Disregard work schedules in blueprints

Hi team,

I've noticed that when we set up blueprints with assignees, their work schedules are being taken into account, causing some extra days on certain tasks, ultimately throwing off the rest of the tasks that follow and can skew durations of individual items. This is making it harder to find a date range where all users were free in order to showcase the most up-to-date overall SLAs.

Blueprints are just a template, which is why I believe that work schedules should not be factored in. Don't get me wrong - I believe work schedules are super valuable and help reschedule work to set realistic expectations, but they can cause issues in the blueprint and ultimately in the work created from them. In other words, work schedules, as flexible and so often changed as they are, should only kick in with real work and not impact our templates.

A little tricky to explain this one, but hopefully it's clear!

Find more posts tagged with

Gathering votes

Status: Gathering votes

Comments

Rohan V

That’s a good suggestion, @Anna Giacobbe. I can see how this can benefit some of our users who work with blueprints a lot. I am sending your feedback to the Product Team. If there’s any update in the coming months, I’ll be sure to notify you 👍

Anna Giacobbe

Thank you @Rohan V

This is believed to have been the cause, according to Support, of numerous "bugs" when creating work from blueprints that include assignees with work schedule outages. Issues included overlap in tasks that otherwise had a FS dependency, task start and due dates not matching the duration field (i.e. start and due date technically over 2 days, but the duration reading 1 - or vice versa), and more.

In the event that anyone comes across this type of issue with their own work this was my work around: Reschedule/build your blueprints way in the past before your team was using Wrike so it falls over a period of time where no outages were recorded in the work schedule for that year/month. While this larger issue merits a fix and we shouldn't have to do these types of workarounds for something as simple as building a blueprint, it somewhat solved my issues temporarily. If anyone comes across wonky behavior like this, feel free to ping me on this thread!