Hi Matt, I simulated on my side and was able to see the total budgeted cost across the timescale. When I added the budgeted cost to the assignment side, it was the total for each respective resource line. When I set the budgeted cost on the right side with a monthly timescale, it is not averaging. It is giving me the monthly budgeted cost. If there's any way you can post screen shot w/no PI data, that might help. I may not be simulating correctly.
I'll try to grab a screenshot asap (not at the correct PC at the moment) but it is quite easy to replicate .. you can try this quickly ..
1. set a resource labour rate as say $50/hr for July 2013 .. then set the rate as $5000/hr for August 2013.
2. Create an activity spanning over those two months & assign the resource and add some units.
3. Then view the resource assignments 'budgeted cost' by day/week/month and do a quick calc on the rate.
I simulated the example and I see what you are saying. It can be misleading. I did see the one line average out the costs. As a workaround, I created two separate assignments for the one resources. So I created on that started June 26 to July 29 and one that started Aug 1 - 30. I did this by adding the start/finish columns in the resource tab of the activity details and then went back to the assignment window and it looks like it's breaking it out accurately based on the start/finish dates of the assignment. I was going to attach a screenshot, but for some reason can't seem to do it on this new forum and dont have time to upload it to a 3rd party site. I agree not the most ideal solution, but it does work. When you do it, the resource rate in the rersource tab of the activity will show a little asterisk, I assume to say it is changing. I just expected to see the new rate.
Ok thanks .. that is a good idea and I did some tests and it does work correctly.
However it will be tricky to change all my resource assignments because this schedule has a few thousand activities.
One of my colleagues suggesting to use the 'store period data' function, so I will do some reading to see if this might be a simpler option.
I hear you and agree with your colleague. We use Stored Period Performance here, but I did not do it for the simulation. Good Luck!