opp field in the case record that gets created when we click the custom button so that we have a Case to child Opp link?

SF doesn't allow ISCHANGED($RecordType.Name).    I need a way t to write a workflow rule to make field updates if someone changes the case record type.

Is there a way to have a workflow rule that runs when a case record type is changed but not when it's created?

We have 2 queues.  Support and Tech Services.  Each has their own record type, process, etc.  If some changes the record type of an existing case, this means the case has been transferred from Support to Tech Services (or vice versa).  When this happens we want to always change the owner to new the queue and always set the status to 02-Transferred.  This will cause the transferred case to go thru our assignment process for the new department.  I have written the Workflow rules and field updates for this and they do the job, except they also set the status to 02-Transferred on case creation.  So, I need  way to make the workflow rule evaluate to false if the case is just being created.

Where can I get a list of the possible values for $UserRole.PortalType?

or any other global variable/merge field for that matter.

Currently I'm trying to determine if a contact is a self service portal user.

We would like to force (but would accept "encourage") our reps to add a public comment whenever they close a case. 

Plan A -  I had hoped I could change the screen that comes up from the standard Close Case button to do this.  And i can, I'm told, if I write triggers for the validation and such.  But I do not currently have the experience or knowledge to do this.

Plan B - Don't use the Close Case screen.  I tested removing the Close Case button and enabling the ability to select the closed status on the edit screen.  This allows us go to the case, enter a private comment, enter a public comment, then close the case.  This is better but still has an issue.  The comments are entered from the case screen while one has to choose edit then select a closed status.  This is probably not much better than what we have today (the default).  I fear that the agent will just go the the edit screen and pick a closed status.  We'd be back where we are today with no public comments on closed cases.  I'd like to assocaite the public comment creation with the act of closing the case on one screen.

Plan C - a tweak of Plan A -  Is there a way to remove the Solution section and add a field for a comment and a check box to make it public with out requiring it, thus not requiring the trigger.  If this requires a custom case close screen and button I could probably figure out how to write one, althoug it would be my first. 

or is there a better way?  ....  

Is there any notion of an internal or private case?  We occassionally get hardware alerts for customers for whom we host their site.  We would like to create a case and assign it to a support rep but not have this visible to the customer.  We have considered creating a unique case type for these so we can exlcuse them from alert emails and such.  But, we use the Customer Self Service portal and have many superusers who can see all cases for their accounts.  We are concerned that they'll be able to see these cases and we'd rather they not.

Is there a way to do this?

Yuckle

Is there a way to include multiple public comments on an email template.  I've discovered how to include the LAST comment but not all of the public comments.

Also,if someone really understands case comments I would value your explanation.  Such as:

- are there other field names I can use, other than Case.Last_Case_Comment?

- is there a field name for the toggle that makes a comment public vs private?

- is there a way to count the number of comments?

+things I need to know about comments but don't know to ask.

I am trying to build a workflow/field update such that;

Worklfow:   contact Status = Former Employee.     Status is a picklist

Field Update:  remove all values in the multi-select picklist Q2  

But the Field Update field choice doesn't seem to offer multi-select picklists as choices of fields to update

How can I accomplish this?

Is there a way to make Assignement Rules run on existing (not new) cvase records?   We have a situation where exisitng cases that meet a set of criteria are assigned to a queue by workflow.  Is there a way to then re-assign these cases from the queue to various owners using Assignement Rules? 

I need advice.

We want to build an account hierarchy of parent accounts and child accounts (no deeper), with a related list on the parent account and the parent account field on the child account pointing back to the parent.  We have done this - so far so good.

Next, we need the contacts at the parent account to be able to create cases for the child accounts either thru customer portal or by our support group creating cases for them.  The contacts at the parent accounts need to be able to see, add comments and attachments to these cases at their child accounts.

Do we need a sharing rule?  at account or case?  or ???

We need a better way to have conversations/tasks between Level 1 and Level 2 Support.

Background:  In our shop, difficult support cases can be escalated to Level 3 Support for assistance.   Level 3 never closes cases, just provides advice or fixes and returns cases  to Level 1 or 2 who communicates the fix to our customer.  We have the ability to move cases up and down (1-2-3-2-1).   However, this is being used is a way I didn't anticipate when I designed it.

Problem:  Level 3's return a case to the Level 2 rep (the system knows who it was) when they want him/her to answer a question about the case and the Level 2 then returns it to the Level 3 rep with an answer as an internal comment.   So, what's happening is that they are using the Escalate/Return process just to have a conversation about a case.  This was never  intended.  It's add too much delay into the case flow.

Needed:  I would prefer that the probable case solver keep ownership of the case but have a trackable way to ask a question of the L2 (or any SF user) or ask for documentation, etc.  Sending emails is no good.  They get lost and don't have any tracking.  Same with case comments.     Can I associate tasks with case?  Can I use Chatter?   Is there a better way to solve this?

Ideas welcome!   

Is there a way to expose internal comments to customer portal users?

We have a special user group portal where we process enhancement requests.  Only the enh processing team (5 folks) of our user group have access.  Is there a way to expose internal comments to them on this customer portal?

There is something I don't understand going on here.  This validation rule dosen't get triggered if i change the Level from Level 2 to Level 1.

AND (  /*   RecordTypeId = "012800000003VEx",                                          Tech Spt Case */
            ISPICKVAL( Level__c , "Level1"),
            ISPICKVAL(PRIORVALUE(Level__c), "Level 2")
         )

So, I created a test field "Level - Previous"  [Text 15] and a workfliow/ field update to try to understand why not.

ISCHANGED (Level__c)            Workflow rule

PRIORVALUE(Level__c)           Field Update  to Case: Level - Previous

When I change the Level, Level - Prevoius contains  a value 1, 2 or 3 with the correct level, but it does not contain the text "Level 1" or "Level 2" or "Level 3" - it just comntains the number 1, 2 or 3.  Why is that?

Is this why my workflow isn't firing?

I would iike to display the name of the original case owner on the case page after a case is reassigned.  I have created a field Level 1 Owner Id where I capture the original owner id upon reassignment.  But, I have been unable to figure out how to the display the name of the original owner from the id value stored in  Level 1 Owner Id.  There must be a way..  Please help.

The following trigger,  and an alternative suggested on this board, do not work as planned because the IF always evaluates to FALSE, even when the account manager field is non-blank.

Original Failing Trigger

trigger OpportunityTrigger on Opportunity (before ​insert) {

  for(Opportunity o : Trigger.new) {
    String accountManager = (String)o.Q2_Account_M​gr__c;
    
    if((accountManager != null && accountManager.l​ength() >= 15)) {      
      o.OwnerId = o.Q2_Account_Mgr__c;  
    } } }

Suggested Alternative

for (Opportunity o : trigger.New) {

if (o.Q2_Account_Mgr__c != null) {

o.OwnerId = o.Q2_Account_Mgr__c;

Related Info

• field Q2_Account_Mgr__c is a lookup field on the Account record that is related to a User
• Irrespective of whether this field conatins data or is empty, the IFs in either trigger always evaluate to FALSE

Is the problem that since this trigger runs on the Opportunity that it can't see a lookup field on the Account?  Or ??

This trigger was written by a consultant, but it doesn't work.  I think it is becuase we have account managers whose names are less than 15 characteers long.  It is suppose to add the correct account manager as owner of the new opportunity as long as the account manager field on the account isn't empty.  Comments?  How do I fix if true?  Obvisously, setting 15 to 5, but what is the process to change it?

trigger OpportunityTrigger on Opportunity (before insert) {

  for(Opportunity o : Trigger.new) {
    String accountManager = (String)o.Q2_Account_Mgr__c;
    
    if((accountManager != null && accountManager.length() >= 15)) {      
      o.OwnerId = o.Q2_Account_Mgr__c;  
    }
  }

}

We have 4 possible values for case origin (Email, Web, Phone, Proactive).  We assign Email from Email-to-Case.  We assign Web for Web-to-Case.  When SF users create a case in SF, they can pick from all four origins.  I would like to restrict them from picking Email or Web.  Allowing only Phone or Proactive.

I have attempted to write a validation rule that knows when a case is new and from Email-to-Case or Web-to-Case allowing Weba nd Email, but preventing it for SF users except admins.  All attempts makes Email to Case fail with:

Email-to-Case: Error(s) encountered while processing

The following errors were encountered while processing an incoming email:

FIELD_CUSTOM_VALIDATION_EXCEPTION : Origin Email/Web is invalid for user created cases

It's clear I don't understand how to identify Email-to-Case cases.  It works as desired for SF users and Web-to-Case.

Here my validation rule (about version 12!):

AND   ( ISNEW(),                                                                                                if record is new
              NOT OR (   ISBLANK(Case_Owner__c) ,                                           if  owner blank (made Web-to_Case work) OR
                                   Case_Owner__c    = "Technical Support Queue",             if owner is queue (default owner for record types
                                   Case_Owner__c    = "Services Request Queue",
                                   Case_Owner__c    = "Jocie Garrett",                                  if default case owner

                                   CreatedBy.LastName  = "Garrett",
                                   $Profile.Name         =  "Q2: Systems Administrator",
                                   $Profile.Name         =  "System Administrator"   ),               if any of these don't create error
              OR           (   ISPICKVAL(Origin,  "Web") ,                                           if if not, error if origin = Email or Web
                                   ISPICKVAL(Origin,  "Email")  )
           )

But, as I said, this causes Email-to_Case to fail when it tries to set origin to Email.

We have a custom button on our case layout screen "New Opportunity" that when clicked creates a new Opportunity.  This new oppportunity has a custom field Related Case that gets loaded with the case number of the case we were on when we clicked the button.  So we have a useful link from Opp to parent Case.  

But, when looking at the case we have no indication that there is a related Opportunity.  Is there a way to have a Related Opp field in the case record that gets created when we click the custom button so that we have a Case to child Opp link?