Feature Suggestion

As a user, I have converted a ticket to a case and working on an action. there is a email either on a ticket or case, i can see it on open action but cant get an I sysmbol highlighted on action. Can we please see if we can enable this to the latest open action to get this information too - as I will be working on an action and not an owner of case and ticket too So I can easily miss the information highlight

Hi Team, Once we split the tickets it shows the created on date for the parent ticket in spli tickets and same is showing in reports also for split tickets. For split tickets created on date should be when these are splitted.

Details: As a Work Manager user, I would like to choose how numbers are written in my user settings, separately from the language I read in, so that numbers look the way I’m used to reading them. I can already choose my language, date format, time format and time zone, but numbers are written the same way for everyone. People in different countries write the same number differently: Thousands and decimals: 1,234.5 in the UK and US, 1.234,5 in Germany, 1 234,5 in France Large numbers shortened: 696K in English, 696 k in French, 696 mil in Spanish; German writes 1,23 Mio. for 1.23 million Suggested behaviour: A Number format setting in my user profile, next to date format, time format and time zone Until I choose one, it matches my selected language It applies wherever Work Manager shows a number: counts and charts on the Home page, totals, and amounts Other business applications work this way, keeping the display language and the regional format as separate settings.

Would be good if when a excel and word doc is in the files we can go into it and keep updating and it auto saves

What’s the problem? The search on the Contacts page only finds contacts by name or email address. Company and default tag are both columns in the grid, but search doesn’t look at them. If you know where someone works, or the default tag they carry, but not their name, you can’t find them through search. What would help? Let the Contacts page search also match a contact’s company and default tag: Typing a company name lists the contacts at that company. Typing a default tag lists the contacts who carry it. Several words narrow the results, in any order. For example, “acme smith” finds Smith at Acme. Words match from their start, so “acm” finds Acme. Searching “Global” finds the contacts that aren’t tied to one company (shown as All Companies/Global). Who does this help? Anyone managing a large contact list, who often knows a contact’s company or role before their name.

For our company sometimes when we are needing to do a defect on a case we need to pout a long explanation in the comments box currently we can only add a couple lines which is sufficient enough for what is required for us.

When an integration signs in to Enate with an Application Credential, it opens a User Session for the User that owns the credential. In the warehouse, that session looks the same as a person signing in as that User. This makes it hard to report on who has really been using Enate. For example, a User that no person is allowed to sign in as can still show a sign-in every day, because an integration uses its Application Credential. Access reviews and audits can't tell integration activity from people. Application Credentials are already in the warehouse, with their name and expiry date. What's missing is the link from each User Session to the Application Credential that opened it. Idea: each User Session in the warehouse shows the Application Credential that opened it, or none if a person signed in. Reports could then: separate integration sign-ins from people signing in show the credential's name and expiry date next to each session leave integration sessions out of active-user counts Would this help you? Vote, and tell us in the comments how you'd use it, and whether you'd need it for past sessions as well as new ones.

Currently, for certain communications, our team needs to send emails to multiple recipients or distribution lists. However, the email templates do not support pre-populated recipient lists, meaning users have to first open Outlook, copy the required distribution list or email addresses, and then manually paste them into Enate. This creates an unnecessary manual process, slows down case handling, and increases the risk of recipients being missed due to human error. It would be beneficial if email templates could support predefined recipients, distribution lists, or configurable recipient groups that automatically populate when the template is selected. This would allow users to work entirely within Enate in the same way they would in Outlook, without needing to switch between systems. The enhancement would improve efficiency, reduce administrative effort, minimise the risk of errors, and provide a more streamlined user experience for teams regularly sending emails to the same groups of stakeholders.

If an action is no longer required, users should have the ability to resolve or close it without having to complete every checklist item within the action first. At present, even when it is clear that a check is not required, users are forced to work through and manually complete or update each checklist item before the action can be resolved. This creates unnecessary administration and increases the time taken to process cases. It would be beneficial to introduce either: A "Resolve Action" option that allows actions to be closed where no further work is required, without needing to complete all checklist items; or More intelligent checklist functionality, where selecting an option such as "Checks Not Required" automatically marks the remaining related checklist items as complete and closes the action where appropriate. This would reduce manual effort, improve processing efficiency, and ensure caseworkers can focus on progressing genuine work rather than completing administrative system tasks that add no value.

Cases and actions are continually becoming unassigned or moving to different caseworkers without any intentional action being taken by users. This is creating a significant amount of housekeeping work to ensure cases and actions are allocated to the correct people, which is delaying work progression and adding unnecessary administrative burden, particularly for managers. Once a case and its associated actions have been assigned to a caseworker, they should remain assigned to that individual unless they are deliberately reassigned by a user. The current behaviour, where assignments are randomly removed or changed, is highly inefficient and disruptive to the way we manage and progress work. In addition, simply reading or interacting with an email should not result in a case becoming unassigned. The case should remain with the original owner unless a conscious reassignment has been made. We use cases as our primary case management tool and work directly from assigned cases. As such, assignment stability is critical to our operating model. The current behaviour is causing confusion, additional administration, delays in progressing cases, and inefficiencies across the team. We would therefore like this functionality reviewed