Bug: OOTB behaviour for Operational resource assignments in resource managmeent workspace

[Adrianadrian]

Hi all. We have encountered a strange and inconsistent problem which I would like to get some input one. We are implementering resource management workspace and have broad experience with RM, however we have been faced with a problem that is really bugging us. 

Other might have experienced this so please let me know if you have thoughts of the reason why the problem occur. 

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.

Any one with a solution or reasoning here?

[Adrianadrian]

We have been provided by a update set and fix from ServiceNow on this! 🙂

[Veena Vanaparth]

Hello @Adrianadrian  Can you please share the Defect number or the workaround provided?