IV97201: Durations for room setup and breakdown aren’t correct


Regarding the setup and breakdown tasks for rooms, the Start and End times of these tasks are only influenced by relevant service assignment matrix (SAM) service level agreements (SLAs), and not by the Room Setup and Breakdown times of the space. If there are no SAM records, the duration of the task is taken as 0 (i.e. the Start and End times are the same).

The Start and End date-times on the reserve work task records that were created for the Setup and Breakdown times on the space were populating the values from SAM (not the reservation). The issue has been resolved to populate the date values from the space by adding a new list value “Use Reservation” to the “Task Assignment Dates Rule” list field on the service plan record, which is used for service plan records that are created for reserve functionality. This will allow the dates to be used from the reservation and not SAM.

Also, the list values “Available Mid-Reservation” and “Available for Entire Reservation” in the “Reserve Service Type” list field on the reserve work task template have been removed, since our current structure does not support these two values for the reservation use case.

Note for upgrade customers: These list values have been removed from the as-shipped application. These values will not be removed through an object migration (OM) package. So, you have to manually remove these values from your environment if they are not being used anywhere.

[Admin: This post is related to the 11.16.16 post about searching for rooms with setup and breakdown times. To see other related posts, use the Reservation tag.]

Continue reading

Advertisements

How do you have a generic service plan for three organizations?


So I’m trying to figure out the best way to set this up. I have a service plan that has a facilities project template. In the facilities project template, I have three project tasks. In each of those project tasks, I have assigned a specific responsible organization by work group.

So my questions are: If I have three organizations that want to use this same service plan, but they want each of the project tasks to be specific to their responsible organization by work group, how can I just have one generic service plan to satisfy all three organizations? Is there any method to accomplish this requirement in TRIRIGA?

[Updated 06.23.17]

Alright, after some research, I found out the best way to have a generic request class, service plan, facilities project template, and project tasks is by setting up a service agreement for each service provider. And within each service agreement, by creating a service assignment matrix (SAM) for all the possible combinations of request class, customer organization, and location or geography.

Secondly, in the service plan, set the project and task assignment rule to “Auto-Assign to Service Provider”. This will ensure that the workflow fires to check for associated SAM matching records to set the responsible organization for the facilities project record, and the project tasks.

If possible, I would request for a service assignment matrix (SAM) order of precedence and process flow, because it is really confusing functionality. I had to basically deconstruct the workflow to understand which values were being retrieved by the request class, service plan, service agreement, and SAM. Does anyone else have thoughts on the SAM? And tips on how best to maintain it?

[Admin: This post is related to the 11.10.16 post about updating your existing service matrix records, the 09.02.16 post about clarifying how service matrix records are generated, and the 12.11.15 post about finding the process flow diagrams.]

Continue reading

Is there a way to add child service codes in the cost code hierarchy?


Is it possible to add a child service code in the cost code hierarchy? In the location cost code, I can add another location, project or service code. However, in the service cost code, there is no further sub-level hierarchy. I presume one of the workflows needs some altering, but I’m not sure which one?

In the TRIRIGA as-shipped application configuration, service codes aren’t configured to have sub-levels (children). This isn’t configured in workflows, but rather in Form Builder. See the second tab labeled “Includes/Forms”. In the screenshot, you can see what the location cost code allows to be included under it. On the Service Request form, you can see that as-shipped applications do not allow children. You can allow this with a customization, but realize that anything you want to do with the child records will need to be configured in workflows as well.

[Admin: To see other related posts, use the Cost Code tag.]

Continue reading

IV96774: “Due Within” from SLA on SAM record ignores minutes value


When the “Due Within” from the service level agreement (SLA) on the service assignment matrix (SAM) record contains minutes as well as hours (for example, 4 hours 30 minutes), the minutes component (30 minutes) is getting truncated when this value is being applied to the related work task. In other words, only 4 hours is considered for the total working period, instead of 4 hours 30 minutes.

The platform was only considering whole number hours, not the decimal (0.5) portion. Moving forward, we resolved an issue where the calculation for working hours from the duration ignores the minutes and seconds parts.

[Admin: To see other related posts, use the SLA tag or Agreement tag.]

Continue reading

Why aren’t tasks always showing up in tabular metric reports?


Our client’s tabular metric reports, which are set to show the tasks of service requests, seem to have some issues. Although the tasks are found by the report, they don’t always show up or aren’t displayed on the list.

Here are two examples below: (1) In the first case, 6 tasks are found, but only 2 of them show up. (2) In the second case, 3 tasks are found, but none is displayed. Any ideas on what could be happening?

[Updated 05.03.17]

It seems that the user’s language (set in his profile) and the existence of a contract for the tasks affect their visibility one way or another on the tabular report. Here’s an example below: (1) When the user’s language is set to EN (English), all of the tasks show up fine. (2) When the user’s language is set to FR (French), only tasks which have a contract show up (in this case, only 1) even though all 8 are found…

Continue reading

How do service plans impact task creation for your PM schedules?


Are you new to using TRIRIGA? Do you wonder how to ever get started with your Preventive Maintenance (PM) schedules?

I know that when I came over to TRIRIGA, I had some trouble. So I am going to go through creating a work plan that includes a service plan and what that means for your task creation. Most PM schedules have some kind of job plan – a list of tasks that need to get done and will occur on a schedule, whether weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly, or longer.

The first step is to create your job plan, which is called Plan Work in TRIRIGA. This is found under Maintenance > Preventive Maintenance > Plan Work. Your job plan is based on assets, locations, or systems. What is a system? A system is a collection of assets or locations. After you have identified whether your job plan is for assets or locations, you can go create your PM schedule. This is where it really gets “fun”…

Continue reading

Why aren’t service requests available after customizing form?


When submitting a Change Space or Need Space request, I see the following message when I click on the Create Draft button:

“No services are available under the Service Request section for the building. Please contact the Application Administrator.”

If you look at the triBuilding form, it does not appear to have a “Service Request” section. Where should I be looking on the building record to address the issue?

This error is happening because I changed the name of the triChangeSpace form to cstChangeSpace since I needed to customize the form. If I keep my changes in place, I can rename the form to triChangeSpace and this message does not appear. The message also did not prevent me from being able to submit the request. The form name change also prevented me from selecting the Service Request type in the form, which I think is why the message is displayed in the first place…

As a side note, with the 3.5.1 introduction of object labels and revisions, you’re not required in 3.5.1 or later to use the classic “cst” naming convention any more. To others interested, here are the new naming convention best practices.

[Admin: This post is related to the 06.10.16 post about finding information on object labels and revisions.]

Continue reading