DP Disaggregation and Aggregation levels

[Former Member]

Hi all,

I have a question regarding disaggregation and aggregation levels.

KFu2019s and disaggregation setup:

KF001:

Calculation type: I (not relevant)

Disag. Key Fig.: KF000 (not relevant)

Time-Based Disaggregation: K (not relevant)

Time-Based Disag. Key Figure: (not relevant)

KF002:

Calculation type: I

Disag. Key Fig.: Keyfigure001

Time-Based Disaggregation: P

We are now interested on the KF002. KF002u2019s disaggregation is based on KF001. I am trying to copy KF001 values to KF002 with a macro that is attached to a background job. Macro doesnu2019t do anything else than copy values from KF001 to KF002.

Background job setup:

Selection:

Sales organization: 2000AB

Location: 1000EF

Product: 1 to 2000 (consists 2000 products, including products that do not belong to above location)

Excluded values:

Customer group 1: 2500AB

Aggregation level:

Sales organization

Location

Product

Customer group 1

What I try to accomplish (through background job - mass processing):

I am trying to copy values with above setup so that the most detailed level which is Customer group 2 would have values through disaggregation. I have successfully copied values to product level, location level, sales organization level but the customer group 2 level values are not as KF001u2019s. Values are right in the SUM level, but not disaggregated right to customer group 2 level.

I get right results when I choose Customer group 2 to the aggregation level but this is not something we can do as it causes way too long runtimes. What I am also interested in is that how come the disaggregation does not work properly or does it? How can I get the disaggregation work so that I only have to select the aggregation levels which are defined in the selection and get proper results through disaggregation to customer group 2 level?

Thanks in advance,

Juha

[former_member187488 · Accepted solution]

Dear Juha,

I don't know what SCM release you're using, but I suppose that you're using a high version with the new functionalities.

Please notice that the values will not be forced to disaggregate unless you save the values to liveCache, since disaggregation is done in liveCache.

But there's a new funcitonality in macro book in new versions.

First open your macro book, Edit -> Book Information, uncheck the "compitable mode" if checked.

Then in your copy macro, double clicke the target row, for the "change mode" field, select "ReDisaggregation". This will force the disaggregation of the target row after copy.

Best Regards,

Ada

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Ada,

Thank you for your response, it already helped a lot.

I have tried to make it work but have not yet seen the right results. Do you have any suggestions what aggregate levels should I use?

I am using APO 5.0 so I could change the macro to 'redisaggregate' I also unchecked that compatibility mode.

Is it like that the values should be saved to liveCache and after that background job I should run another one where the redisaggregation macro would be? How would you define the macro?

Best regards,

Juha

[former_member187488 · Accepted solution]

Hello Juha,

You do not need another macro, just make the above change to your original one, and the macro should work.

Your aggregation level in the job should also be OK.

Since you mentioned that the values at detailed level are not the same as key figure 1, it sounds to me that the system did a pro rata disaggregation. Do you have the key figure 2 totally cleared out before copy? Since you're using disaggregation type 'I', it only disaggregates based on another key figure when the key figure value is initial.

So my suggestion is, you can try to change the key figure's disaggregation tyep to 'P' and check if the macro works.

Or if you have to use type 'I', you should add a step in the macro before the copy step, to initialize key figure 2 first.

To initialize a key figure, just put the row in the step, and for the 'Change Mode', select 'Initialization'.

Best Regards,

Ada

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Ada,

Thank you for your support I finally got it to work. Had to make one minor adjustment to the selection to get the right results but all in all your help was crucial.

Thank you again.

BR,

Juha

[former_member187488 · Accepted solution]

Hello Juha,

Glad to know that your issue is solved

Thank you for your joint efforts on the issue.

For any other questions, you're welcome to discuss them with us here.

Have a nice day ~~

Best Regards,

Ada