bug/issue with operational resource assignments in resource management workspace

[Adrianadrian]

NB This is updated with detialed description in the comments below with screenshots 🙂
Hi,

We are implementing Resource Management Workspace for a large client and have encountered a peculiar issue when creating operational resource assignments.

When creating an operational resource assignment for a named resource, it works as expected. However, when creating an operational resource assignment for a group, only a few assignments are created. The expected behavior is that all users within the group should have an operational assignment created for them.

For example, creating an operational resource assignment for a group of 10 people should result in 10 records in the resource assignment table. However, in the scenario described, only records for two users are created, and eight are missing. Interestingly, when we create an operational resource plan for a named user, it works for all users.

Has anyone experienced this problem or a similar one?

Thank you!

See example.
 
All users in the group below have same schedules, and capaciity is generated with UI action. All have same attributes, expect that one user, user #4 has employement end date 30.11.2025

Example A) - creating a group assignment with start date after employement start date, and end date after employement end date. This works as expected. See picture 🙂

Example B) Creating a group assignment with start date after employment end date for the user in the group.
This works not as expected/only partly.  Skips creating a record for the user who had an employment end date of 30.11.2025, which is correct.

 
However, it then skips creating records for other users in the group and only creates for user 2.

Our hypothesis is that when the system generates records and it comes to the next person with no capacity, it skips creating records for the next groups. 

[Adrianadrian]

Thank you for following up. I appreciate your assistance. However, the issue persists and is behaving inconsistently. Here's a detailed example:

Example:

I have two groups for resource management:

• Group A: 5 users
• Group B: 5 users

Goals:

1. Create an operational assignment for December 2025 for Group A. I want to create by selecting group (and not user)
2. Create an operational assignment for December 2025 for Group B. I want to create by selecting group (and not user)

Issue:

When I create an operational assignment for Group A, by creating on type group (and not specific resource) the system correctly creates one operational assignments per resource for December at 0.5 FTE each.

However, for Group B, the following occurs:

• When I create an operational resource assignment from December 1, 2025, to December 31, 2025 (one month), the system only creates one operational assignment for 1 out of 5 resources. This means 4 operational resource assignments are not created.
• When I create an operational resource assignment from November 1, 2025, to January 31, 2026, it correctly allocates 0.5 FTE per resource per month.
  
  This is very inconstent behavoir from the system

Summary:

Using the same procedure, I get different results for Group A and Group B. For some reason, the system is only creating one operational resource assignment for 1 out of 5 users in Group B, while it correctly creates one operational assignment per person for all 5 users in Group A.

Could you please help investigate why this discrepancy is occurring?

[abhinaykumar]

@Adrianadrian  
The issue likely lies with the employee profile table. Although a group may have five users, we only create assignment records for users with a primary group listed in the employee profile table. 

Can you please verify the employee profile table

[phil_bool_unifi]

Thanks, @abhinaykumar .  Does that mean group operational resource assignments will only be created if the group is the user's Primary Resource Group?  That feels like a bit of a limitation, that doesn't seem to apply to normal group resource assignments.

Or are you saying that the group just needs to be populated, regardless of value?

[Josh Sutton]

Currently, that is the case, and it IS also the case on regular Resource Assignments as well. This is not the case in Classic Resource Plans.

You are also correct that there is a limitation with this, and planned future enhancements will help with this. 

[Adrianadrian]

Thank you both for looking into it. From internal testing below it our root cause hypothesis. We also have a ServiveNow support case on this. @abhinaykumar @phil_bool_unifi . Below is the description we have the ticket on:

We have encountered an issue with operational resource assignment in relation to a larger implementation of resource assignment and resource management workspace. We are available for a call or email to help provide more information or demo.

We understand the importance of capacity not being calculated after the employment end date for the user on the employee profile. However, we have encountered what seems to be a flaw when creating an operational resource assignment at the group level.

When creating an operational resource assignment at the group level, and the start date of the operational assignment is after the last employee end date, the script fails. Operational resource assignments are only created for some users before the script fails.