Author: Hanwen Chen is a Certified Master Anaplanner and Professional Services Sr. Manager at Anaplan.
Over the years, working closely with Anaplan customers across industries, I've been called in to diagnose and fix struggling models — often in crisis mode. Time and again, one particular design pattern surfaces as a major bottleneck: the misuse or overuse of versions, whether through Anaplan’s native version dimension or via custom version lists.
While versions play a critical role in planning processes — especially for comparing actuals, forecasts, and budgets — their careless or overly rigid implementation can cripple a model. It inflates workspace size, complicates logic, slows performance, and often limits flexibility for end users.
The real cost of poor version design
Let’s look at a real example.
In a recent engagement, I worked with a customer whose Anaplan model was rapidly approaching the 250 GB workspace limit. Concerned about performance and scalability, they asked for an assessment. During the review, I uncovered something remarkable: just 10 modules — only 3% of the total — were responsible for 92% of the model’s size.
What did these modules have in common? Each was dimensioned by a custom version list that includes the versions like “Actuals,” “FY24 Plan,” “FY25 Plan,” “Current Forecast,” and “FY25 Mar Forecast.”
Even more concerning, despite the model’s enormous size, the end-user functionality was very limited.
I then tested redesigning those modules by removing the version dimension and adopting a more modular approach. The outcome? A dramatic 70% reduction in model size, freeing up 175 GB.
This wasn’t just a technical improvement — it transformed how the customer could use and scale their planning model.
Rethinking versions: Why say ‘No’?
The ‘no’ version approach isn’t about eliminating the concept of versioning altogether. Instead, it’s a shift in design philosophy. Rather than relying on Anaplan’s native versioning or static custom version lists, we build version functionality through modular structure and time-based logic, applying versioning only where it truly adds value.
This approach unlocks several benefits:
- Significant reductions in model size and workspace usage
- Cleaner, more transparent logic
- Improved performance and calculation speed
- Greater flexibility for end users (especially in reporting)
- Easier maintenance and scalability
Let’s walk through what this looks like in practice.
Implementing the ‘no’ version design
A typical FP&A process might require planning and comparison across:
- Annual Operating Plan (AOP)
- Monthly or quarterly forecasts
- Actual financial results
- Variance comparisons (Forecast vs Plan, Forecast vs Prior Forecast, etc.)
Here’s how to implement that, without bloating your model with unnecessary versions.
Step 1: Store actuals in a clean, version-free module
Start by isolating actuals data in a dedicated module, dimensioned by:
- A custom time range (e.g., prior and current fiscal year)
- Business dimensions (e.g., cost center, GL account, product) or a concatenated flat list (e.g., CostCenter_Product_GL)
Avoid using any version dimension here. This keeps the module lean, fast, and highly reusable across calculations and reports.
Step 2: Use staging modules without versions for plan and forecast
In a ‘no’ version design, use staging modules to capture planning inputs (e.g., volume, pricing, headcount) and perform intermediate calculations, without using any version dimension.
Design tips:
- Dimension these modules by time and relevant business dimensions (NOT by version).
- Use custom time ranges (current year + next year) to support concurrent planning cycles (e.g., forecast for FY24 and plan for FY25), assuming the planning cycles do not share overlapping years.
- Separate input logic from calculations to improve traceability and auditability.
This modular structure means you can handle multiple planning cycles side-by-side without ever introducing a version list.
Step 3: Snapshot modules for finalized versions
Once a forecast or plan is finalized, snapshot it into a dedicated module.
Snapshot modules:
- Are the only place where a custom version list should be used
- Should be dimensioned by:
- A small custom version list (e.g., “FY25 Plan”, “FY25 Mar Forecast”)
- Time (usually 1–2 years)
- Business dimensions or a concatenated flat list (e.g., CostCenter_Product_GL)
- Should be read-only and contain minimal logic to keep them lightweight
This approach provides the archival and traceability benefits of versioning while keeping the core planning logic clean and efficient.
Step 4: Reporting modules without versions
Instead of creating versioned reporting modules, build them with line items that represent each version. For example:
- Line Items: Actuals, Current Forecast, FY25 Plan, Prior Forecast
- Additional Line Items: Variance (absolute and %)
How it works:
- Pull data from actuals module (Step 1), staging modules (Step 2), and snapshot modules (Step 3)
- Use logic like the following to build blended views like "Current Forecast" that combine actuals and projected months:
IF TIME <= Current_Month THEN Actuals ELSE Forecast
- Use Lookup to retrieve snapshotted version data such as “FY25 Plan”
This eliminates the need for a version dimension while giving users clear, dynamic side-by-side comparisons.
Benefits recap: Why the ‘No’ version approach works
Benefit | Traditional versioning | ‘No’ version approach |
|---|
Model Size | High | Dramatically reduced |
Performance | Slower | Faster and more responsive |
Flexibility | Rigid version structures | Dynamic, customizable |
Calculation Logic | Complex and nested | Modular and easy to trace |
Maintenance Effort | High | Lower, with better scalability |
Reporting | Limited by version dims | Fully customizable line items |
| | |
Summary: A smarter way to design with versions
The instinct to use native or custom versions in Anaplan is understandable, but it’s often a costly mistake. The ‘no’ version approach is a smarter, more scalable alternative:
- Store actuals in a version-free module
- Use staging modules for input and calculation — no versioning
- Snapshot only finalized versions into optimized modules
- Report using line items instead of version dimensions
By adopting this method, teams gain performance, reduce workspace consumption, and create models that are easier to manage, more flexible for users, and ready to scale as planning needs grow.
In today’s dynamic business environment, agility and scalability aren’t optional, they’re essential. The ‘no’ version approach isn’t just a workaround — it’s a blueprint for sustainable Anaplan design.
Questions? Leave a comment!
……………
Read more from Hanwen:
- Data distribution design from Data Hub to multiple spoke production models
- The beauty of simplicity: any level of selection in a hierarchy
