GRC - Request Form Customization

[former_member187795]

Hi All,

We have ECC system integrated with GRC. Currently only half of the users in ECC are using GRC and we are planning to roll out for other half users now.

First half users would be tagged to company code and hence while raising GRC request by mandatory they need to select company code dropdown in GRC request form. The second half of users are tagged to business unit object and not company code. So for these users keeping company code mandatory in the request form doesn't make sense.

Can we show different request forms based on users?

If the above one is not possible, atleast can i show different grc request form based on system?

I know i can select different EUP ID at stage level but do i have the option to select request form based on EUP ID ?

Please provide your suggestions.

Regards,

Sai.

[Colleen]

Hi Sai

Are you able to look at Template Requests to see if possible to have a different EUP for each scenario?

Regards

Colleen

[former_member187795]

Hi Colleen,

Thanks a lot for your reply. Actually I have a strong gut feeling that whenever you look into my query eventually my issue gets resolved very quickly

I have gone through the EUP document which explains that different EUP IDs can be used for different templates. But this is applicable only for template based requests right?

We have ECC, BI, CRM, TM, EM systems connected to GRC. When the users are raising GRC request from End user logon page, client requirement is to show different request form for different systems as users will be different and custom fields required might be different.

ECC users - Company Code (mandatory)

CRM Users - Sales area, Sales Branch (mandatory)

TM Users - Booking office (Mandatory) etc

So we were asked to check if separate request forms can be shown to the users based on system. When user clicks on "ACCESS REQUEST" link in end user logon page, they will be shown a request form and this form cannot be customized as per user or system.

So, I want to confirm if there is any way to achieve my requirement. If not I will suggest business to use template based requests with different EUP IDs.

Regards,

Sai.

[Colleen]

Hi Sai

Hopefully someone more knowledgeable on the community will be able to step in and assist you

Based on what you say, it seems that customisation/custom access form may be necessary of some type of logic to change screen layout for the scenarios

I'm not sure if GRC 10.1 improved UAR functionality (I recall a comment on SCN that 10.1 was to improve this a bit)

The current UAR only relies on the EUP and a few configuration parameters to change the layout (as well as some of the request types). As you want to split based on system it won't be as straight forward.

Again hoping others with the expertise in the community will be able to assist. In the mean time you could prototype some of the templates and see what happens?

Regards

Colleen

[former_member187795]

Hi Colleen,

I have tried by creating 5 EUP IDs with different fields in the request form and assigned these EUP IDs to 5 different templates in NWBC and tested by creating the request using templates and I can see different forms based on template selected.

Regards,

Sai.

[Former Member]

Sai,

We are not using the form reached by the Access Request link, but it is my understanding that it should be defined by maintaining the EUP fields of the Default template (999), so if you are going to have users using that as well as using your custom templates, you should be able to configure fields as Mandatory, Editable, and Visible, as you did your custom templates. The Default template should also define Copy Request and Model User, so make your choices carefully if you are also planning on using those options.

Please notice that I say "should." We are on SP12 and have had a lot of issues with templates not behaving as configured in the EUPs. Be sure to test thoroughly.

Regards,

Gretchen

[former_member187795]

Hi Gretchen,

Thanks for highlighting the details regarding copy request and model user. We are on SP13. I will test thoroughly on different scenarios as currently i am just testing with one or different attributes and fields. Will thoroughly test before proposing this approach.

Regards,

Sai.