Check in the Resource Setup, your resource ROZYPL need to be marked as Used in Maintenance to be able to be assigned for the task.
@MitDenukN @Mathias Dahl @Mayura Wasantha Hi,This transformation rule was introduced to support Service Object. That’s why it is directed against EquipmentObject rather than functional or serial. Issue with setting editable = None is a bug and it is already raised as an internal bug in 23R2 and will be set to editable = Target for 23R2.Regards,Dilani
Hi Fransis,What I said untrue was two facts. Fact that stated as if calculation never considers Linear regression and the fact that stated calculation will consider all measurements after calculation start date.There is a scenario that Linear Regression will come to play when Predicted Value at Maintenance flag is selected and when it does it will consider 5 latest measurements after calculation start date. But as you mentioned, may be there is some difference when comes to the app10 updates. I now expanded the calculation given by you. It would look like below when expanded.Next PM Due Date = Last Measurement date + Interval* (Last measurement date - First measurement date)/(Last reading - First reading)So it kind of look like a scenario of interpolation method. Yet, sorry about confusing your calculation’s Running Average with IFS documentation’s Running Average. There are so many things to consider while looking at these type of question and I had no intention to say formula you pro
Hi Fransis,This statement is untrue. We are using different calculation methods like interpolation and linear regression depending on conditions, but we never use all the measurements to forecast the plan (there is a max limit of 5). Indika had specifically asked on how linear regression calculation works which I explained.If the calculation you have mentioned is constructed based on our IFS Documentation (Section on Condition-based generation in the about page for Generate WO inside PM Planning) , then the running average is calculated using linear regression for that scenario.@Indika The formula is the standard linear regression. Please have a look in the code and I suggest raising a question to GSD if needed further assistant on this.Best Regards,Dilani
Hi Robert, Have you tried using operational status with a type ‘Obstructive’ in work task. (you can add this in the task under object information and you can define operational status under maintenance\Basic data\Work order and PM Basic data\. and Work task should have plan dates and I think should be released). I have not tested this with resource monitoring gantt but might work Regards, Roshan Hi,As far as I know this type of blocking applied when using automatic scheduling like MPB. Also PSO might decide to not to double book if there was an ongoing allocation. But I don’t think it automatically applies when doing manual allocation via resource monitoring Gantt. Unless you somehow blocked the resource shift/or the tool manually it would appear schedulable for other work ( but please note I have limited experience in resource monitoring Gantt).Best Regards,Dilani
Hi Maria,Try setting the Valid From date to the date you changed MAINT calendar (or to current date), It should remove this unnecessary lines. It’s the same thing that happens if you created a new revision and do such changes. New revision will start with created date set as Valid From and patterns before that will not affect to the revision. Best Regards,Dilani
Hi Francis,It would take lot of investigation time for this. I am sorry I don’t have enough time to go through the calculation and get back. I think it would be great if you could create a question to GSD, and they would be able to assist you on this.Thanks & Best Regards,Dilani
Hi,I think the issue here is the way you are trying to connect the PMs. As I understand one child PM (22954) cannot have two parents. You should be able to set 22954( navigate to connections from this PM) as parent and put 22957 and 22956 as two child PMs(add this two in list). But having them as children will not avoid the WO generation. connecting them together will create a WO structure. So I am not sure this is the functionality you looking for.Though I am not clear on why you cannot go for replacements. Can’t you replace both 22957,22956 by 22954?Best Regards,Dilani
@deshan.ekanayake, @Bimsara Geethachapa Hi both, I see small issue in Exist_Pm_For_Object_Level and Exist_Wo_For_Object_Level methods. object_level could be null in the EQUIPMENT_OBJECT_TAB and there is no null check in the cursor while doing the check. May be that is creating this mess for customer as he might be having serial objects connected to PM/WO? Best Regards, Dilani Had a further discussion regarding this. Not checking null is not an issue here since it cannot be set to null from this client itself. Sorry for misleading :( Best Regards,Dilani
@deshan.ekanayake, @Bimsara Geethachapa Hi both,I see small issue in Exist_Pm_For_Object_Level and Exist_Wo_For_Object_Level methods. object_level could be null in the EQUIPMENT_OBJECT_TAB and there is no null check in the cursor while doing the check. May be that is creating this mess for customer as he might be having serial objects connected to PM/WO?Best Regards,Dilani
Hi James,Per my understanding in Lobby Data Source Designer, you cannot specify this kind of join conditions directly (in segment for view, only one view can be defined).For this kind of scenario, I have used one of below two options.Option 01:Create own view with this join condition in the database with a different name. Then refer to that as view in data source designer.Option 02:Change the SQL query somehow to achieve same without the join, using different where conditions and group by.Not sure how feasible this for your situation. But this is the only ways I know. Hope this helps. PS:Also, SQL query construction from above Data Source Designer will looks like belowSELECT {Everything in columns section with each column name coma separated}FROM {the view defined in view section}WHERE {the conditions defined in the condition section}GROUP BY {all the columns in group by section}ORDER BY {all the columns in the order by section}May be you already knew this. Just added for the cl
Hi,In the screenshot shared, that group by statement is based on so many columns. Therefore, it could be that for 3 different route IDs one of other columns also has different values (this will create multiple groupings and the min will be selected from those).Base on that details in screenshot is not enough to conclude aggregate is not working.Lobby data source is creating a select statement base on the information we provided. Therefore, per my understanding this aggregation is from sql itself and it should work. Hence, if you want to take minimum route ID you have to make sure all other columns in the group by statement has same values so it will be considered into a one group with only a varying route ID. Thanks & Best Regards,Dilani
Hi Marc,What is the calendar trigger used in this? is it connected to a condition too? I find it bit odd seeing multiple plan lines with same due dates like this so curious what is the scenario creating them.Hope this PM is set to performed date based Yes throughout. I have seen due date acting strange when some uses Perform date based No in some revisions and Yes in latter. Not sure this will help or not, as Kushan said this will need investigation.Best Regards,Dilani
Hi Leniac,Ok that was a general guess related to Gantt. Sorry that didn’t helped. Since this is a functionality related to service I think you might get a quicker answer if moved there.Best Regards,Dilani
Hi Leniac,In Aurena Gantt there is a minimum zoom in limit required to display work time. Try zooming in more. I think that could be the issue for having grey line throughout the day without showing work time.Best Regards,Dilani
Hi, OK then I don’t have much ideas. Just few things that you can check, but I’m not sure they will help. You run Performed Value Based = Yes on the Condition line. This will require an ongoing WO to be finished before generating a new. (However in you example this would rather have impact on the parent PM than on the child PMs). Second thing to check is the the configuration of the Object Level used for the objects used on the child PMs. If this Object Level allows creation of WOs. This configuration can be found in Equipment/Equipment Basic Data/Object Levels. Regards Pelle Hi @pekase , I’ve tried both situation and no success. The system generates just for the parent pm action. Also with Non performed value based. Object level is OK. I’m gonna burn the midnight oil and see if I get it. If someone have any other ideas, please feel free to help me. Tks a lot Br. Hi Lopes,There was a fix done around this kind of PM Structure generation issue via LCS Bug ID 156280 fo
Hi @Dilani , tks for the info. It makes sense once one PM Action can be connected to multiple Work Task Templates. But, in this situation that I updated just the checklist in work task template and I want to keep the same maintenance plan of the previous pm action revision. Is there any idea how I can handle it? Br. Lopes Hi Lopes,For my knowledge Replace Obsolete Revision on PM is an option to do bulk modify without violating existing functionality. If we look at what you have to do manually to achieve your requirement would be: Either create a new revision and back date it then and then Activate it Set revision control to off and delete connection and add againTherefore only workaround I could think of is setting the Active PM revisions to revision control off before running Replace Obsolete Revision on PM. As now the system has proper rights to delete Obsolete WTT from an Active PM and attach new it will perform the action without creating a new revision. Therefore PM details will
Hi, Valid From: The date the PM revision is valid from. The system's date is displayed by default when creating a new PM Action or revision. Then you can change it accordingly. Best Regards, Nipun Hi @Nipun Gunaratne , tks for attention. My problem is as I run the Replace Obsolete Revision on PM Actions function, don’t you think the system should consider the valid date of the work task template revision? Since the new pm action revision is created from that? Tks Hi,Using the ValidFrom date of Template while directly generating the PM Action makes sense. But While replacing a revision I don’t think it can use ValidFrom the Work Task Template as one PM Action can be connected to multiple Work Task Templates. Therefore I feel it’s correct that it is keeping the ValidFrom to usual standard of creating a revision.Please note that it is a Replace of the obsolete Task Template connection, it is not an generation of a new PM Action. It is creating new revision simply be
It is calculated by plotting a graph using last five valid measurements and their registered dates using a linear regression formula. Graph axis represents time variation and measurement variance. Due date is forecasted using that plotted graph by feeding planned value. Graph varies when new measurements added for a performed value based true plan. Hope this helps.
Most of times Earliest start is the first working day of the planned week and Latest Finish is the last working day of that week (unless duration is too big and shifting it to next week)This behaves differently for some scenarios when PM Interval unit is day.
Already have an account? Login
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.
