Not sum all members in a dimension for a public subset

[svgu]

Hi!

I have a dimension containing 10 members (A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I and J). And a aggregated level called CostCenter. All ten members are included.
I have created a subset with 5 members (A,B,C,D and E). And kept the aggregated level.
When I look at the aggregated value in contributor the aggregated level CostCenter is a sum of all members. I only want the aggregation to be a sum of the five members included in my subset.
Do you know a way how to do this?
The subset must be a public subset because it shall be used in a public view.

Thanks a lot!

/Sverker

[jim wood]

Subsets are a group of elements you put together for display pruposes. They are not runnign totals. The reason you are getting teh total of all is that you have told it to do that. If you want a consolidation of the 5 you will need to create it,

Jim.

[svgu]

I understand that I have told the system to to that.

But is there a way to sum the five members without changing the dimension structure?

/Sverker

[tomok]

But is there a way to sum the five members without changing the dimension structure?

Think about it for a minute. How is TM1 going to know when you want CostCenter to equal (A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I and J) and when you want it to equal (A,B,C,D and E)? Doesn't make sense does it? If you want a rollup of BOTH (A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J) and (A,B,C,D,E) then you'll have to create a parent for each to hold the aggregated amounts. If you only want CostCenter to equal (A,B,C,D,E) then why do you have (F,G,H,I,J) as children?

[stephen waters]

Hi!
I only want the aggregation to be a sum of the five members included in my subset. Do you know a way how to do this?
The subset must be a public subset because it shall be used in a public view.
/Sverker

Sverker,
Subject to correction I think you can do this with a Public user defined consolidation. ie within your subset editor insert a subset with the members you want to be totalled.

However, as others have pointed out, if this is a standard sub consolidation of cost center it is probably better to set it up as as part of the main consolidation hierarchy. Is there a reason why you do not want to do this?

[usagimd]

Hello,

In fact you can do it, it's pretty hard but with TI you can create a process that creates your dimension, you'll create the subset in the same process changing the Weigth of the child elements that won't be consolidated to 0.

BUT if sometime you'll need the others to sum up you'll need to have a reversive process to set the Weiths back to 1.

AND process need something to trigger, a user or a chore, without it you can't just select wich elements are going to consolidate.

See you.

[stephen waters]

Hello,
In fact you can do it, it's pretty hard but with TI you can create a process that creates your dimension, you'll create the subset in the same process changing the Weigth of the child elements that won't be consolidated to 0.

Fomr a technical point of view you could do this but from a user point of view it is very,very dangerous. Anyone looking at any consolidated amounts depending on the children whose weighting you have set to zero will be unable to tell whether the numbers are correct or not. Accountants are very boring (I am one myself) and we don't like the excitement of consolidated numbers changing unless we made the changes ourselves!

[usagimd]

YES!

But still the only way I could find to do something like he wanted.

The correct way would be to create a child concolidation element with the five items like:

CostCenter
--A, B, C, D, E Consolidation
----A
----B
----C
----D
----E
--F
--G
--H
--I
--J

or create 2 dimensions instead of using subsets, separating the cubes too.

But this ideas ppl have already said :]

See you.