Has anyone experimented with having Sub Districts in their Territory and Quota Planning? For FY20 we have a new requirement to merge our North East District 2 and North East District 6 into one district: North East District 2. But, all vault accounts in the original North East District 2 will become sub district North East District 2a and all vault accounts in North East District 6 will become sub district North East District 2b. Does anyone have anything like this? Would love some thoughts and reccomendations? Our current FY19 structure calculates our quotas down to the District level only so will we need to calculate further down to the Sub District level?
In this case you can create 2 Sub-Districts and bring in the all related accounts as you mentioned. Creating Sub-districts are totally based on the business necessity cos in our case we have created Sub-ds as they want to see the Quota roll up at Sub- District Managers level.
And we do have some reports (Dashbaords) at Sub-d level. I know it leads to some more additional enhancement in your model but this will help users to see granular level figures.
Could this not be solved by amending the current hierarchy? This would create a direct relationship across districts and sub-districts.
If this is not possible then an alternative method of establishing the relationship/mapping is required.
You will have to create a new list at the high level and create a mapping module with the lower level as the dimension and the higher level as a list formatted line item ( assign the new list to this line item ).
Select the new list member as the correct mapping and use this module to aggregate your values when creating your reporting modules.
I would recommend trying to adapt your hierarchy instead of the manual mapping approach. An updated hierarchy will ensure that your aggregations roll up logically and will not require you to create aggregation formulas every time you need to report at the higher level.