any issue with a user being in multiple resource groups?

[Les1]

Is there any functionality issue with users being in multiple Resource Groups versus having no overlap in resource groups of group membership.

i'm getting reports about potential issues in reporting with not getting accurate allocation/capacity data, but just wondering if ITBM Resource Management has any issue with having users in more than one resource group or maybe the user just needs help with their report.

I appreciate your feedback thank you

[Jon Miller1]

We were lucky, Les. We only had a handful of plans created, all in a Planned state, when we realized our mistake. So we just blew them all away and started again. I'm a little nervous that we're now discussing change the IT operating model and that will change the IT org. But hopefully I can get ahead of that (again!) before we get too far into resource management.

[Suzanne Jones1]

We are trying to determine if we need new, separate groups for resource management, so that all membership in the resource groups are unique. Having unique membership in each resource group addresses the over reporting of capacity as Michael and Jon mention above.   Or should we use existing groups - which will mean adjusting membership to get it to be unique (not preferred.)

How have you addressed assigning a project task to a resource group?  On project preference tab, we would check "Derive assignee list from resource plan" so that only resources on the associated resource plan are available to the project.  The individual associated to the resource plan can then be assigned to the task, however, if "assignment" type is not selected on the resource group, the assignment group cannot be selected.  

It seems that the resource group also needs to have a group type of "assignment"?  (I'm assuming that these group types are OOTB?)  If we add "assignment" type to a resource group then that resource group appears on other task-types, such as incidents, changes, problems etc.  

With the upgrade to Paris, there is the consideration of tracking actuals on Operational Resource Plans, which I'm not sure how that works yet.  

Anyone gotten this far and have it figured out yet?!  

Appreciate any guidance you may offer.  

[Jon Miller1]

Our ServiceNow groups have ended up a bit of a mess so we created brand new groups for resource groups. We may delete some of our originals and move roles over to the resource groups later but that's not a super high priority so not sure if/when we'll get to it.

As to the group type, I believe OOTB groups show up for task assignment if the type is "itil" or "blank". I think the "assignment" value maybe one you've added so don't know if you have additional, custom logic behind it. We chose to give the new resource groups a type of "resource" specifically so they do NOT show up in the list for incident/task assignment (adding to our existing mess). We may revisit that later if we want to start using them for tasks.

We typically don't assign project tasks or, if we do, it's just to the PM as they're the ones managing closing them. Not saying that's necessarily right/good but is where we're at in our evolution.

[melaniegilbert]

I'm the resource manager for our PMO and manage the project availability and allocation for our IT and Security Divisions. We took this approach:

Set up resource groups that follow the organizational structure. These are used for the Operational Resource Plans, which we create on a yearly basis. We didn't want to do any customization, so we have an orchestration that creates the resource groups and puts "Operational resource group" in the description field.

Set up resource groups that align to the skill or task type that is being requested. Something like "Analyst - Requirements" or "Admin - ServiceNow". The orchestration adds the description for "Project resource group". The members of the group are sub-sets of an organizational unit, so the group has the same Manager and Cost Center as the operational group.

When reporting on capacity or utilization, only report on the operational group that aligns to your org structure. It's pretty easy to use different filter conditions like Description or Name.

This way we can request the resource plan to show the kind of work, and also manage operational needs. (In our org, the operational resource plans are handled by a part of Finance.) The resource plan is requested by the PM and their needs are different than a team lead or HR lead who is thinking in terms of the org. The PM is thinking in terms of "I need java script".

We also added a cost center to each resource group and then set up the Rate Model to go off the group and the user cost center. Each team has a different billable rate.