We schedule reports to be automatically sent every month to our customers' primary contact.  Historically we have had to schedule each of these reports, which is a bit repetitive.  I see that Kaseya now has the ability to create "Report Sets"  so numerous individual reports can be bundled into a set.  This set can then be scheduled in one place rather than scheduling each one individually.   This is exactly what I am looking to do.  Here's the catch...

 

We like to send patch reports in addition to the executive report (overview) to provide more detailed information.  We typically send 2 patch reports (one for workstations and one for servers) which is easy to do based on views and scheduling reports individually.  The problem I am running into is that we cannot lock a machine group, org or view to an individual report.  Selecting the view is done when scheduling the report rather than in the report itself.  This makes perfect sense so you don't have to create the same report for multiple customers.

 

The report sets function similarly in that you are unable to select a machine group, org or view until you schedule the report.  You can also only add a report to a certain report set one time (makes sense that you wouldn't want the same report 2 times for the same group of machines).  

 

I would like to be able to add a report to a set and select a view, then add the same report to the same set and select a different view.  For example create a report set named "Monthly Reports" and add the patch status report (with a servers machine view) and the patch status report again (this time with workstations view) along with other reports that we send.   Or maybe you wanted to send a workstation inventory report and split the reports out so Mac, Windows and Linux machines are separated.

 

Am I overlooking something, is there a way to accomplish this with some trickery or is this more of a feature request?  I am curious to hear what others think about this (am I trying to do something ridiculous or is this something that others would use).

 

Thanks,

Mark