Order of columns in IBP planning view

[gurucharanscm]

Hi Experts -

I tried to configure the planning view layout using the time profile attributes specifying month name and year name. It worked good as far as the layout is concerned but you may see that the columns (where months are depicted) are arranged as per the ascending order of alphabets.

Is there any way I can override the order in which the columns are displayed? I tried something on the EPM edit report but couldn't find anything that helps me here.

Can someone suggest me what I can do in this context?

Thanks for the support,

Regards - Guru

[Irmi_Kuntze · Accepted solution]

Hi Guru

I have never seen sorting by description, and I doubt that is the root cause for you

Sorting in all cases I have seen is by Period ID. There is no configuration setting for it

So, EITHER you found a new bug (which would require an OSS message), OR you have loaded wrong PERIOD IDs

I suggest you check your file which you have loaded to the time profile and verify that of you sort by PERIOD ID, you really get the right order.

And when you can be sure your PERIOD ID is correct, open an OSS message

Yours

Irmi

[anna_linden]

HI,

the columns are arranged by PeriodID in ascending order. The PeriodID is set in the time profile. I would expect that this is a bit corrupted in your case. To check, you can click on e.g. "Apr" and then you will see something like

= EPMOlapMemberO("[PERIODID].[].[60184]";"";"W27 2018";"";"000")

in the formula bar. 60184 is the Period ID in this example. You can go through the different time buckets and check if they are indeed sorted in ascending order by Period ID. If that is the case, the behavior of the planning view is correct and you need to rework your time profile (which might be tough as you already loaded data and you cant just overwrite the period IDs).

BR Anna

[gurucharanscm]

Hi Anna -

Considering my case where I have used the time profile attributes to show up as column headers and that the system is trying to sort the columns in the ascending order by the tp attribute MONTHNAME, I want to understand if you (SAP) consider this as a bug or a standard behaviour - claiming that it's sorted based on the MONTHNAME in the ascending order and that I can probably use something like '1.Jan', '2.Feb',..... '12.Dec' for my requirement to fulfil.

Thanks,

Regards - Guru

[former_member367912]

Hi Guru,

You need to give the months in below format for the solution to work as per your requirement..I tried in my system and it worked.

1-Jan 2-Feb 3-Mar 4-Apr 5-May 6-Jun 7-Jul 8-Aug 90-Sep 91-Oct 92-Nov 93-Dec

OR

A-Jan B-Feb C-Mar D-Apr E-May F-Jun G-Jul H-Aug I-Sep J-Oct K-Nov L-Dec

Or any other similar format.

Kindly check and confirm.

Regards,

Akhilesh Agarwal

[gurucharanscm]

Hi Akhilesh -

I tried a similar option for closing this requirement, and it worked well for me. I am wondering this is not a bug but the system behaviour. So, I am not sure if SAP can still manage to sort based on PERIODIDs when you are not even using them in your layout.

It would be good if they release a KBA in any case stating this case and what possible options customers can implement.

Thanks,

Regards - Guru

[Irmi_Kuntze]

sorry, my mistake, I am so used to work with other buckets ...

You try something barely used:

- Working with mixed time buckets (which I can see from the last screenshot)

- PLUS display the time-attributes

- PLUS change the Layout at the same time. I like the idea and can understand what you am for.

Does it work if you have just months and not mixed time buckets?

However, Attributes are always sorted alphabetically, so in your case that would be by the months name. If you would use "05" instead of May etc, that might be different.

Just the time profile itself is sorted by PERIODID itself

[gurucharanscm]

Hi Irmhild -

It's not mixed time buckets I used, it doesn't work with mixed. It works only with 'Total'. Accordingly, just months also doesn't give the layout I showed in my first post.

While I understand the behaviour that its sorted alphabetically, I want to understand if this can be considered as bug or SAP gives the same explanation that it's sorted based on the VARCHAR type (alphabets) and that the behaviour is expected. I didn't raise this yet to SAP as a work around for me is to just prefix numbers before each month name.

Thanks,

Regards - Guru

[Irmi_Kuntze]

Hi Guru

If I understand you correct, I would NOT consider this as a bug, because if you display on TOTAL, the sorting by PERIODID does only consider one value, so there is nothing to sort by.

And afterwards comes the sorting by the attribute MONTHNAME - and they are JAN, FEB, ...

--> From my perspective the result is "function as designed"

--> Should be solved if you use 01 or "01 Jan" for Jan, 02 for Feb, ... , 10 for Oct, 11, ...

Anyhow a very nice idea, thanks for sharing

Irmi

P.S.: If you have another question on this, please post the full settings from "Edit Planning View" for TIME and LAYOUT

[Irmi_Kuntze]

From your screenshot you can clearly see that you loaded the PERIODID wrong: It sorts perfectly fine by them!!!

And never by the description.

70553 equals 16 Jan

70554 equals 16 Feb, but it SHOULD be 17 Jan

70555 equals 16 March, but it SHOULD be 18 Jan

etc

[former_member367912]

Hi Irmhild,

Please note the Period start and period end details. Its monthly bucket and not daily. So it seems its correct to say that 16 jan, 16 feb, 16 March etc and "16" denoted year.

Let me know in case there is any gap in my understanding and explanation.

Regards,

Akhilesh Agarwal

[gurucharanscm]

Hi anna.linden, irmhild.kuntze,

Thanks for your reply. The formula for the column header I see is as below for the month of May. The PERIODID doesn't show up as I didn't refer to "periods" in my view but "total".

= EPMOlapMemberO("[MONTHNAME].[].[MAY]","","May","","000")

I wanted the tp-level attribute to be shown in my layout, hence is the view shown in my first post. Below is a sample reference for my existing periods which do not show any issue for me,

My layout for the view displayed in the above post looks like below:

Is there anything I am doing incorrect here?

Thanks,

Regards - Guru

[ankpatel]

Hi Guru,

You are not doing anything wrong as I know what you are doing from your another post. Looks like it is a bug, I would suggest to raise OSS for the same.

Regards

Ankur