Level 2 Model Building

Hi there,

 

For Sprint 3 of Level 2 model building activity (Build the product replenishment dashboard), I have forecast demand of 2,050 while Anaplan activity shows 2,005 as per the screenshots attached.

 

Thank you for your help.

Maggie 

Comments

  • Hi @Maggie 

    make sure that you don't have any overrides in the DEM03 Demand Forecast module

  • @einas.ibrahim The only filter I have in DEM03 Demand Forecast module is to override 60 to 62 which made the forecast demand increase from 2048 to 2050. I remember in another activity the amount is showing as 2050 (in activity called Review the INV01 Line Item Formulas and Summary Method settings)Please see screenshots attached.

     

    Is it possible a typo in one of the activities?

     

    Thank you,

    Maggie

     

     

     

  • Hey @Maggie 

     

    I wouldn't say a typo as much as a difference in data inputted.

    The DEM03 screenshot you provided was for Nutzo Bar_EN in the Account Candyate only.

    INV01 calculates the demand of the P3 SKU for All Accounts.
    So there might be overrides for this SKU (Nutzo Bar_EN) in other accounts

     

    There are a couple of ways to verify where your 2005 come from

    1. In DEM03, look for the Demand Forecast for Nutzo Bar_EN for All Accounts
      image.png
    2. In INV01, Use Drill Down.  Click on the cell for which you want to verify the value and either hit F8 on your keyboard or right mouse click and select Drill Down
      image.png

     

    I don't think your logic/formula is wrong. I believe it might be due to overridden data.

    Let me know if that doesn't work and we'll keep digging.

     

     

  • Hi @Maggie ,

    Forecast demand 2050 in Week 2 FY20 is correct in my opinion. The review of INV01 module shows 2050 (pic below). In DEM03 module Candyate was overridden from 60 to 62, as you said. Therefore it is 2050 and not 2048. 

    JussiLi_1-1596639397665.png

    For some reason product replenishment dashboard activities shows 2005 for Week 2 FY20. I came to conclusion that it must be typo kind of thing and didn't bother about it. Mainly because INV module was reviewed already in earlier stage. 

    Regards, 

    JussiLi