Hello,
First time poster here.
I'm encountering some issues around Management reporter duplicating amounts, potentially due to what might be a dimension conflict between the Reporting Tree and the Row definition Link to Financial Dimensions (I have found a reference to a previous bug - 1587161 - that sounds similar). What is really getting me confused/frustrated is the inconsistency of this behaviour, with different (level) cuts of a similar report working as expected and others duplicating the amounts by each lower branch of the reporting tree.
Some additional background as to why the report is being structured in this way...
The business is operating with a (Company) Business Unit > Department > Cost Centre financial Dimension structure/hierarchy (with some additional optional dimensions tracking other information).
Due to the removal of previous security options (report library etc.), we are utilising the reporting tree to be able to security trim the financial results according to reporting lines. (Reporting Tree below)
Since this is all new for the managers; the business wanted to be able to see the (next level down) split of the Financial Dimension by scrolling down the report, as opposed to stepping through the reporting tree. For example; a user looking at the Business Unit report, would be able to scroll down to see the split by Department. Likewise the Department report would show the split by cost centre.
In order to achieve this;
- I have built out my row definition(s) to include a summary P&L at the top, that leverages the reporting tree level & references only Main Account categories in the Financial Link.
- I've then repeated multiple cuts of the P&L in the rows below, for each of the next level of Financial Dimension, but also referencing the specific dimension in the Financial Link.
You'll see from the above link that the top segment only references the account category, while the split segment section below (only just visible) has the specific dimension referenced. I've also included a check section that subtracts the specific segment totals from the Summary total at the top (how I'm checking that it balances).
The behaviour that I'm expecting is for the specific P&L cut to only show a value, if it's specific Financial Dimension is included within the reporting tree hierarchy for the level it's at. The row dimension should only show the values for the specific dimension in the row is within the reporting tree hierarchy, but to only show the details for the specific dimension being linked. I am seeing this behaviour for the report showing the Business Unit down to Department version of the report.
The behaviour I'm seeing on the Department down to Cost Centre version, is that the specific row links are showing the value (for that specific dimension) duplicated for each branch of the reporting tree - down from the current reporting tree level and rolling back up. Both reports utilise the same reporting tree and the format of the reports are the same, with the exception of the Link to Financial Dimensions (for the specific split sections) including 1 additional element of the Dimension string (being Cost Centre) in the row definitions.
When the Cost Centre report is run, you can see that the check/validation calculation lines are showing a huge discrepancy.
When I drill into the details (of the specific dimension rows), I can see that the amount is being duplicated for every branch of the reporting tree (example of lowest level below). This behaviour doesn't occur when I run the report that shows the business unit financial data, with the subsequent split by department units.
The only way I've been able to way I've been able to get this level/version of the report to work is by also linking each of the (specific) rows to the specific reporting tree unit. This seems redundant, since I'm already utilising the reporting tree in the report parameters and referencing the specific financial dimension in the Link to Financial Dimensions.
Appreciate if someone can tell me what I'm missing here, or is this a bug?
Thanks in Advance.
