Composite vs general organization hierarchy

Jaakko

Hello,

 

I'd like to hear experiences from others of modelling complex organization hierarchies. Often the decision is to choose between composite hierarchy and general hierarchy in one list. Usually I prefer composite hierarchies but always it is not wise, right? Case that I'm thinking is an organization that has quite a many levels and the hierarchy is ragged and changes very often. For example, there is a cost center directly after the top level and once in a while organization changes so that members might jump from one level to another. This is why I'm leaning into using only one list instead of converting the organization in data hub so that each cost center has equal number of predecessors (composite hierarchy). What kind of experiences do you have of using one list only for organisation? You miss the option of inputting figures to higher levels and the option of "reselecting levels" in dashboards changes quite a lot but what else? What kinds of challenges have you had? All experiences appreciated!

 

Br,
Jaakko

PaulRitner

Hi Jaakko,

 

Most of my experience with hierarchies (before Anaplan swooped me off my feet) comes from the Hyperion & PeopleSoft worlds, which use ragged hierarchies pretty much all the time (especially for the primary dimensions, like Organization, Accounts, Products, etc).

 

In Anaplan, I pretty much always use composite hierarchies for the most important dimensions.  This isn't always my wish, but the pros consistently outweight the cons.

 

I have one use case where the top list in a particular composite hierarchy is quite ragged!  It works fine... and we still benefit from all the things you mentioned about composite lists.

 

Note that if an ragged hierarchy is required for reporting, you might choose to have a composite list for data collection activities (if appropriate), and then maintain a ragged alternate hierarchy for related reports.

 

Cheers!

 

Paul