Modeling questions around Base Planning Levels and Master Data Types

[Former Member]

Hello S&OP Community

I have some general S&OP modeling questions.

First rearding Base Planning Levels:

Does one need to create a master data type for each base planning level?

Here is what I understand and maybe you can fill in or correct where needed. A base planning level is where the data is stored or loaded and as such that needs to be defined. For example a Forecast is loaded by Product, Location and Customer. The value of the keys of each one of those (product, location, customer) together with the date defined where the key figure value would exist. In this case, I would not need a combined mast data type that has all 3 of them. Correct?

On the other side, if I have data, e.g. a price or a sourcing ratio that is specific to a customer/product (price) or product/location (sourcing ratio), I would need a master data type location-product or customer-product or even customer-location-product with an attribute price that is set to be a key figure. Is this correct?

So for key figures, as long as multiple master data types in combination can be the key, I just define the planning level and should be ok – but for key figures that only exist specifically for the combination of master data type, I would need to create one, not just the planning level. Is my understanding correct?

Master Data Type:

Based on my understanding as above, I believe if we have, for example, a location specific material status, we would need a master data type location-product. In this case a product could be active in location A but inactive in location B. Am I right that when defining the master data type, we
would create a compound master data type using location and product?
In this case, just they keys would be used for the compound. Is my understanding correct?

Best approach to model a constant value:

If I want to create an Analytic Report to monitor a key figure and track, if the key figure goes above or below a a defined upper and lower limit, which are constant values. I am not concerned about the generation of this analytic report. That should be straight forward – but about what is the bestapproach to model the upper and lower thresholds?

The thresholds would be maintained manually for a specific level of the product and customerhierarchy. I am pretty certain that the level where those threshold values are entered will be the base planning level. Where I am not sure is if it is ok to just define them as key figures and have to ensure we set aggregation and disaggregation correct - or it if would not be better to have a master data type customer-product with upper and lower threshold modeled as an attributeas a key figure. What is the better or only way to go?

Thank you,

Jens

[Former Member]

Hi got offline the below answer from Raghav - thank you!

Here the updates:

First rearding Base Planning Levels:

Does one need to create a master data type for each base planning level?

Here is what I understand and maybe you can fill in or correct where needed. A base planning level is where the data is stored or loaded and as such that needs to be defined. For example a Forecast is loaded by Product, Location and Customer. The value of the keys of each one of those (product, location, customer) together with the date defined where the key figure value would exist. In this case, I would not need a combined mast data type that has all 3 of them. Correct?

Raghav: Not required.

On the other side, if I have data, e.g. a price or a sourcing ratio that is specific to a customer/product (price) or product/location (sourcing ratio), I would need a master data type location-product or customer-product or even customer-location-product with an attribute price that is set to be a key figure. Is this correct?

R: Correct, because the attribute (used aas KF) belongs to a Master Data Type and loaded
that way.

So for key figures, as long as multiple master data types in combination can be the key, I just define the planning level and should be ok – but for key figures that only exist specifically for the combination of master data type, I would need to create one, not just the planning level. Is my understanding correct?

R: Correct. This is the difference between KF ans Attribute as KF.

Another important point is that if you define a Compound Master Data Type for PRODUCTCUSTOMER and load KF like SalesFcst, system will make sure that only the valid combinatiosn of Product and Customer are processed.

Master Data Type:

Based on my understanding as above, I believe if we have, for example, a location specific material status, we would need a master data type location-product. In this case a product could be active in location A but inactive in location B. Am I right that when defining the master data type, we
would create a compound master data type using location and product?
In this case, just they keys would be used for the compound. Is my understanding correct?

R: Correct

Best approach to model a constant value:

If I want to create an Analytic Report to monitor a key figure and track, if the key figure goes above or below a a defined upper and lower limit, which are constant values. I am not concerned about the generation of this analytic report. That should be straight forward – but about what is the bestapproach to model the upper and lower thresholds?

The thresholds would be maintained manually for a specific level of the product and customerhierarchy. I am pretty certain that the level where those threshold values are entered will be the base planning level. Where I am not sure is if it is ok to just define them as key figures and have to ensure we set aggregation and disaggregation correct - or it if would not be better to have a master data type customer-product with upper and lower threshold modeled as an attributeas a key figure. What is the better or only way to go?

R: Better to maintain threshold as a KF at the aggregate level that you want to view and
set this

[Former Member]

Thank you again, Raghav, for the information.

A few follow up questions:

If I just have to load a key figure, I would not need a compound master data type but the base planning level I defined would need to be reflected as keys in the data I load.

I can use a compound master data type, though, which would have the advantage that the data is checked if master data exists.

What happens if I do not use a compund master data type? Would the system then just create any unique combination of customer and product? So for example if my material should be 12345 but in my file there is a mistake and it is 12346, I would create a new material 12346? I would see then this as a material in the material master data but of course all other related attributes would not be maintained because I hadn't loaded them with the master data load. Is my understanding correct?

Lastly, it sound then as if something like a threshold would be best modelled as a regular key figure. In our case, we would need to make sure that they KF does not aggregate or disaggregate as it should only exist on the level it is entered - but each level still can have different ones. For example I have a certain range on Product on Customer level while I have a different, wider one, on Product Family and Customer level.

Any suggestion and help on how we would set this up to ensure vlaues ar enot aggregated but only saved at the level where they exist would be greatly appreciated! Would it be something like we set aggregation and disaggregation to custome, have it a stored key figure but not calculated and also no calculation for @Request level? Just base planning level as product and customer and so wherever we entered a value that is where it is saved and shown/used when we look at the data?

Thank you,

Jens

[Former Member]

Hi Raghav,

Follow up question in regard to your statement above I repeat here:

"Another important point is that if you define a Compound Master Data Type for PRODUCTCUSTOMER and load KF like SaleFcst, system will make sure that only the valid combination of Product and Customer are processed."

My understanding from reading your answer along with the rest of this post, transactional data with Base Planning level Period/Product/Customer will load with only Product and Customer as standalone MDT's, but using the Compound MDT Product_Customer ensures Master Data integrity.

Here are my questions - let's say you have some transactional data feed (shipments) at the Period/Product/Customer level, but an additional feed (forecast) at the Period/Product/Customer Group level.  In other words, the Customer component of the base planning level for this feed is not the Customer, but some higher level attribute of the Customer hierarchy.  And let's say I wish to use a compound MDT to get the benefit of the Master Data check.

1.  Will the check still be performed if I Ioad data at the Period/Product/Customer Group level but only have the Product_Customer MDT defined? (my guess is NO)

2.  Or in addition to the Product_Customer MDT, I also need to define a Product_Customer Group MDT to get the master data check specifically for this load?

Thanks and regards,

Neil

[Former Member]

Hi Jens,

To my knowledge you don't need to create Master Data Types for each planning level.

Master Data Type is used for Master data loads.  For example to load Product, Customer, Location master data.  If you are loading Unit Price or Unit Cost which are constant across the time horizon, you load those elemens also as Master Data and for these you need Compound Master Data Types such as Product_Customer or Product_Locations.

Planning Levels are specific to Transaction / Value data loads such as Actuals, Orders etc.  For these key figures you have to difine a base planning level and this is the level at which you load data for these key figures.  In your data file you need to include keys from each element of the planning level.  If you planning level is Period_Product_Customer, then when loading Actuals or Orders you include Product id (key) and Customer id (key) and also Period (key).

Like you, I'm new to this area so pl. confirm with others also if my thinking is correct.

thanks-

Kamala