We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:
Post your ideas
Post ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted and upvote them if they matter to you,
Post an idea
Upvote ideas that matter most to you
Get feedback from the IBM team to refine your idea
Help IBM prioritize your ideas and requests
The IBM team may need your help to refine the ideas so they may ask for more information or feedback. The product management team will then decide if they can begin working on your idea. If they can start during the next development cycle, they will put the idea on the priority list. Each team at IBM works on a different schedule, where some ideas can be implemented right away, others may be placed on a different schedule.
Receive notification on the decision
Some ideas can be implemented at IBM, while others may not fit within the development plans for the product. In either case, the team will let you know as soon as possible. In some cases, we may be able to find alternatives for ideas which cannot be implemented in a reasonable time.
Currently , we might not be able to capture any history of publishing for views or workflows in Audit Trail.I believe we need to track such information.Furthermore, it is more useful if the detailed change history of views and workflows will be in...
Constrain who is allowed to start a particular workflow
We would like to control who can start particular workflows.
Use Case 1: As an oversight user responsible for a large area, I want to personally control which Loss Events get re-opened. If I let anyone do it, I end up wasting time chasing them.
Admin: Allow to configure Lock/Unlock at Object/Profile level
The Lock/Unlock permission is at a application level. We would like to be able to selectively allow/block that capability by Object Type and/or Profile. There are numerous cases where there exists a need to have more granular control of this feature.
Admin: Allow ability to allow View-only of configuration settings vs. Edit for all
Today if you have access to a particular Administration function, you are able to edit that function. We would like to be able to have a setting that can limit edit capabilities, but allow View of these settings.
Users may have access to entities/objects at a higher level to allow reporting/analysis on an aggregated (rollup data) level. However, these same users may not be allowed to view the details associated with the same data/objects at the child entit...
Admin: Need to expand limit of 32k on Field Namespace
OpenPages currently limits the field namespace to 32k characters.This is a problem for those already defined objects that have over 200 fields and in trying to enhance the object, we run into the space limitation. Also , because we cannot Delete f...
Can we combine restrict and extend security rules on an object type?
We have a client that wants to allow cross domain visibility of Loss Event object. At the same time, the client wants to ALLOW ONLY certain users to update the Loss Event based on parent status field.Can we combine EXTEND security rule with RESTR...
Incorporation of a new super user functionality.I open this RFE on behalf of OSRAM Licht GmbH (customer).We request to incorporate a functionality, that allows OpenPages User to add a new super user role in addition to the "OpenPagesAdministrator ...
ADMIN: Filter List View - ability to create paging when record count is large
in V7 the filtered list view shows ALL results with no paging. When a large number of rows are in the result set navigation gets difficult unit the records are loaded. We have lists which are of 10k this takes a long time or it results in an error.
Do not place IBM confidential, company confidential, or personal information into any field.