Strange Reason to Inactivate a Resource

S

Sue C

I believe I may have sent this post directly to Scott Wagner. Scott,
my apologies if that was not the correct procedure.

My question is as follows:

Our IS Department is requesting that all PWA users who have not
accessed PWA for the last 90 days, be inactivated (in preparation for
license true-up). However, in thinking about this request, I question
whether we'd want to do that and whether this makes any sense at all.
A user may not have accessed PWA for 90 days, but he may have a task
out 60 days from now. Proper deactivation (as I understand it)
requires the user's tasks be zero'd out and remaining work assigned to
a new resource. That's certainly not what we'd want to do. Could
someone give me their opinion on whether this is a rational way to
handle this--or any alternatives?

Also, along the same line, when I'm determining whether to inactivate
or delete a user, I search for their tasks in View Resource
Assignments - All Tasks. This shows me all Tasks they've EVER had (I
think). But when I've tried to validate this by viewing a previously
inactivated resource who had tasks, no tasks appear. Hmmm...any idea
why that would be? I'm concerned that if a resource shows no tasks,
they may have in fact had history. Can anyone out there sort this one
out for me?

Thanks so much!
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top