Clarity

License types are tied to access rights which are tied to roles. Why do some resources have roles that SHOULD be restricted show up in full? I see there is a "Full" right called "Resource - Manager (Auto)" which basically says the person is automatically listed as full if the person is listed as someone's manager. That goes against the idea of granting licenses that are tied to roles. Can someone shed light on this?  How can we get rid of this to make the restricted people stay in restricted if they are listed as a manger? Thanks.

Hi Alison 

I will share my part of view over here: 

You can always create a Role called "Project Manager" and attach the same to 5 resources in CA PPM, who are managers in your organization. That will not assign them the FULL license as you mentioned. But when you assign the Project Manager Access Right to a Resource, it will provide certain administrative abilities to that user, and he will come under the resources having FULL Licenses. 

There is an Out of the Box User group called Project Managers. Assigning a resource under that group will make him a Project Admin. But if you create a role called Project manager, and attach it to some named resource, it will not make any changes to the access rights of that user. 

Hope that helps.  

Thanks,

Abhisek Dhar

The other thing is that all rights do not go through rights administration in the Administration part of the application.

Auto rights and collaboration rights are among those. That is the way it has always been.

I think this is the issue. The resources are listed as "Full" but do not have any rights that would give them Full (other than the auto ones, which cannot be removed).

Thanks!

That is part of the problem of rights being granted outside the rights administration. The license count does not pay attention to how they are granted.

Sometimes the option works: Remove the autoright ie unassign manager, create a custom field called manager, assign the closest match of instance rights. If there is other functionality related to the "auto" the work around does not do that.

Hi Abhisek  -i see an issue with the license information. A resource manager is changed for all resources but the old RM is still holding Resource - Manager (Auto) access. That consumes full license in the system which is a bug. Is there any way to get sorted out? 

Hi Monica, 

I am not sure which version of CA PPM you are using but I just tested in a CA PPM 15.4 version, and when you add Resource A as the Resource Manager of Resource B, Resource A automatically acquires the Resource Manager (Auto) access right for that specific resource instance (in this case, the instance is Resource B). Now when you again, change the Resource Manager field of Resource B to something else, the Resource Manager (Auto) access right gets removed from Resource A. And as he is not having any other administrative right(s), I can see that he is having Restricted License again. 

So I am assuming that in your case, either the resource is having some other Admin/Edit rights or there must some other resource for which the Old RM is holding back the Resource Manager (Auto) access right. Try to check by clicking on that instance specific right, if you can see any other resource for which he is having that right. Hope that helps. 

Regards,

Abhisek Dhar

Hi Abhisek, we are with Clarity v15.2. Also, the issue seems to prevail only in our DEV environment. I've confirmed that the resource is holding full license in the system because of the Resource - Manager (Auto). Also, when I try to filter for the resource to whom he is a RM, I get no resource. So, not sure what is causing this problem in DEV environment.

Hi Monica, 

Please go to the Home --> Resources, and use the filter section to see if their is any (inactive) resource under his belt: 

Make sure you click show all and then add the Resource Manager field. 

Even if that is not showing any result, then please add the affected resource to some other resource, as Resource manager and then save and again remove the same. In case that revokes the AUTO access right. 

This issue of the access right for Resource Manager being automatically assigned to a specific user is quite often the result of the HR integration automatically populating who the Resource Managers are for specific labour resources based on the HR data that is being imported. As soon as you make any one of these specific Resource Managers active as a user they are automatically elevated to being a full user as a result of the Auto right.

Even if you change the data point and remove the right, the next time you do a full run of your HR integration all of the changes you have made will be reversed.

These are a couple of extra points that you will need to investigate. When I have seen this twice previously, I opened up a dialogue with our CA Sales rep and worked through resolution of licensing with them.

Hi Alison,

For our organization, we found that Investment Team Members were percolating from consuming a View-Only licence to a Restricted license because we had the Admin -> Project Management setting to "Automatically Add Staff Members As Investment Participant" set to when added to an Investment. This gave them the ability to contribute to Collab, conversations etc. Since we actively use Sharepoint for a document repository, this setting was unnecessary and bloated our license count, so we updated this setting to 'Never'.

As well, if you designate View-Only users to be Portfolio Stakeholders rather than Portfolio Managers, you'll avoid View-Only users from escalating from consuming a Ful license.

Hope this helps,

Will

A similar feature is the license consumed by inactive collaboration managers, which is hard to detect.

May be you are talking about this one, Martti. There was this technical document for this one: 

KB000031369