The OneStream Community is temporarily frozen until June 29th due to the ongoing maintenance. Please read the blog post here to learn more.
Forum Discussion
Solved
Anyone doing planning at a proxy member?
Hi all,
I'm just trying to get a feel for how common this use of proxy members is these days. I've worked for multiple organizations and typically, if we were planning at any level higher than the...
In cases such as this where extensibility is in use already and the requests to plan at whatever level whenever, which is hard to reflect in a consistent and easy to understand data model, or a new dedicated planning cube with a planning model will not be implemented, I only see the use of proxy members in the projects I am involved in. Using a random base member in the data model suggests possible purpose for new users later on (as you say, it can be a revolving door). This makes the data quality in the system really bad so a proxy member is much preferred IMO. Also, when people start applying AI models to their planning data, having all data against e.g. Denmark will not make any sense to the model and highly distort the outcome of the forecast.
Long answer short, yes, proxy members are still in use for planning if other solutions are not feasible, rather than using a random base member.
Hi,
My apologies - I probably wasn't clear enough in my ask. We already use extensible dimensions extensively (no pun intended). In this case, a region with their own cube is planning at say, a 'regional' level. Let's say that region has 4 children and each of those 4 children has 500 members.
So really my question is, what makes more sense? To load your planning data to some random member of the 2,000 base members OR do you create a 5th child under the Region top parent and that child is used strictly as a planning base member (I do realize that if you had a cube view or quick view, you simply pull at the Region parent for the planning scenario in question). The ask from our user(s) is due to succession planning (especially since planning is often a revolving door personnel-wise). i.e. why are we planning at member XYZ instead of member ABC?
I'm really just looking to get an idea of whether other companies tend to use a proxy member specifically created for planning purposes or whether they just dump the plan data at any base member (assuming they are planning at a non-granular level)
Hopefully that question makes more sense?
Henning
OneStream Employee
OneStream EmployeeIn cases such as this where extensibility is in use already and the requests to plan at whatever level whenever, which is hard to reflect in a consistent and easy to understand data model, or a new dedicated planning cube with a planning model will not be implemented, I only see the use of proxy members in the projects I am involved in. Using a random base member in the data model suggests possible purpose for new users later on (as you say, it can be a revolving door). This makes the data quality in the system really bad so a proxy member is much preferred IMO. Also, when people start applying AI models to their planning data, having all data against e.g. Denmark will not make any sense to the model and highly distort the outcome of the forecast.
Long answer short, yes, proxy members are still in use for planning if other solutions are not feasible, rather than using a random base member.
Thank you so much for this additional reply. You've provided a great overall view with multiple options. Thanks again.