User based calculations

Options
jbrass
jbrass Member, ALL USERS, Community Member Posts: 5 Frequent Contributor

Hello - 

I have a question which ultimately is related to using the users list in module design.  Was hoping someone could confirm my theory, or even better, provide a more efficient way to set this up.  Here are the details on what I'm dealing with:

 

We have a module setup for budget vs. actual analysis, in which the module is dimensionalized using a list which has 3 items:

1) version 1

2) version 2

3) variance

 

Our model does not use native versions, but rather we have a "versions list" list that we use to house the versions.  So, the logic is such that the user can select which of the items in "versions list" is represented in #1 and #2 above, and #3 will show the resulting difference between those 2 versions.  This generally works, except that we're seeing that users are often overriding each others selections of which version is represented in #1 and #2.  This can cause some frustration.  So, we were considering using user-specific version selectors.  Is there any way to do this other than dimensionalizing the entire module to also include the users list?  I understand that the selection itself of which version is shown in #1 must be dimensionalized by user, however I just want to make sure that we need to add significant size to our calculation module to accommodate this.  

 

Please let me know your thoughts.

 

Thank you,
Josh

Tagged:

Comments

  • jbrass
    jbrass Member, ALL USERS, Community Member Posts: 5 Frequent Contributor

    Makes sense.  Thank you.  As often is the case, this becomes a trade-off between model size and complexity.  The method you mentioned would increase complexity, especially given the way that our formulas are already a bit long given the structure of the module.  It is a viable method in the event that the output module just becomes too large once opening it up with the users dimension as well.

     

    Appreciate the response; definitely got me thinking.

     

    Thanks,

    Josh