Hi Community! 🙂
I hope this is a simple question that many of you either know the answer to or are interested in knowing the answer to. We have implemented the resource management workspace and have previous experience with legacy resource plans.
As many of you know, solid reporting you can trust is key for resource management to ensure user adoption and stakeholder commitment. Reports providing insight into how the workforce is utilized are crucial for prioritizing and understanding spend.
The resource management workspace and the new dashboards in RMW from provide great insight. However, when approaching unit testing, the implementation team has encountered some issues and questions regarding how "utilization" is calculated. Also we would like to replicate some reports outside in our own dashboards.
The issue: There is a difference between "Utilization %" in resource management workspace and "utilization % "report provided in the out of the box "Overview dashboard"
Goal:
1)We want to understand what tables should be used for creating reports on capacity, availability and utilization
2)We want to have a good understanding in how ServiceNow approach calculating utilization
Below are questions we hope anyone here have some insight to :)!
Question 1: What tables does "total capacity" and "effort" come from? We have not been able to get a 1:1 when testing.
Question 2: What specific tables in ServiceNow do you recommend for using in order to create reports for "utilization"
Question 3) Why is there a difference between "total capacity" in resource managment workspace, and the sum of the capacity from the aggregate tables (resource_aggregate_monthly) and (sn_plng_att_core_attribute_based_resource_aggregates)
in the above picture you see that:
In RMW Capacity for group is 472,5hours for June
In the tables mentioned above capacity equal 450hours when summing the records for June
There is a difference of 22,5 hours (7,5 hours per user)
I will add more information to explain the issue:
In the Resource Board within RMW there is a significant difference between the total capacity for a group compared to summing up each users capacity within the same group. This is something we think is a relativtly large problem as it confuses and leads to misleading information, unless it is a logical explanation why this is happening, or there are some configuration that are missing, we hope this could be solved.
In the example below where this issue is discovered, for e.g month of july:
- The group has 4 users with the same schedule, and the UI action "Update Capacity" has been performed.
- Each user has 172.5 hours capacity which is clearly stated when clicking into the Resource Board (see picture),
- This is the same for all four users. Summing all 4 users gives us a total of 690 hours of capacity.
- I've checked the tables resource_aggregate_monthly and sn_plng_att_core_attribute_based_resource_aggregates, which show exactly the same: 172.5 hours of capacity, totaling 690 hours for all four users. This is a good think meaning there is 1:1 between hours capacity per user showing in the resource management board.
However, when clicking into the group, it states that the group capacity is 660 hours. Tis means there is a discrepancy of 30 hours, which is significant and misleading.
My question is: Does anyone know how the total capacity for the group, as shown in the picture below, is calculated? Or why we are experiencing this issue?
Aggregate tables:
