If I remember correctly from our piloting stage, we discovered the visual scheduling boards were not based upon the actual jobop/resource schedules. I seem to recall they look at (a?) Load table(s) that is/are supposed to mirror actual schedules.
While piloting through various upgrades from 305 thru 403, we hit releases that had some bugs resulting in the load tables not reliably representing the real schedules.
The visual scheduling board apps are dogs anyway... Slow response & no drag and drop that might actually make them useful moderately efficient & useful.
I'm sure the scripted demos Epicor sales use that depict them as being so cool (to people who haven't had a lot of real world scheduling experience) sells a lot of site installations.
If you really step back and look at your process needs (and assess the common skill sets & experience of the people maintaining your schedules) you'll likely find they'd be much more productive (and happier) with a much simpler tool. You can likely write a BAQ (containing just the info that is pertinent to YOU in your processes when making schedule juggle decisions) and a dashboard to provide them with they really need. (Any Editing capability is then just a right click menu away out of the dashboard.)
Rob
While piloting through various upgrades from 305 thru 403, we hit releases that had some bugs resulting in the load tables not reliably representing the real schedules.
The visual scheduling board apps are dogs anyway... Slow response & no drag and drop that might actually make them useful moderately efficient & useful.
I'm sure the scripted demos Epicor sales use that depict them as being so cool (to people who haven't had a lot of real world scheduling experience) sells a lot of site installations.
If you really step back and look at your process needs (and assess the common skill sets & experience of the people maintaining your schedules) you'll likely find they'd be much more productive (and happier) with a much simpler tool. You can likely write a BAQ (containing just the info that is pertinent to YOU in your processes when making schedule juggle decisions) and a dashboard to provide them with they really need. (Any Editing capability is then just a right click menu away out of the dashboard.)
Rob
--- On Tue, 12/2/08, c.chest <c.chest@...> wrote:
From: c.chest <c.chest@...>
Subject: [Vantage] Re: 8.03.406 Scheduling
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 3:44 PM
Mellisa,
We are having a similar problem. We have also noticed that there are
jobs that will not show up on the Resource Scheduling Board, even
though they are a legitimate job and you can see them (with the
scheduled resource) on the Job Scheduling Board. Are you having this
issue also?
I am curious to see what Epicor has to say.
Cindy
--- In vantage@yahoogroups .com, melissa hietala <kevmel822@. ..> wrote:
>
> I am happy to see that some of the basic functionality issues with
scheduling were resolved with this patch, but I came across another
situation that I'm not sure if it is our problem somehow or Vantage.
> When we use the Global Scheduling piece, I noticed that
the Resource scheduling boards list of jobs (the order in which to
run) did not match the Priority dispatch order of jobs (start dates).
In looking at it closer, I discovered that if you look at the Job
scheduling board for those jobs that are out of order, the changes
made during the global process did not save. So the Job oper start
dates did not change, which are the dates the report uses. But the
Resource sched board does not show them in what I would call 'What-
if'. I sent a copy of our database to Epicor and the log files for
these jobs from the scheduling process, but haven't heard anything
yet. And it is not on every job or every resource. I have a good % of
the resources that match exactly to the reports. Also, when I am in
the Job scheduling board and see the changes not saved, it will not
let me save them.
>
> Any ideas as to what I may have going on in these jobs?
> Â Melissa Hietala
> UMC, Inc.
> melissah@...
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>