Field Service Management (FSM) & Planning and Scheduling Optimization (PSO)

I’m currently working on a customer requirement which goes like this: they want to be able to interrupt a job as follows: technician starts job but then calls in sick and job cannot be completed by the same technician, so a new allocation for the remaining work should be done by PSO technician needs to leave current allocation for a more urgent job and the started job should either be rescheduled to the same technician, or allocated to a new technician additional context: client is not using MWO but their own mobile solution where they have the options of pausing/completing a job; they use IFS Cloud (NGSM Service Requests) as middleware between SAP & PSO. I tried two different approaches to fulfill their requirelents but I had no concrete outcome:As I tried to correlate their pause button in the mobile app with a potential trigger of incompletion status on PSO side, but then I realized that after changing the Work Assignment status to “Incomplete” in IFS Cloud, there no Follow-on j

Hi,The service resource was never used. I don’t wand to hide or block this resource.The URL: main/ifsapplications/projection/v1/ResourceIndividualsHandling.svc/ResourceSet(ResourceSeq=6403)Method: POSTreturns:{    "error": {        "code": "DATABASE_ERROR",        "message": "Database error occurred. Contact administrator.",        "details": [            {                "code": 20116,                "message": "ORA-20116: Resource.CONSTRAINT: The Resource \"6403\" is used by 592 rows in another object (Resource Base Schedule)."            }        ]    }}Which API-Call do I have to use to remove the entries in Resource Base Schedule? Best RegardsMichael

NGSM Demystified  describes changes and additional capabilities related to Service Management (NGSM) in IFS Cloud 26R1. People with experience in 25R2 should focus on chapters marked with 26R1☀️ and 26R1↗️.Chapters with 🖋️ provide new or additional details for features that were already available in previous releases.Features that rely on AI are marked with ✨.IFS Cloud newcomers will also find explanations of some common platform capabilities. If you find this document helpful, please consider leaving a 👍 LIKE. And ⭐ SUBSCRIBE to get updates. For the first time I had to zip the document as it exceeded the attachment size limit. 358 pages cover:Terminology Getting Started IFS.ai Copilot 2.0 for Service Request Management Bundle Tasks Request Contracts Service Organizations, Access Groups, and Resources Service Contractor Management SLA Management Service Catalog and Standard Tasks Service Commercial Rules for Pricing and Costing Recurring Services Service Campaigns Service Projects Lo

Hi ,Prevailing wage can be enabled for a work order through the job rate management tab in prepare work order window. However, this is not available in Request Detail page. Does anyone have an idea on how job rate management can be integrated with Request labor rates. Thanks,Nethmini

HiOne of our customers want to add different types of fixed fees for most of the requests generated from recurring services in IFS Cloud. In most common cases, it is 3 types of fees. The invoiced must contain all the resources/materials used and these fees. Fees do not cover any resource used while doing the job. these are always fixed.As an example fees can be for documenting work carried out, basic fee for the visit and a fixed fee for the consumables used. We must get 3 separate lines in the invoice for these fees.Where do we add these fixed fees in the new service solution? In PM Actions we added these to the Work List/Planning tab.Thanks.

A. What is your idea?1) ClassificationChoose ONE: keep the applicable option and delete the rest.Opportunity for improvement2) Brief descriptionWhat happened, what is missing, or what could be better? Focus on the problem or opportunity (not the solution).Service Requests and Request Quotations are unavailable for Prospects, limiting both quotation development and advance service planning. As a result, the only practical workaround is to create the Prospect as a Customer before any commitment to purchase has been made.This forces sales and administrative teams to complete customer onboarding activities prematurely, including credit applications, tax liability reviews, and other required documentation. These additional steps not only slow the sales process and create unnecessary administrative overhead, but can ultimately prove wasteful when a Prospect never converts to a Customer or purchases the proposed service. Most prospect customers will not go through this effort just for a quota

The customer wants to use contractor-sourced materials to create a single Purchase Order for the entire job completed by the service contractors. However, the Payment Lines on the Request Task are not reflecting the materials, which means we cannot create a Purchase Order.This issue arises because the inventory parts are not being recognized in the Purchase Parts tab of the service contractor, as the contractor's scope is set as intercompany.This functionality needs to be implemented in future releases.

Hi All,Is it possible to do some configurations in Scheduling Workbench or PSO workbench?As an example, can we add “Service Notes” on this card under Task Details? an we arrangera Tabs in Activity Details?  How you can change /re-order items in these cards and sections?TIA.

A. What is your idea?1) ClassificationOpportunity for improvement2) Brief descriptionThe customer wants to use contractor-sourced materials to create a single Purchase Order for the entire job completed by the service contractors. However, the Payment Lines on the Request Task are not reflecting the materials, which means we cannot create a Purchase Order.This issue arises because the inventory parts are not being recognized in the Purchase Parts tab of the service contractor, as the contractor's scope is set as intercompany.This functionality needs to be implemented in future releases.B. Context and scope1) Who is affected?​​​​​Customers Partners2) FrequencyFrequentlyC. Value and impact1) What is the business outcome?Improves productivity or efficiency Enhances user experience Enables new capability Supports compliance or reduces risk2) Impact scaleChoose ONE: keep the applicable option and delete the rest.4 — Company-wide3) WorkaroundThe user could configure material as a fixed cost

I’m on FSM 6.28. I would like to create an input xml with a control type where I provide two options like Yes or No, but it doesn’t save as Y or N, but pre-defined values where Y = ‘value_1’ and N = ‘value_2’ or where I set to nothing, for example N = ‘ ‘. Or something like a checkbox control type but it doesn’t save it as Y or N. Also, am I able to display more than one control in one message?Below is an example of what I was trying to achieve and would like to know if that is possible.    <update_request>        <request>            <request_id xpath_node="//request_hierarchy_select_result[@result_name='detail']/request/request_id" />            <action_status>@user_input[id=convert_credit_prompt, table_name=request, column_name=action_status, control_type=CheckBox, choices=Yes:CONVERT_CREDIT;No:, required=Y, height=30]</action_status>            <update/>        </request>    </update_request>

Is anyone experiencing permission issues in 26r1SU3 that are not really permission issues?

Can someone show me where/how to define activities for MSO? 

can i create assistant page without using IFS developer studio?

Hi IFS Community,In IFS Cloud (we're on 24R2 currently) you have the Dispatch Console where you start with an Activity view. This shows the timeline and the allocated activities in time, it's very handy :)You do have the option to switch to the Utilization View manually, this shows the % of available time allocated with Activies, see yellow marked in 1st image.If you zoom out, at a certain point you are forced to switch to the Utilization view, here's the catch. Also the option to switch back to Activity view isn't there anymore (see yellow in 2nd image).We don't want that, we want to keep the Activity view. Is this possible? What is the rule/logic behind the switching? Is there a value, a setting?Activity view: Utilization view: Cheers,Stephan

Hi IFS Community,with the 25R1 release, the Selection Rules functionality was extended (e.g. rule types and weighting), which is a very welcome improvement. However, the current solution leaves some gaps and we are unclear if these are supposed to be filled in future releases.Our Use Case We use Selection Rules to distribute Service Requests into the correct delivery units. For our setup, Region and Model criteria are essential. The Service criteria, however, is largely irrelevant, as the organizational structure is the same for most services.Current LimitationAt the moment, the Service criteria is mandatory, which forces us to duplicate the entire Selection Rule set for each service (≈ 50 services) leading to a huge data volume in the table and the maintenance effort coming with it.Observation in the UI / Page DesignerIn both the UI and the Page Designer, it appears that:Criteria might be configurable as mandatory vs. optional Criteria might support individual weightingThese settings

Hi Experts,Please explain why it is not possible to connect a parent to a Structure? For example we have Head strcuture (AWS) and there are different Regional Teams we have setup as Structure too. Then there is no way we can assign AWS as a parent to regional team Structures?Why?  There we cannot select a Regional Team as a structure like EAST, WEST we cannot see in the list Please explain why its not possible, what is the business reason/Logic behind this function. ThanksKM

Hi All,I have a dataset that is used only for scheduling purposes, and ARP is not enabled for this dataset. The purpose is to automatically commit activities once the orders are created and sent to PSO.Currently, the scheduling parameter MAX COMMIT ACTIVITIES is configured with a value of 20. Based on my understanding, this allows up to 20 activities to be committed per resource per day.However, we have a requirement where we may receive up to 300 orders per day. I would like to clarify the following: If we increase the MAX COMMIT ACTIVITIES value from 20 to 300, will PSO automatically commit all 300 orders received in a day? If not, what other PSO/FSM configuration or parameters control the maximum number of activities that can be committed per day? What is the recommended configuration/approach to achieve automatic commitment of up to 300 orders per day, considering resource availability and scheduling capacity? Could you please advise on the correct configuration and recommended

A. What is your idea?1) ClassificationChoose ONE: keep the applicable option and delete the rest.Opportunity for improvement2) Brief descriptionWhat happened, what is missing, or what could be better? Focus on the problem or opportunity (not the solution).To propose a time window in which the activity needs to or can be be executed cant be introduced without using planned start and planned finish. It also does not provide the possability to limit the execution of activities in an exact time window (earliest start/ latest start / finish…. etc.).B. Context and scope1) Who is affected?Choose ONE or MORE: keep the applicable options and delete the rest.Internal users Customers Partners2) FrequencyChoose ONE: keep the applicable option and delete the rest.Frequently DailyC. Value and impact1) What is the business outcome?Choose ONE or MORE: keep the applicable options and delete the rest.Improves productivity or efficiency Enhances user experience Enables new capability2) Impact scaleChoose

If you have to do several tasks for one customer, it would be nice if you only had to ask for one signature from the customer at the end, so that all service reports are signed. For example, a signature on the last service report and this is transferred to all service requests that were generated for a customer on this day. Thanks Markus Kühnl

Hi all, we try to use Dispatch Console for manual scheduling of Request Tasks and Bundle Tasks. We are facing some usability issues and are looking forward to hear if someone has similar issues or found some solutions:  Ticket colour coding only works for regular tasks. Bundle Tasks are all shown in light green. Since we bundle tasks very frequently, this fails to meet our requirements. Zooming out eventually triggers the Utilization Mode. Instead of seeing tickets and days, the view changes to a solid area showing only the technician's planned-hours utilisation percentage. We work with tasks that spread across multiple days so Zoom levels are important for us, we don’t need to zoom in to 15min tasks or something like that. Utilisation view should be triggered with a button instead of a zoom level.  We have organised everything in Teams/Scheduling Units. As a result, you constantly have to switch between teams and reload the view whenever you want to see the schedule of a technician fr

We would like the ability to access the service object 360 screen directly from the location address page just like you can for the equipment navigator

Hello everyone,I followed the provided instructions to install the Hierarchical Travel Matrix (HTM) in PSO. However, when I attempted to test if it is working properly through the compare tab, I only received results from the straight-line distance.Here are the steps I took after the installation:Created a new HTM connection through the Connections form. Added "BAL" in the value field for the HierarchicalDatabaseMatrixId parameter. Entered "Hierarchical Travel Matrix" in the field of the TravelCalculationOption parameter. Chose the "Straight Line On Error" parameter (I have tested even without this parameter checked). Enabled the HTM connection.   HTM ConnectionPlease note that no errors were encountered during the entire process - not even in events.So, I would like to ask if the above procedure seems correct.Is there a way to verify if HTM has been configured correctly?Any insights or guidance would be greatly appreciated.Thank you!

Unfortunately IFS was not able to answer my question about their product and advised me to find an answer through the community.Hopefully someone had the same questions we do now in regards to using the Technician Portal or Mobile Work Order touch app.We are currently preparing for our migration to IFS Cloud 25R1, with the coming update to 26R1 and especially looking to the differences in creating new assignments on an assigned Work Task via the Technician Portal and the Mobile Work Order.With the workflow configuration action 'Restrict Follow-On Work Actions On Incompletion' not enabled, we don't see the options that the MWO would show, like 'Do not reassign to me' or 'Needs to be planned'.Via Technician Portal a new assignment is created, but connected to the current technician, set to status Accepted and planned at the time of creation with no option to replan.Via the Mobile Work Order, Arcwide tells us (and a quick read of the IFS documentation https://docs.ifs.com/ifsclouddocs/26r

Hi,  As mentioned in the title, I had tested the eform termination for a configured workflow where when you fill in the survey, the work should be incomplete.The filters were added for planning information: This setup worked as expected. The incomplete prompt came up after completing the survey.  Then I was testing with setting the Filters based on the object information: The action flow was added with termination eform similar to above: This did not prompt the incomplete after completing the eform.  Could this be a bug? I also tested the same with the WF that worked (11) by removing the planning information and adding object information as filters which confirmed the termination only applied for planning information.  Thank you! 

Hello experts,Please see screenshot below. The resource CHA is not getting more jobs committed today, because he has jobs downloaded in his device for next week, and the week after, so it seems that max committed jobs allocated in the rule, which is 5, is stopping more jobs getting allocated today. We have modified the rule parameters, please second screenshot, but the change in the Rule Window (1 day) has not worked to limit the rule to a validation of only the current day. Could you please advise?