E9.2 Capacity Planning Future Dating Workcenter Capacity


Reputable Poster

We are on E1 9.2 but the oldest Application code base (circa 2017). We are starting to look into CRP and have a question. Has there been an enhancement to allow future dated capacity changes on a workcenter? Currently, for example, you can set a work center to have a crew size and number of employees. We would like to be able to state that in June, 2 months from now, the capacity of a workcenter will be reduced by 2 employees for vacation time. Ideally, we could set that up ahead of time and not need to do it just the day before.

We are planning to upgrade this summer so taking the newest enhancements should be doable in the near future.

If this is not available, do you have suggestions for 3rd party planning tools that would provide that type of capability?

Thank you for your insight,

Yes if I understand your question correctly.
The CRP runs R3007G to update the numbers in F3007 which can be reviewed/updated via P3007. In your case, you can reduce the Utilization per affected W/C from 100% to whatever is a comfortable number for you. And rerun R3007G today you can have your capacity recalculated two months in advance.
BTW, the crew size does not impact capacity and only the number of employees does.

9.2 R23 + TR
Thank you, both, John and Larry, for the replies. I see what you are both mentioning. We just want to be able to change those settings for a specific time period in the future. When R3007G is run, it wipes out all future records and rebuilds them Would be great to have a flag that says to preserve specified records and not recalculate. I understand it is a somewhat odd request. We are in a small community and several people can be out for the same time period. Being able to see that in the future schedule would help identify those situations so they can be planned.
I have seen where a Dispatch Group is used to capture reduced capacity times, and have the production WC roll up into that Dispatch Group. Of course, nothing's for free, and there are some challenges with this solution, too.
Thank you for the idea, Dave. We may consider that. I am thinking of creating a tag table and modifying R3007G to check that table for an override flag for a given resource. Haven't done any investigating on the complexity yet.