if CrewType is chosen on JobPlan, Maximo's default behaviour is to explicitly set Quantity to 1 and make it read-only. I have changed that behaviour in JOBLABOR, and now I can edit the Quantity on JobPlan. (This has been done via an attribute launch point automation script on JOBLABOR.AMCREWTYPE).
However, when the JobPlan is applied to a WO, it still explicitly sets the QUANTITY for CrewType as 1 on WPLABOR, thus not carrying across the quantity from JOBLABOR. Where can i override that behaviour? Could this be done via an automation script for the run action of JPNUM field?
As to why the quantity field defaults back to 1 and is made read-only if Crew Type or Crew are selected, I would expect that's because conceptually, it doesn't make sense to have a quantity other than one for these types of job plan labour. The same is true of assigning labour records to a Job Plan because it doesn't make sense to assign a quantity greater than one of the same person's labour record. In fact the only type of job plan labour you're able to adjust the quantity for in Maximo out of the box is craft because you could justifiably require multiples of a particular craft (e.g. 3 electricians) assigned to the job plan.
A crew type is a template for a crew which is itself the labour (internal or otherwise) with particular crafts, skill levels and qualifications to perform the work. Since each Crew is distinct and made up of group of individuals assigned to the positions in the crew I don't think it makes sense to say you want to assign 2 instances of the same crew, say Crew A, to a particular job plan. If, for example, two instances of the same type of team are required to perform the work you probably need to define two distinctly separate crews of the same crew type and add each crew (not Crew Type) to the Job Plan rather than customise the system to allow you to add a crew type with a quantity greater than 1.
Alternatively you could assign crafts to the job plan which you then have the option of specifying that the job plan requires, say 5 electricians, for example for 6 hours.
From Administration -> Organisations you can select an Organisation then click Crew Assignment Options to define how total work hours are calculated for Work Orders, Job Plans, Tasks and Activities associated with Crews.
I can see why you would want to plan for n crews of some type. For example, it takes a crew of a certain type to stand a pole for street lights, and if you've got a whole street to put lights on, why not have 5 of that crew type planned on this work order?
Unfortunately, it seems Maximo is pretty set against doing that. For what explanation it may yield, I recommend opening a Support Case with IBM, asking for the rationale or how to work around that limitation. And you could submit an RFE with rationale for why the limitation should not be there.
To satisfy the immediate need, maybe you could set up crew types as a service? Or create your own Quantity attributes for use with Crew Type and implement all the logic around those? I don't like reinventing the wheel, but "the juice might be worth the squeeze" if you're going to be fighting Maximo every step of the way, anyway. Or, if it really means that much to you, customize this aspect of Maximo to do what you want.
Whatever happens, I think your problem is not a programming problem but a Maximo problem. And as StackOverflow is a programming site, your problem is beyond the scope of this site. However, please come back if you have a programming problem! We love solving those!
Update
Having thought more about this, I think this is not a Maximo problem. I think Maximo is just (you could argue, forcibly) encouraging better planning. In the street light example, you wouldn't expect n crews to self-organize to stand poles. That would be poor planning. Rather, you would have a top level work order for doing the street with a lower level work order for each individual pole. So, each of those lower level work orders would only require 1 of the Crew Type. This arrangement would still flow through to scheduling as needing n of that Crew Type, but whether 1 Crew of that type was used n times or whether n crews were used once or somewhere in between is a scheduling problem, not a planning problem.
Related
In my company (train company) there is a sort of battle going on over two viewpoints on something. Before going to deep into the problem I'm first going to explain the different domains we have in our landscape now.
Product: All product master data and their characteristics.
Think their name, their possible list of choices...
Location: All location master data that can be chosen, like stations, stops, etc.
Quote: To get a price for a specific choice of a product with their attributes.
Order: The order domain where you can make a positive order but also a negative one for reimbursements.
Ticket: This is essentially what you get from paying the order. Its the product but in the state that its at, when gotten by the customer.
The problem
Viewpoint PURPLE (I don't want to create bias)
When an order is transformed into all "tickets", we convert the order details, like price, into the ticket model. In order to make Order something we can throw away. Order is seen as something transient. Kind of like the bag you have in a supermarket. Its the goods inside the bag that matter. Not the bag itself.
When a reimburse flow would start. You do not need to go to the order. You would have everything in the Ticket domain. So this means data from order will be duplicated to Ticket.
But not all, only the things that are relevant. Like price for example.
Viewpoint YELLOW (I don't want to create bias)
You do the same as above but you do not store the price in Ticket domain. The ticket domain only consist of details that are relevant for the "ticket" to work. Price is not allowed in there cause its a thing of the order. When a reimburse flow would start, its allowed to go fetch those details from the order. Making order not something you can throw away as its having crucial data inside of it.
The benefit here is that Order is not "polluting" the Ticket with unnecessary data. But this is debatable. The example of the price is a good example.
I wish to know your ideas about these two viewpoints.
There is no "Don't repeat yourself" when it comes to the business domain. The only thing that dictates the business domain is the business requirements. If the requirements state that the ticket should work independent of the order changes, then you have to duplicate things.
But in this case, the requirements are ambiguous. There is no correct design using the currently specified requirements. Building code based on assumptions is the #1 way of getting bad code, since you most likely will have to do a redesign down the road.
You need to go back to the product owner and ask him about the difference between the Order and the Ticket.
For instance:
What should happen to the ticket if the order is deleted?
What happens to the order and/or ticket if the product price changes?
What happens to a ticket if the order is reimbursed?
Go back, get better requirements and then start to design the application.
I am working on DDD project and I am currently focused on two bouned contexts, Orders and Warehouse.
What confuses me is the following situation:
Order keep track of all the placed orders, and warehouse keeps track about all the available inventory. If user places one order for certain product item, that would mean one less item of that product in a warehouse. I am oversimplifying this process, so please bear with me.
Since two domain models are placed inside of a different BC, i am currently relying on eventual consistency ie. after one item has been sold, it would eventually be removed from the warehouse.
That situation unfortunately leads to the problem scenario where another user could simultaneously make another order of the same item, and it would appear as available until eventual consistency kicks is. That is something it is unacceptable by the domain expert.
So IMO I am stuck with two options
merge order and warehouse (at least the part regarding product
inventory, units available in warehouse) into one BC
have Order BC (or microservice if you wish) to be dependent of Warehouse BC (microservice) in order to pull a live product units
available
Which option does actually follows DDD patern? Is there another way out?
You could use a reservation system with a timeout.
Using a messaging analogy: With a broker-style queuing mechanism (such as RabbitMQ) you get a message from the queue and you have control over it until you either acknowledge that it can be removed from the queue or you release it back to the queue.
You could do the same thing in your ordering process. You reserve any items on your order. SO when you add them they have a status of, say, reserving and upon sending some message to reserve the items. If the response comes back you can decide how to proceed. Perhaps you could add any items that cannot be reserved onto a back order or try again later.
There are going to be different ways to approach this. Depending on your business case it may be acceptable to only check availability when someone really accepts the order.
If you domain expert reckons it is totally unacceptable that having this resolved at the end of the process then you could move it to the start. The issue is of course that user A could reserve and never buy thereby losing user B as a customer; whereas only applying the real "taking" of the item at the end of the process is closer to ensuring a purchase. But that is a business decision.
This issue is a really great example of where reality actually is eventually consistent. Is it really the best thing to decline an order if there is no inventory currently in the warehouse - even if there was a replenishment due in the next 20 minutes?
What if the item was actually on the shelf, but the operator hadn't yet keyed it into the system?
Sometimes designers and domain experts assume that people want 100% consistency, when really, users might be willing to accept a delay in confirmation of their order, if it increased the chance that their order would be accepted rather than rejected.
In the case above, why make it the user's job to retry their order N minutes later? In an eventually consistent system, you can accommodate such timing flexibility by including a timeout to retry the attempt to fulfill the order for a period of time before confirming to the client that it really wasn't possible.
There are technical solutions that will give you 100% consistency, but I think really this is not a technical challenge but a cultural/mindset one, changing people's minds about what is possible & acceptable to achieve an what is actually a better outcome.
IMO you can build a PlaceOrderSaga which will ask for inventory availability before placing the order.
Say there is 5 bags of potatoes, when it hits two bags, an order is sent to the supplier automatically. Who/What is the actor?
Clearly you have an actor to watch the queue like this:
Even if the Potato Watcher is something implemented inside the SUC, it would be an actor on its own. You may drag it inside the SUC boundary. In a final implementation it might be a system task to poll a queue or a subscriber to the queue. But from the added value viewpoint it's just a simple actor to watch a queue and do something with it.
Since "an order is sent... automatically" the system is the actor. Assuming you are automating using software system.
However in real life it all goes wrong and businesses are far away from sending orders automatically.
Badgerbadger, you need to be carefull about statement "sent an order".
It is easy to overlook actual business process and previous subfunction-level answers are giving a nudge.
More realistic scenario is that the system is the actor who just initiates the check of stocks, maybe orchestrates. And then there is a complicated process of getting approval, finding budget, checking if goods are really required to be ordered and so on. In theory all of those can be automated, but usually in practice there is a work for human actor as well. Of course you may be lucky and avoid all of this.
Example of pessimistic scenario to consider:
It was eight bags, but now hits three. John just bought five bags from us, hooray!
System automatically places an order and pays for 10 more bags.
In ten minutes someone ordered one more.
System automatically places an order again and pays for 10 more bags.
We don't have enough money on account so we are facing overdraft.
At the same time regular inspection found that one bag is rotten.
System: 10 more bags please!
Our colleague just told us that we've missed 20% discount from supplier on simultaneous orders of 25+ bags which can be obtained only by calling a company manager.
John cancels his order in an hour after placing it.
Now we have 36 bags and a hole in our budget.
And our marketing manager just told us that the green bags system ordered are actually now selling with a discount, we are getting rid of them in favour of new line of blue bags.
You have to possibilities here:
Each time the stock is used the system checks if the condition to order is met and if yes then order it. As ordering will probably involve another actor (e.g. supplier's system), you might need to model it as a separate UC and use extend relationship. In this case you will not have any additional actor initiating the order, only the actor initiating stock usage.
The system checks on a regular basis what stocks reached the automated order level and make a single mass order. In this case you'll have to model Scheduler as an actor (in reality it's another system running on the server so it's fine to call it an actor). Some people prefer modelling such actor as "time" but it's discouraged.
I'm pretty new to Maximo and I have a question about how things should be handled. We have a project of integrating our ERP with Maximo using MIF interfaces. I'd like to know how you performed this in your company as I'm sure we're not the only one facing this challenges.
Let's go pretty simple about the Inventory. Receiving will be performed in our ERP and sent to Maximo. "Consumption" and inventory movements will be performed in Maximo and interfaced back to our ERP. so far so good, standard process.
However, there's a difference in the real inventory vs the inventory from a Financial perspective. As an example, we have let's say 3 cutters (same part number, different serial number). We have 2 in the internal storage and 1 in the machine where its being used. Once it is in the machine, it's known as "consumed" by finance. So from a finance point of view, there's only 2 in stock. From the tooling guy however, there's 3! The one in the machine can be taken out and replaced by one of the two others.
How are things like that handled in maximo? Any help, advices would be appreciated.
Regards
M.
It depends on how you plan to track on the individual level (track cutters by individual asset tags or serial numbers) or on the group level (3 cutters with the same item number)
If the cutter is treated as inventory and not as an asset, once it is issued then it is considered used. You can opt to use "Condition Code" and give each item a value from 0 to 100. Think of this value as depreciation. If a cutter is swapped out, then the new cutter (100%) is issued, and the replaced cutter is disposed of or returned to the shelf with a diminished value (e.g. 25%).
I've been a JIRA and Bugzilla admin in past jobs, and have quite often had users ask for the ability to have more than one assignee per issue.
I know this is possible in JIRA, but to my mind it never makes sense; an issue should represent a piece of work, and only one person can do a piece of work (at least in software, I've never used an issue tracker for a 2-man bobsled team ;-)) A large piece of work will obviously involve more than one person, but I think in that case it should be split into subtasks to allow for accurate status reporting.
Does anyone have any use cases where it's valid to have multiple assignees ?
The Assignee field means many things to many people. A better name might be "Responsible User". There are three cases I discuss with my clients:
A. number of assignees = 0
JIRA has an Allow Unassigned issues option but I discourage use of that because if a work item isn't owned by anyone it tends to be ignored by everyone.
B. number of assignees = 1
The default case
C. number of assignees > 1
Who is responsible for the work item represented by the issue? The best case I've seen for this is that when an issue can be handled by any one person in a team, so before triage the issue is assigned to everyone in that team. I think a better approach is to create a JIRA user with an email address that sends to the whole team, and assign it to that user. Then a member of the team can have the issue assigned to them in particular.
Changing the one assignee case has the history recorded in the History tab. Nothing is lost in that case.
I'll often have a story / feature that can be split across multiple developers. They will have individually assigned subtasks but it would make sense to assign the parent to all involved, unless there's a lead developer. I wasn't actually aware that I could do multiple assignments, so thanks for the tip!
The other case I can think of is pair programming.
I hit upon this question while looking for solutions to doing this. Since I want to do this, I'm guessing my use case counts as an answer to your question: I only really want one assignee in the sense of someone currently working on a problem, but I want to track the whole lifecycle of an issue. For us, that can mean:
A support person receives a report from a customer, creates an issue
An issue-wrangler reviews the issue to make sure it's valid, not duplicated, has all appropriate details, etc.
A developer implements/fixes the issue
A tester performs whatever tests are appropriate (in our case, mostly extending our automated testsuite to additionally test the feature/fix)
An operations person rolls out the new version to a test environment
A support person informs the customer, who does his own tests with the new version in the test environment
An operations person rolls out the new version to production
Not all issues necessarily go through all steps. Some issues have more steps (e.g. a code review between step 3 and 4). Many issues will also move backwards among the steps (developer needs more information, we go from step 3 to 1 or 2; tester spots a problem, we go from 4 to 3).
At each stage, only one person is actually responsible for whatever's got to be done. Nevertheless, there are a whole bunch of people who are associated with the issue. Tracking systems we've used are happy to offer easy changes to previous owners of the issue (shown as a list), but I'd ideally like to go a step further, with the owner automatically reverting to the correct prior owner depending on the issue's status. At step 6, the original support person from step 1 should ideally contact the customer. At step 7, the ops person from step 5 would ideally be the assignee.
In other words, while I don't want multiple assignees for a given step, I do want there to be a "support assignee", a "developer assignee", a "testing assignee", etc.
We can do this with subtasks and we can do it by manually selecting previous owners when changing statuses, but neither is ideal and I think the situation above is one where multiple assignees would make sense.
In my company, we have a similar workflow to Nikhil. We work in a scrum model, with developers, testers and a technical writer on each team.
The workflow of a development task is
Development -> Developer review -> QA testing -> PO Acceptance -> Done
The workflow of a QA task is
QA writes test case / automated test -> QA review -> Done
We had a tool which JIRA replaced that allowed us to assign multiple people to a task, which we found very useful for our workflow. On a QA task, I could easily see if the other tester on my team had already done work and I needed to do the next step.
Without this, I am finding it difficult to quickly identify tasks written by the other tester on my scrum team which are ready for me to review (versus the ones I wrote which they need to review).
So many people have asked for the ability to have multiple assignees since at least 2007. They have varying, valid use cases. I was disappointed that the JIRA development team unilaterally said they won't implement this and would ask them to reconsider.
https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRA-12841
While pair-group working (pair programming etc..) it would be nice to assign both persons to the issue.
Tasks move through different steps through development (example: Development, review, testing). Different persons can be responsible for each step. Even though the task may be in review or testing, the reviewer will have stuff fore the developer to fix. Having different roles to assign to would help organizing the work.
In our team we usually develop 1 or 2 persons together.
Then the code is reviewed by around 2-5 persons in individually or in pairs
Then it is tested by 1-2 persons initially, finally tested by the whole team.
Currently our system allows us to assign a single person at a given time. That limits our ability to follow who is working on what without looking through the log for the issue. The benifits of beeing able to assign multiple persons would be good for us.
What happens if John is assigned a task and cannot finish it, and it is moved to Jane's list because John was a slacker?
Are you OK with losing history of who it was originally assigned to, and the hours that were spent / billed on it?
In an e-Learning scenario, it makes sense to have an issue assigned to multiple users.
Here is what I want to do:
I have a storyboard which I want to assign to 3 people at the same time - the animators, the recording artists and the graphic designers. Once these people finish their tasks, they will pass it on to a common reviewer, who will review and close the issue.
Graphically it would look something like this:
Storyboard
/ | \
graphics animator recording
\ | /
reviewer
|
done
The three job roles depend only on one storyboard. The compilation of the three have to go to a reviewer. I'm racking my brains to get this working on redmine. Haven't found a solution yet.
Got this answer from an Atlassian partner https://www.isostech.com/solutions/
and then later from Atlassian
Objective:
Want to set who does the works for each step on an issue
Summary:
Use a plugin to copy values from custom fields into the assignee field whenever the issue transitions to a new step.
How:
1. Install the Suite Utilities plug-in:
This plug-in adds a bunch of new functionalities to workflows.
You will use the plug-in to copy the value of a custom field to the assignee:
Create a custom field as single user picker for each role i.e., dev, tester, reviewer to be assigned at different steps in the issue
Add these fields to the issue type's screen
Modify the post-function on the workflow transition between each step
Add a "Copy Value From Other Field" post function and set it to copy the value from the appropriate user custom field into the assignee field.