If there are routes with several differentiated operations (10, 20, 30, 40, etc) with link type strogn between them, it is not possible that, for example, operation 20 and 40 are the same type of work (for example, polishing) since it is not possible to assign the same operation code and have the possibility of assigning differentiated production times or resources.
This causes the operation encoding to have to become endless equal codes with a .1, .2., 3, etc. suffix. When the operation number is different so they should not become twin operations.
Comments
Thanks for this idea Maria! We and a lot of other implementation partners and customers all still have the same issue and I had created the following post in Viva Engage lately and was told to create an idea, which, as I found out, is already existing. Therefore I create this comment with the detailed info from my Viva Engage post.Weber, Jürgen on Viva Engage: "Multiple usage of the same operation in one route" Posted in Manufacturing on Jan 7, 2026Multiple usage of the same operation in one routeWe have again the issue that we can not use one and the same operation multiple times within one route, because if we do that fields and setups like the run time and the resource are always the same for each of the operations.This restriction however only applies when we setup the route under "All Routes" or directly from the released product. Here the following underlying tables are involved - Route, RouteOpr, ProdRoute, Once we have the production order created the behavior for the individual route of the production orders is different! We can e.g. enter further new operations with the same operation ID and indicate different run times and resources. Now we would like to get rid of this limitation already with the setup of the base data. The workaround to name the operation IDs with a pre- or suffix Number is suboptimal. Are there any other workarounds that we are not aware of or have any of you customized that behavior already? Or is perhaps MSFT thinking about improving this behavior in a future release?Thank you very much!
Category: Production Control
Absolute must have! We are facing exaclty the same problem - and even see this as a "bug". The operation code should not be the primary key here.
Category: Production Control

Administrator
Thank you for your feedback. Currently this is not in our roadmap; however, we are tracking it and if we get more feedback and votes, we may consider it in the future.
Sincerely,
Johan Hoffmann
PM, Microsoft