Solved

Resource Analysis IFSAPP10 UPD8

  • 6 October 2020
  • 8 replies
  • 346 views

Userlevel 4
Badge +10

Hi,

does anyone know why i can’t see the resource capacity if I use company and site parameter?

 

 

 

If I remove the company and site parameter it works well.

 

 

 

 

tks

icon

Best answer by samuelandlopes 23 November 2020, 21:56

View original

8 replies

Userlevel 7

Hi,

does anyone know why i can’t see the resource capacity if I use company and site parameter?

 

 

 

If I remove the company and site parameter it works well.

 

 

 

 

tks

Is Project P200 linked to that particular company and site?

Do you have capacity % in group set for that resource in a group connected to the company and site?

 

Userlevel 4
Badge +10

Hi,

does anyone know why i can’t see the resource capacity if I use company and site parameter?

 

 

 

If I remove the company and site parameter it works well.

 

 

 

 

tks

Is Project P200 linked to that particular company and site?

Do you have capacity % in group set for that resource in a group connected to the company and site?

 

Hi anmise,

 I removed the project. It was there by mistake.

 

The capacity is set up for the group and person, connected to the company and site. see bellow.

 

Do I need to do something else?

 

tks

 

 

 

Userlevel 7

Hi,

does anyone know why i can’t see the resource capacity if I use company and site parameter?

 

 

 

If I remove the company and site parameter it works well.

 

 

 

 

tks

Is Project P200 linked to that particular company and site?

Do you have capacity % in group set for that resource in a group connected to the company and site?

 

Hi anmise,

 I removed the project. It was there by mistake.

 

The capacity is set up for the group and person, connected to the company and site. see bellow.

 

Do I need to do something else?

 

tks

 

 

 

You're filtering on Company 10 and site 1 but your resource belongs to Company 70 and site 70. Try filtering on 70/70.

Userlevel 4
Badge +10

Sorry anmise, in the first print, i was using the customer environment, but now I’m using tst lkp regional.

It’s the same company and site.

 

 

Userlevel 7

Sorry anmise, in the first print, i was using the customer environment, but now I’m using tst lkp regional.

It’s the same company and site.

 

 

Hard to say, but I guess you don’t have any capacity in that company/site. Does the resource have a calendar associated with it? Is the calendar generated? Try running ‘Calculate Resource Capacity’ for the resource structure and remove existing capacity.  

Userlevel 4
Badge +10

Yes, already did all those steps. calendar associated to resource is “maint” generated.

There is capacity for those.

Really strange.

already sent a case to GSO.

Tks

 

 

 

Userlevel 4
Badge +10

Yes, already did all those steps. calendar associated to resource is “maint” generated.

There is capacity for those.

Really strange.

already sent a case to GSO.

Tks

 

 

 

Rnd and released a patch  156099 to show the capacity on chart even if I use the company and site filter option that works only if you use a HR program.

Userlevel 2
Badge +3

The workaround is to remove the company and site filter for individual resources, or if applicable to use an HR Schedule for person resources.

To clarify why this happened and what was corrected in LCS bug 156099;

The issue  applies  to Individual resources using a work time Calendar as basis for capacity calculation.  The work time calendar is global and not associated to any company or site, hence the capacity data does not include company/site information. When the company/site filter was applied, these records was filtered out from Resource Analysis.

After the correction, Resource Capacity data will be displayed for the individual resource when the company/site filter is applied, despite it not having company/site information.

Capacity calculated based on HR Schedules are not effected by this correction, due to that HR schedules are set up per company and therefor already work as expected when filtered.

 

Reply