Mapping between dimensions at minimal cost


I want to pull data from line item, M1.LI1, into another M2.LI2. The 1st line item is dimensioned by standard list SL1 and numbered list NL1, the 2nd is dimensioned by SL2 and SL3. NL1 has a property formatted by SL2 whilst numbered list NL2 maps SL1 to SL3 (SL1 are financial weeks and SL3 are calendar months – some financial weeks map to two calendar months so NL2 has 3 properties: SL1, SL3 and Split).

One method would be to transfer via a third line item, LI3, dimensioned by SL2 and NL2 as follows

LI3=LI2[SUM: M1.SL2, LOOKUP: SL1] where M1.SL2 = NL1.SL2

but this intermediate step costs cells. Is there an alternate method which takes up fewer cells?



  • Hi,


    I don't understand what you are asking.  can you provide an example?



  • Peter40

    I thought I was reasonably concise in describing the issue. I am asking if there is a smarter way that gets me from the first line item, LI1, to the second, LI2, using less cells in the process. LI1 is the number of items completed in each week and each location by each resource. LI2 is the number of completions by each resource in each calendar month. SL1 is a List of Weeks, NL1 is a numbered List of valid combinations of Resource and Location, SL2 is the full List of Resources, SL3 the list of Calendar Months, and NL2 is a numbered list of valid combinations of Weeks and Calendar Months (Month end can fall part way through a week so this list can have the Same week appearing with two different Calendar months with the Split property giving the proportion into each). If there is a forum workspace that I could model this to show you I would be happy to do so.

  • I usually manage these types of cases by adding a line item in Module 1 that maps to Module 2 using FINDITEM or an explicit mapping.  Some folks place these mappings in the Module 1 lists.  By only including related lists (and usually omitting Anaplan Time & Versions), the footprint can be minimized.  Once these mappings are in place, Module 2 can consume Module 1 w/ SUM statements referencing the mappings.


    If you are stuck, message me and we can jump on a web meeting.

  • Hi, I don't fully understand the issue, but I agree with Paul that a mapping module would probaly be the best approach.
    I can definitely say that it would be best to avoid SUM/LOOKUP combinations.
    LI2[SUM: M1.SL2, LOOKUP: SL1] 

    SUM/LOOKUP combinations generally perform poorly and this can be made worse when the dimensions between source and target differ, which I think they would here.

    Happy to take a look at the model if you'd like. Send me a DM