Workflow Planning Unit Ownership - Begin the budget review process

As an Admin, is there a way to assign multiple planning units with an import option or something like that? Right now the only option I see is to go in one-by-one and start the fcst cycle and then assign the ownership to the person who is entering the budget information. I have 150 Entity members to assign for one forecast cycle and was wondering if there was a "smarter" way to do this.

Hi!
We are referring to the same example of wf for which you answered some time ago. But we need to extend the process to the whole entity dimension. Thus we have this situation.
our entity dimension: --> http://postimage.org/image/d3utdauzn/
Our wf process:
free format wf. (since the entity hierarchy does not follow a linear path: bottom-up or top-down)
1.ENTITY 1 inserts data and submits them to a reviewer.
2.the reviewer approves or rejects data.
3.then the process should be sent to ENTITY 2,3,4 (lower levels of ENTITY 1) to start to modify/adjust data that ENTITY 1 has imputed and distributed to their levels trough a rule.
the problem is at the 3rd point. How could ENTITY 1 or the REVIEWER pass the process to ENTITY 2,3, and 4 at the same time? I see that I cannot make a group of users owner of one PU, and then limit their level trough the provisioning. The only solution that I have found for this is to send an e mail to ENTITY 2,3,4 and then let them start to input their data (the drawback in this case is that they can always modify data in cells for which they have the write provisioning , and not only when the reviewer has approved data.
moreover in the case the reviewer approves data sent by ENTITY1 he becomes the new owner of the PU, that is the only way trough which ENTITY 1 cannot modified them after the approvation)).
Thank you very much.
Edited by: user648334 on Jun 6, 2012 2:51 AM

Similar Messages

  • Calcmgr rules circumvent planning unit ownership read/write restriction?

    Hi All.
    Planning 11.1.2.2
    I have obsaerved that a rule set up to allow writing a value on a database intersection, circumvents the planning unit ownership allowing users to write to an intersection in a unit that is not in their ownership and where they are not able to write from the UI.
    Is this expected/has it always been this way?
    I have a requirement that the user should not see the full account tree when loading a form, as not all accounts are relevant for all entities. Therefore missing rows are suppressed. In order for a missing row to become visible on the form I implemented a rule which allows to enter the value for the account, which then becomes visible on the form. However this same rule when run by a user on a planning unit they are not owning can still change values that the user cannot change in the UI as he is not a planning unit owner.
    I assume this is due to the fact that the planning unit ownership restrictions don't apply in essbase and the rule goes directly there, but I want to know if it is expected that business rules fail to honor ownership restrictions on planning units.
    Agnete
    Edited by: Agnete on Aug 23, 2012 3:23 PM

    These are correct, the calc will run whatever you tell it to run. If you use a business rule, it will still run the calc on what you tell it to run on, but you can prompt for a member (or take it from the form), and right your fix statement so that the calc only runs on the prompt. The prompt is related to security and a user can't select a member they don't have access to. That might help with your issue.
    Kyle Goodfriend
    www.In2Hyperion.com

  • What's the Point of the AppStore Review Process?

    I was initially pleased when I heard that developers would have to pay a $99 joining fee and submit apps to a stringent review process for the iPhone, because surely that would keep the quality app ratio high and reduce the number of half-baked stinkers being published right? Wrong.
    I reckon well over half of the apps in the AppStore are utter trash or are so buggy or feature-incomplete as to be unusable. Of the remaining half, at least half of those are clones of a superior competing products, and most of the rest do no justice at all to the iPhone's polished UI design. I reckon 10% of the apps really deserve their place in the store.
    It makes me wonder what Apple do during the review process. So far, we've seen a $999 application that shows you a picture of a ruby gem, about 10 torch applications that show you the colour white (some not even free), a tasteless application that shows a picture of a knife, apps whose descriptions are written in English so poor as to convey no meaning, and more to-do lists than there are atoms in the known universe, none of which can remind you when you have something to do. That's not to mention otherwise good apps that are too buggy and unstable. If I didn't know otherwise, I'd bet my mortgage that access to upload apps was completely unrestricted based on quality.
    All this would be fine if the review process didn't actually hinder developer's efforts to fix urgent bugs or security issues by delaying updates for up to 4 weeks. I'm getting really tired of seeing app descriptions that say "update pending review adds feature x" and then having to wait weeks to actually get feature x. If the review process is intended to secure a reputation of quality and trustworthiness for the AppStore, I say it is having the reverse effect.

    According to TUAW, "Apple is busy rejecting Applications from the App Store for grammar mistakes in onboard help files (not a joke) and for not presenting the user with the best playability options (also not a joke). Many of these frustrated developers tell us that some of their products have been waiting for review for four weeks": http://www.tuaw.com/2008/07/25/iphone-2-1-sdk-disappointments/3 ...so somebody's wrong here.
    I enjoy my iPhone as much as the next user, but I'm already getting weary of sifting through page after page of stinkers every few days looking for the odd gem. Lots of platforms suffer from this problem - Konfabulator Widgets, Firefox Addons, Microsoft Sidebar to name a few. Call me elitist, but I think all of these platforms would benefit greatly from a higher degree of quality filtering.
    I suppose I'm just frustrated that the small number of apps I consider worthwhile are having their development cycle massively extended by Apple's need to sift through truck loads of crud from second rate developers dollar signs in their eyes and no imagination.

  • Handling unit creation in the out bound Process

    Hi All,
            If we are not activate Storage Unit management/HU management in the warehouse and still create HUu2019s during outbound process via packing transfer order? We donu2019t want to manage stock at SU/HU level but create handling unit for material during outbound process. Is it possible?
    Please give me the suggestions.
    Thanks
    Prasad

    Hi Prasad,
    Yes it is possible. You will have to use handling units only as shipping units in the outbound delivery packing function. The handling unit can be defined during the transfer order confirmation (you have this in LT12 as packing) or in the delivery after the TO confirmation. You can only perform packing before goods issue.
    I hope i'll helps you lot
    Regards
    Madhu

  • Approvals Process:  Cannot promote a Planning Unit

    Hi, Am new to the Approvals process in Planning 11.1.2.2
    Have set up a Planning unit and assigned owner and reviewers to entities. Approvals template is set to "Bottom Up". Have also assigned a version and scenario to the Planning Unit H. When the Planning Unit is Started , the current owner changes to the user assigned as the owner and all is good. However when the owner attemptes to promote the planning unit to the next reviewer the promotion action fails with the message "Change status cannot change ownership to the new owner due to insufficient access". For my testing, have assigned the owner and all reviewers "Approvals Administrator" access to the planning application.
    Any ideas as to what access the error message is talking about ?
    Thanks !

    Dear,
    -Please check with the Provision that you have given to the USER,
    -Use file based export and checke wheater you missed any user to mention that hierarchy.
    -IN the approval hierarchy check  every node weather you have given the user there or not, chances are that even if you miss one member you will get
    this error.
    -We faced the same issue and we got resolved it by checking the Provision of the User and following the above steps
    Thanks
    Bejagam Naveen

  • Users having access can't promote planning units during First pass state

    Hi,
    There is something I do not understand using the workflow in Hyperion Planning 11.1.2 : on first pass state, users having access can not promote a planning unit.
    Only the owner can promote... to himself !
    I'm lost !
    Please help.
    Thanks.
    Virgile.
    Edited by: 808808 on 7 déc. 2010 06:19
    Edited by: 808808 on 7 déc. 2010 06:22

    Hi,
    I tried first with a Planner user, and then with a Interactive user, and there is no difference.
    When I try to change the status, I have an error message that tells me that I can't change status of the planning unit.

  • Planning Unit

    Hi,
    Whether it is possible to give
    different planning units for different activities in the
    same project.

    Hi Olby,
    In P6 the planning
    units are all the same behind the scenes, the only
    thing that changes is how those planning units are
    displayed on the screen as defined in your user
    preferences. Unfortunately, these user preferences
    determine how they are displayed for all activities.
    You may be able to use a global change and a user
    definded field as a workaround. You can find
    information for working with our customer support
    group at:
    http://www.primavera.com/customer/support.asp if you
    need assistance with this.
    <br
    />Sincerely,
    Sean James

  • Document review process

    I have a question about the workflow of a document review using Acrobat 9.
    When I send a document for review and people make comments, when I want to reply, what is the best way to send the document back? The way i am doing it was to send the document back for review again. It just seems that there is a step out of line doing it that way. It may be the only way, but i just needed to check with someone else that may be using this.
    Thanks

    Thanks for answering ...
    Still, does anyone has an idea about the first error I mentioned?
    I tried to follow instructions in the Document Review Process Tutorial (to create a whole new project/bpel process), when I tried to compile it I got the following errors:
    Error(80) [ORABPEL-10014] Unresolved variable
    Description: In line 80 of <bpel file> of the <to> is not defined
    I went through the bpel code and it is failing in the setUserDefinedAttributes at each of the copy rules.
    I opened the Rules in the Diagram editor and it looked ok:
    expression: concat("Review of " ,bpws:getVariableData('inputVariable','payload','/client:DocumentReview2ProcessRequest/client:documentTiltle'))
    To: Xpath: /task:task/task:title
    The only thing is that the task:title was not highlighted as usual, so I tried by going through the tree and highlight it .. the xpathd did not change but the entry was now highlighted. I compiled it again and now the error for that specific variable is gone. now I am getting the error on the next Assignment rule...
    The fact that by using the WF template to create the process left this kind of errors and that they are fixed by going through them and re-do the copy rule looks to me like a bug.. Any feedback is appreciated

  • Planning Process Mgmt/Workflow function - Reset Planning Units

    We are rolling forward our Planning application for a new budget year. I changed the Budget scenario start and end years, but I cannot recall how to reset the Planning units for Process Mgmt/Workflow. BTW: All the units are currently designated "Under Review", but they were actually finalized last summer. Any help would be appreciated.
    Thanks in advance!

    Hi,
    You can reset them by taking the same route you did to start them.
    Log in as an admin
    Select File, then Process Management, then Manage Process.
    select a scenario.
    select a version.
    select the top entity > and choose cycle exclude.
    This will reset all process management for the scenario/version combination
    Ok?
    Cheers
    John
    http://john-goodwin.blogspot.com/

  • Can a reviewer edit the budget data

    When an owner prepares a budget and promote the the planning unit to the next person in hierarchy. Then can this reviewer make changes in the promoted budget data? we made two users with the planner roles and tested it by giving the ownership to the reviewer after budget was promoted to him, but even then form were not available for editing.

    Reviewers will not be able to edit data, they can only review the data.
    HTH -
    Jasmine.

  • User In Planning unit Hierarchy unable to see data form in editable mode

    hi all,
    we are facing a problem in planning unit hierarchy in Hyperion planning, where we have 4 users, Hierarchy is define as
    hierarchy: budget approved
    version: approved
    Entity: Finance
    Senario:Budget
    haroon asghar ( owner)
    adeel javid (Reviewer)
    Naeem asghar (Reviewer)
    Imtiaz (Reviewer)
    Issue is that,after start the budget activity (promotional path) by Admin, the data form editable to Owner haroon asghar
    but after completing his work by haroon,when he promote the planning unit ,the next user in Hierarchy "Adeel javid" unable to see data form in respective planning unit in uneditable data form not only for this user but all rest of the users as well,while i think data form should only uneditable(grayed) for user Haroon Asghar who promote the planning unit.
    we have checked all security rights to the users those are "Write access" but still Adeel javid is unable to enter data,so the budget activity is stop due to this problem.
    when i remove the planning unit then i log in with all user one by one and see all data form required version,scenario and entity were editable to all users mention above
    we want to run budget activity with the above planning unit hierarchy.
    plz any one provide the proposed solution of the said issue
    we are using Product Version     11.1.2.0.00
    Regards
    Anwar

    Reviewers will not be able to write data to the intersection. Reviewers can only review the data and follow-up with a Reject, Promote, Sign off, Delegate, Originate or Freeze.
    Please refer Article ID 1226783.1 in MOS.
    HTH-
    Jasmine.

  • Planning Unit stuck

    Good Afternoon,
    We are having an issue where when eccluding a planning unit in tree view, all units seem to be excluded. However when going into flat view, I see the main top level entity "Total Entities" 6 times and 4 of the instances show it as "First Pass" and 2 of the instances show it as "Under Review" . All other entities in the entire tree show "Not Started".
    Also in the current budget, my main budget planners are seeing the entites 4 times and are unable to send the cost centers to the next level planners for input.
    We are using Planning 11.1.3 and just completed a full refresh of all services (essbase and planning) but this did not resolve the issue.
    Any advice appreciated.
    Regards,
    Anthony

    If you edit your planning unit hierarchy there should be an option to add a secondary dimension so you should be able to add department.
    Cheers
    John
    http://john-goodwin.blogspot.com/

  • Running Rules on "Locked"/Promoted Planning Units

    Hi All,
    I'm using Hyperion Planning and Smart View Version 11.1.2.2.
    Does anyone know if it is possible to prevent users from being able to run rules on data that is supposedly "locked out" by virtue of a Planning Unit? I was under the impression that Planning Units were supposed to control who could change the data rather than simply who could type numbers into forms, maybe I had this wrong? It seems a bit of a transparent piece of functionality if users can still change numbers after they've passed ownership to someone else.
    A working Example:
    A user can promote their data, but is still able to go back to a form where that data sits and run Rules on-Save, through Right-click menus or through Smart View.
    I'm worried about someone accidentally interfering with data whilst another user is analysing it etc.
    Am I missing something here?
    Regards
    Ed

    Hi, Ed.
    You're right, Planning has so many parts to be developed. PU promotion doesn't prevent users from running BR's
    If you're really worry about it you can think up a workaround.
    You have to create a new form having design simular to a PU hierarchy. User have to enter data (suppose 1) in intersection of Scenario, Version, Entity and Account (if used in PUH) All others dims member should be Begbalance, Product n/a etc.
    All BR's you need to prevent from executing while PU is approved, freezed or just owned by the reviewer or in other cases you think about should include extra code before original calculation takes place. You simply check the value of 1 in all calculated PUs in current BR and throw an error if meet it (@RETURN with some justified text message)
    So when one user (lets say first owner) has finished entering data he goes to the form discussed above and enters 1 for related PU. You can build a task list having such steps After that no one can execute BR successfuly
    Try this maybe it helps you
    Vladimir

  • Planning Units issues in Hyperion Planning 11.1.2

    Hi, experts.
    I'm new in HP, so needed some help with misunderstanding of how PU&proccess management normally works.
    More detailed I interested at the area of Validation rules.
    I have to give an example of few problems I met during my try to implement this functionality.
    Firstly, it's a newest version of EPM 11.1.2 installed and supported by the vendor's professionals
    I have Planning app deployed in EPMA with 14 dims. I didn't drop any standard planning dimensions, all are present
    There is the only PU hierarchy to test how approvals works. It has 3 entities and 12 elements of additional dimension - functional group. Hence, there are 36 level zero members in PU hierarchy.
    Form1 consists of 36 rows according to PUH, columns are Period (17) and one custom dim for the target, plan values, it's diff etc. Validation rule VR1 on Form1 check negative values of target minus plan (I plan expences) VR1 has "No Promote" flag. Then I start 2 level0 planning units (entity1-FuncGroup1 and entity1-FuncGroup2). I try to promote these PU1&PU2. It's Ok only if negative exists I get an data error links drilling down into my form1. So user can see the error and all happy.
    Problem actually with form2 that has Region Dim in page. Entity,Functional Group,Account in rows and Plan value,Year,Period in columns. It also has VR2 for testing plan values greater than 1000 with No Promote option. Another VR3 checks values greater than 100 to add new approver, reviewer (no matter) to the approvals process management.
    Both VR2 and VR3 don't work accurately. They fired only for the first member in page (Region), hence any data validation for other regions except first skipped. In addition VR3 when triggered for Region1 always circles (between new and previous approver). It meens there is no way to finish this proccess using the promote option. Anyway you can approve PU, but all steps after current Aprover will be skipped in promotional path.
    Maybe I can't work with Proccess managment in the right way? So could anybody give me an idea what's wrong. I've spent much time googling any issues like me have
    Many thanks in advance,
    Vladimir

    Hi, Theresia
    Yes you're absolutely right, I created VR from the manage form's menu. So I use standard HP 11.1.2 functionality. I've seen it in new features while read Oracle documentation. Also with testing of approvals in Proccess managment I use distinct colours for negatives and diff values (greater 1000 and 100 in my example). Colours work fine, but i can't say it about aprovals :). And all these examples of using planning form VR's i've taken from oracle administrators&user guiide and from presentations of EPM 11.1.2
    In addition I've started work with Hyperion products 2-3 month ago. Hence I have to read a lot of information because my previous experience was OLTP, RDBMS not OLAP.
    As a first step i wanna know all standard possibilities of product i use. And also best practice and some often used technics. Many thanks for your idea with Smart list and BR i'll try it (though i use EMPA and Calc Manager rules). I know that soon I have to use Java API's, so I might read and learn Java to write the simplest code first. But for me it's too much info i have to load into my brain in such short period :)
    As a resume, my opinion it's a bug of new features EPM 11.1.2. But maybe I'm wrong cause none has said the same
    Anyway thanks, Theresia, for your help. If you know or will some new additional info i'll say you thanks again
    Best regards,
    Vladimir

  • Add the budget profile in the order type Maintenance Order

    Dear Experts,
    Scenario for Repair & Maintenance with only MM & FICO module live w.e.f. 2007 (PM not live)
    Process Managed thru Internal Order (Order Type: RPMT)
    Budget managed through Investment Management (IM); Budget is directly entered against the IO using transaction IM52
    Scenario for Repair & Maintenance with only MM, FICO & PM module live (PM went live in 2010)
    It was proposed to assign budget against each Maintenance Order. Since the number of maintenance orders being used is very high, it was decided to link the MO & IO so that budget will be assigned to the IO and when the MO is settled against the IO, the budget in IO can be deducted accordingly. The proposed process to assign budget in Internal Order against each Maintenance Order are given below-:
    1.) In EAM process one can plan/procure material and External Services only when the Maintenance Order is created & released but practically it has to be planned long before any Maintenance Activity (Maintenance Order to be linked with the estimate so that PO can be created against the estimate).
    2.) The no. of Maintenance Order generated in EAM Module is very large as Maintenance order is created for almost each and every maintenance activity. It is cumbersome to allocate the budget to each and every maintenance order. There should be a single estimate for maintenance activity (as in MM module) and that should be linked to maintenance order so that the actual cost of Indent/Service Entry Sheet can be deducted automatically from the estimate (Maintenance Order is to be linked with estimate).
    3.) While doing return Indent the cost of return material is not being added to the maintenance order automatically (Maintenance Order is to be linked with estimate).
    4.) If Material & External Services not planned in the maintenance order (estimate), the user must be able to do that through Internal Order (estimate), hence the Internal Order must be link to the Maintenance Order. They should able to record the planned & actual cost in the maintenance Order.
    Process followed:
    1.) Created Internal Order in KO01 for Repair & Maintenance Order Type
    Assigned budget to Internal Order thru IM52
    2.) Created PM order and assigned Internal order against Settlement Order in tab
    u2018Locationu2019 and in Settlement Rule with 100%. In this Section attach the Internal
    Order with selection type u2018ORDu2019.
    3.) Released both orders and issue the Material for particular Operation and then
    determine the Cost for material .After that performed MIGO for consumption of
    materials.
    4.) Settled the PM order in KO88.
    Settlement process was successfully saved.
    Problem faced:
    After posting the goods movement (against each Maintenance Order) and settlement of the maintenance order against IO, we still find the budget assigned to the IO is not consumed/deducted.
    1. Actual cost of maintenance is not reflected in the internal order
    immediately. We have to run cost settlement (t-code KO88) for the
    maintenance order each time the actual cost is incurred in the maintenance order.
    2. Also in the case of return indent, the value of returned material is not directly
    added to the available budget of internal order.
    3. When the material is issued from store through the reservation generated by
    maintenance order, system does not check for budget in the internal
    order/maintenance order while issuing material from the store.
    4. It must not be allowed to create reservation from the internal order of order type
    RPMT.
    5. In case of external service in the maintenance order, the unit of
    measure in the requisition is set to u201CD (days)u201D by default. System does not allow
    changing the unit of measure in the requisition (it should allow to change the unit
    of measure or set the unit of measure u201CJOBu201D).
    6.) When the material is issued from the store through reservation generated in
    maintenance order, system does not check for budget in Internal Order
    (estimate)/Maintenance Order while issuing material from store.
    7.) My first problem is every time running the cost settlement(KO88) is maindetory.Without running cost settlement, How we can settle the actual amount of MO with IO (Estimate budget).
    2.) As you know that I have assigned the budget in IO.How system will check the budget while issuing the goods for maintenance order.So will please tell me that which user-exit is used over here.
    Thanks & Regards,

    Hi Deepak1103,
    Well, obviously you will have to settle the costs incurred at the maintenance order. The internal order should be mentioned in the settlement order field in the location tab of the maintenance order. What you can do is to ask your ABAP person to activate this enhancement IWO10004: Maintenance order: Customer check for order completion, use the CAUFVD structure to get the internal order number, then use the BAPI BAPI_INTERNALORDER_GETDETAIL and pass the details to the function module BBPG_BUDGET_CHECK and check the actual cost against the required budget. In case of a conflict raise an error other wise run the function module CK_F_IH_ORDER_SETTLE to settle the costs of the maintenance order to the internal order. Budget would also be consumed and you can verify the same in S_ALR_87013019.
    Regards,
    Muhammad Usman Kahoot

Maybe you are looking for