When using the Realistic Calendar the expected hours of operation assigned to job operations
are more realistic. In a sense the hours shown match the time of day
it makes all the sense in the world to me - it is better to use the realistic calendar
but for some reason I have a memory this setup was NOT a preferred option.
and I cannot see why
Does anyone have an experience to support that they wish to share?
Thanks
I always promote the realistic calendar approach. That way, if you ever do get to finite scheduling, then the schedule times actually mean something, and you can tell whether you are ahead or behind schedule.
Has the “hours per day” approach been used for shops that run night shift, but still want the due date the same whether it’s due at 11:00pm or 10:00 pm?
my biggest pet peeve is the visual calendar is not representative of the actual hours.
Neither of these schedules runs past (5pm/17:00 hours)
yet the visual schedule boards show activity through the non-working times.
I think it’s just trying to show one block of work. It would be great if you could just remove those non-working hours from the chart, but I imagine you hit a lot of gotchas as soon as you start trying to do that. And it depends on what you are trying to see. A visual representation of the number of hours, or a visual representation of lead time (which includes non-working hours). If you just think of the shape as a stop end time, and not an elapsed time, it makes sense.
Also on the scheduling boards there should be a marker or something that shows the actual req by date of a selected job… both this and the grey’d out non working hours would clear up the boards. Here’s to hoping
