I have a quite large organization hierarchy (12 levels) that I´ve converted from ragged to balanced. The original hierarchy has profit centers in every level, starting from level 4. So this means that I have had to create a lot of dummy levels to balance out the hierarchy.
This of course works fine but everything looks terrible and especially from an end user perspective it´s not ideal.
So I´d like to hear how are you handling large hierarchies that have been converted from ragged to balanced. Is there a way to filter the dummy levels? Are you using parallel hierarchies for reporting?
In my case, I had an Org hierarchy which was 13 levels deep & was ragged. But what we discovered was that the Client was planning only at 4 levels. So we asked the client to pass that attribute with the ragged hierarchy and we converted the 13 level ragged hierarchy into 4 level balanced planning hierarchy. For reporting we had to use 13 level ragged hierarchy but there was not much reporting being done in Anaplan.
Just sharing this because if we can somehow do this, it saves a lot of space, easy to handle the model becomes scalable as well.
I'm experiencing the same obstacle with a new model we are developing for Operating Expense forecasting and planning. Our corporate functions plan at the Cost Center level (not always) and if we go the balanced route our hierarchy will go down 9 levels. It creates a lot of dummy clicks for our users and something we really don't want to do.
I believe balancing the hierarchy is not always helpful since it will add more dummy levels. What you can think of doing is - check how many levels your client actually plans for Opex. See if they can pass an attribute to your ragged hierarchy and then create another hierarchy based on that attribute. This hierarchy will be balanced and at the same time will be fewer levels than the existing one and When it comes to reporting you use the original ragged hierarchy
We have the same issue/challenge with the ragged hierarchy to balanced, but furthermore, we are importing actuals for each entity and the roll-up to each parent may not be just a sum of all children below it.
e.g Parent 1 may have its own transactions $100 with Children summed to $2000 which means the Parent 1 balance should be the sum of all children $2000 plus $100.
Since we can't use Lookup & Sum under the formula method of summary, it seems impossible to roll up differently.