Personalized Community is here!
Quickly customize your community to find the content you seek.
Check out the latest Field Service updates!Learn about the key capabilities and features of Dynamics 365 Field Service and experience some of the new features.
Download overview guide | Watch Field Service video
2021 Release Wave 2Discover the latest updates and new features releasing from October 2021 through March 2022.
2021 release wave 2 plan
The FastTrack program is designed to help you accelerate your Dynamics 365 deployment with confidence.
FastTrack Community | FastTrack Program | Finance and Operations TechTalks | Customer Engagement TechTalks | Upcoming TechTalks | All TechTalks
In field service, is it intended to create a work order for each Asset the needs to be "worked on/repaired"?
Or can i connect one work order to like 5 Assets? If yes, how?
Hi there. Each work order can have multiple Incident, each linked to a different asset. So you can have a single work order for multiple assets
Hi, but if you don't work with Incident, for e.g only Work Order products, then i add three filter products. And the work will be performed on three assets, how can i say this WO is connected to three assets? Or is incident the only way?
I hope I understand you correctly.... it depends what you are trying to achieve. If you simply want to specify which filter went into which asset - there is already an asset field on the service product table.
If you need to store the assets against the WO so the engineers just know what they are - this can go into text. If you want them as proper fields against the work order, you can change create a N:N relationship WO:Asset and then add the Assets to the WO form. Or you can create a new table Work Order Assets with lookups to Asset and WO and add it to the WO form a a grid.
Adding to the great advice on the thread. I would use multiple incidents even if you use a “dummy” incident type to relate multiple assets to a work order.
This way you can still link work order products to the proper assets through the work order incident table. Otherwise you may open up many areas you will need to customize if you build a custom N:N mapping and it will be harder to take advantage of enhancements we make over time once you stray from the incident concept.
Thanks, but when you say "link" multiple assets to a Work Order, will that really be the Case? Because if i have two WO incidents related to a WO, and connect each of them to a different asset. I will only see the WO in one of the assets which is the (primary asset), and not the other one. On the asset where it isn't visible, i would need to open the related and the subgrid called "Incidents" where i will see the connection. Is that the intent?
I understand the point with N:N and thanks for the input there.
So what we are concluding here is,
1. A WO can only be connected to 1 Asset through the lookup. If i want to connect more, i need to use either on the WO Product or WO Incident where i can connect an additional Asset, but that means i won't see the WO connect on the "extra" asset right?
Overall your assessment is correct. The lookup field on the work order to asset and incident type is for the “primary” asset and incident type of the work order. In reality, when you populate these lookup fields on the work order, it actually creates a work order incident record under the hood. And if you modify that work order incident, it changes the primary lookup fields on the work order. They are connected. Many of our customers only have one asset per work order, and therefore we wanted to keep it simple and use lookup fields but using lookup fields for multiple assets falls apart from a schema standpoint,
so we use the work order incident concept. Reading your comments I can see how we have an opportunity to make the UI better for the multiple asset scenario while keeping the integrity of the schema we are discussing. In the interim, you can use the work order incident related incident and just make sure it is exposed on the main part of the work order form so you don’t need to go to “related”. It should be this way out of the box but if not you can add that as a sub grid to the main form. Here is a doc in case you fine it useful on this topic - docs.microsoft.com/.../configure-incident-types
Business Applications communities