Key figure dissagregated and summarised

[Former Member]

Hi,  does anyone know how to handle this scenario ?

KF1  Edit allowed and stored at Month,  CUSTOMER,  and PRODUCT level

KF2  disaggregated from KF1 to week level and summarized to  Week, Product Level

Thanks

[Alecsandra]

Hi Paul,

In order to disaggregate KF2 (weekly) based on KF1 (monthly), you would to bring KF1 to weekly granularity. You can achieve this using a weekly split factor.

BPL: KF1@MCUSTPROD

KF1@REQUEST = SUM(KF1@WCUSTPROD)

KF1@WCUSTPROD = KF1@MCUSTPROD / KF3

where KF3 is defined on a weekly BPL and stores the number of weeks per month

Another requirement for disaggregation is that the KF used for disaggregation to be a stored one.

So, my suggestion would be to configure disaggregation using ADVSIM so that calculated values of KF1@WCUSTPROD are copied to a new stored KF4 (pre-copy step of ADVSIM).

KF4 would then be used in the disaggregation expression of KF2.

ADVSIM:

DISAGG_KFID11 = KF2

PRE_SOURCE_KFID11 = KF1

PRE_TARGET_KFID11 = KF4 (the new stored KF)

Cheers,

Alecsandra

[Alecsandra]

Part 2 could be solved (and preferred) with copy operator instead of advanced simulator, depending on the disaggregation`s requirements that you have.

If you don`t need dynamic disaggregation, than recommendation would be to go for the copy as a step outside the simulation.

Regards,

Alecsandra

[Former Member]

Thats very helpful.  Will try it.   Thanks Alecsandra!

[Former Member]

Hi,  just trying this part of the proposed solution:

KF1@WCUSTPROD = KF1@MCUSTPROD / KF3

I get the following error:

"The planning level for the output key figure and the planning level for the input key figure must match in the calculation definition."

I assume WCUSTPROD is a different planning level than MCUSTPROD,   Both customer and product level,  but one is at week level and other is at month level.

Please advise.

thanks

[Alecsandra]

Hi Paul,

As a general rule, the attributes of the input planning levels must should be equal with the attributes of the output planning level.

In your case, I assume that the output planning level WCUSTPROD has W as a root, while MCUSTPROD has M as a root and W not part of it.

If this assumption is correct then the inequality should be solved with the week to month KF -> KF3. This KF3 should be defined at a new base planning level which contains W as a root and another attribute from CUST or PROD MD which is already available in WCUSTPROD planning level. Pick a more general attribute (from the top of the hierarchy) so that week to month KF will be easy to maintain.

Regards

Alecsandra

[Former Member]

Great Alecsandra.  Thank You!