This blog has been written to assist in increasing model performance where breakback calculations have an adverse affect on the processing time of an IBM Cognos Planning model in Analyst.
One of the big selling points of IBM Cognos Planning is the ability to apply breakback to efficiently update detailed data. Breakback works by entering a value in a calculated cell, and then the formula is reverse engineered and the detail cells are updated based on previous data that has been entered into the cube. The process is extremely powerful when applying profiling to nominal items.
Example:
In this scenario a 4-4-5 profile is required to allocate quarterly totals across a time dimension.
Jan Feb Mar Q1
Overhead 4 4 5 13
In the above calculation the value of 13 is insignificant, except for the fact that is shows the sum of Jan, Feb and Mar. Once the profile has been applied, the Q1 value can be updated to give a result illustrated below:
Jan Feb Mar Q1
Overhead 462 462 576 1,500
This process can be used in all types of dimension where a calculation has been set, however, performance issues may exist if the calculations are complex or the dimension hierarchy is detailed. Performance issues can be monitored by run the d-link that updates the d-cube. If the breakback element that runs across the bottom of the screen seems to take an usually long time to update then the following technique may be used to increase model performance.
Forward Based Calculation to Perform Breakback Result
The forward based calculation technique avoids breakback calculation completely by adding a new calculation dimension to the d-cube. This does have a sizing impact on the model, so this needs to be assessed before applying the technique. The calculation should consist of a minimum of 4 items (5 if a weighting item is required) to perform the calculation. The first step is to run a link to populate the basis of the detailed result profile e.g. last years sales [1]. The second link then populates the TOTAL of this base value [2]. The third link then imports the required value e.g. the value of the item at the total level [3]. The fourth item then calculate the item that performs the breakback result [3]*[1]/[2].
This technique does increase the cube size and increase the number of required links, however, the performance impact can be extremely effective. An example where this technique was applied increased the performance of a d-cube update from 30 minutes to 2 minutes. In this example, the cube size was 1.5 million cells and the breakback occurred on a products dimension that contained a complex hierarchy consisting of approx 400 products. The breakback basis was to import the net sales value in detail (the profile) and the Cost of Sales was entered in Total Products and the calculation process was triggered. The breakback was then performed over approx 100 calculations. The new dimension added brought together the net sales and the COS totals to calculate the COS detail by product.
To simplify, it maybe worth thinking of the process in this way. To perform the forward based calculation, only one calculation is being done in the new dimension. When breakback was applied to the example above over 100 hierarchy calculations were being re-engineered.
In summary it is always worth checking to see if performance issues exist in Analyst models. D-cube size is the biggest restraint in an IBM Cognos Planning model, although there are techniques to manage cube size. It is always advisable to build the forward based calculation alternative in a test library to compare performance. If performance is increased, develop the revised solution in the live model.
Sunday, 12 December 2010
Thursday, 4 November 2010
IBM Cognos Planning 10 - New Features
IBM launched their latest version of Business Analytics in Las Vegas during the Information on Demand Conference. IBM Cognos 10 was revealed with great anticipation and from the demonstrations and discussions that followed the product seems to offer major improvements to how end users interact with the volume information that is stored within their companies and also significant improvements in performance.
From a planning perspective, the focus was heavily weighted on TM1. For the Enterprise Planning Community that attended the conference, this initially sounded alarm bells. Where was IBM taking Enterprise Planning? Was the EP road turning into a dead end? Well, there is no doubt that IBM will be pushing TM1 as the planning tool as TM1 is more technically advanced in terms of performance than IBM Cognos Planning. However, the road is not closed for EP, just a mere diversion from the super highway, but with significant improvements – IBM released IBM Cognos Planning 10.1.
IBM Cognos Planning 10.1 was not promoted significantly at the IoD conference. There was one major seminar that lasted an hour to discuss the improvements IBM Cognos 10.1 offered (this required a repeat session due to demand). But that was it.
The biggest improvement is how Contributor can now cope with sparsity more effectively when cut-down has been applied. This is due to the new process that uses Access Blocks as opposed to the old cut-down process that can take a significant amount of time to run during a Go To Production process. IBM have stated that this improvement in performance allows IBM Cognos Planning models to become more scalable with models in excess of 30 million cells performing efficiently (providing cut down has been applied). I will be running performance testing and stress testing comparing IBM Cognos Planning 8.4 and IBM Cognos Planning 10.1 to see the results for myself.
Other new features of IBM Cognos Planning 10.1 include the ability to highlight cells in the Contributor Web Client and seeing a summation of the results very much like MS Excel. This function is limited to summation and maybe one day we can expect to see average or count as additional features.
IBM has improved the efficiency of running macros within the Contributor Administration Console. It is now possible for parallel running of macros making the platform more stable when it comes to automated processes. In addition, a macro can be started or restarted at a specific step making the process more efficient if a macro fails. An additional macro is also now available to run the Model Review Tool giving the application administrators easier access to the structure of an application to manage efficiency and trouble-shooting.
Also within the Contributor Administration Console, preview nodes are now available to view different e-list items with access tables applied. This will have a significant impact on the development of applications with access tables to save time in running the GTP process to view the impact of implementing changes to access tables.
Improvements from an integrity perspective include the ability to apply a non-admin user account to the planning server to run automated processes.
IBM are clearly focussing their strategy on implementing more planning solutions using TM1, however, the “sunset” strategy on IBM Cognos Planning is still a long way off – just look at how IBM Cognos Finance is still going. With the developments seen in IBM Cognos Planning 10, IBM are going to support this latest version for a further 8 years, plus when the next release is launched, another 8 years from that date. The wheels are certainly in motion for even more improvements with aggregated data being handled more efficiently to improve reconciliation time. I am looking forward to working with this latest release and the subsequent releases in due course.
From a planning perspective, the focus was heavily weighted on TM1. For the Enterprise Planning Community that attended the conference, this initially sounded alarm bells. Where was IBM taking Enterprise Planning? Was the EP road turning into a dead end? Well, there is no doubt that IBM will be pushing TM1 as the planning tool as TM1 is more technically advanced in terms of performance than IBM Cognos Planning. However, the road is not closed for EP, just a mere diversion from the super highway, but with significant improvements – IBM released IBM Cognos Planning 10.1.
IBM Cognos Planning 10.1 was not promoted significantly at the IoD conference. There was one major seminar that lasted an hour to discuss the improvements IBM Cognos 10.1 offered (this required a repeat session due to demand). But that was it.
The biggest improvement is how Contributor can now cope with sparsity more effectively when cut-down has been applied. This is due to the new process that uses Access Blocks as opposed to the old cut-down process that can take a significant amount of time to run during a Go To Production process. IBM have stated that this improvement in performance allows IBM Cognos Planning models to become more scalable with models in excess of 30 million cells performing efficiently (providing cut down has been applied). I will be running performance testing and stress testing comparing IBM Cognos Planning 8.4 and IBM Cognos Planning 10.1 to see the results for myself.
Other new features of IBM Cognos Planning 10.1 include the ability to highlight cells in the Contributor Web Client and seeing a summation of the results very much like MS Excel. This function is limited to summation and maybe one day we can expect to see average or count as additional features.
IBM has improved the efficiency of running macros within the Contributor Administration Console. It is now possible for parallel running of macros making the platform more stable when it comes to automated processes. In addition, a macro can be started or restarted at a specific step making the process more efficient if a macro fails. An additional macro is also now available to run the Model Review Tool giving the application administrators easier access to the structure of an application to manage efficiency and trouble-shooting.
Also within the Contributor Administration Console, preview nodes are now available to view different e-list items with access tables applied. This will have a significant impact on the development of applications with access tables to save time in running the GTP process to view the impact of implementing changes to access tables.
Improvements from an integrity perspective include the ability to apply a non-admin user account to the planning server to run automated processes.
IBM are clearly focussing their strategy on implementing more planning solutions using TM1, however, the “sunset” strategy on IBM Cognos Planning is still a long way off – just look at how IBM Cognos Finance is still going. With the developments seen in IBM Cognos Planning 10, IBM are going to support this latest version for a further 8 years, plus when the next release is launched, another 8 years from that date. The wheels are certainly in motion for even more improvements with aggregated data being handled more efficiently to improve reconciliation time. I am looking forward to working with this latest release and the subsequent releases in due course.
Friday, 19 March 2010
The Success Factor?
I have recently worked on two different projects using IBM Cognos Planning software where the approach to delivering a solution demonstrates that knowledge of a planning product is not necessarily the key to making the project a success. Of course, knowing the product is a key factor, especially if you are working with a customer who is new to budgeting and forecasting software and will be driving their element of the implementation from business knowledge alone. In order to really get the implementation complete within budget and a timescale there are other roles the consultant has to play to work with the client, the principal role being that of a project manager.
The first of the recent projects I have worked on was left in the control of a contractor. The client had taken on the contractor for work in a specialist area (not IBM Cognos Planning), but there had been an element of exposure to Planning implementations in the past. This is where I filled the knowledge gap. I scoped and designed the solution for a basic budgeting process, however, I constantly faced rejection for my ideas from the contractor (not the client), who then tried to implement a contributor application sized at 45 million cells!! It didn't work. During this period the project slipped, and with no direction from the client the contractor continued to call the shots. After two months of work, the client did not have a fully working solution and missed the budget process start date despite my best efforts to take control of the project from the contractor.
In contrast to this project, I have been involved in another budgeting exercise that was run by both client and IBM Cognos partner. The team was made up of two project managers (one internal, one external), and a development team of four (two internal, two external). The client's employees faced the usual issues of having to do their jobs on top of implementing the project, but the majority of the implementation was completed by the external consultants reporting into the client. Meetings were held weekly at a designated time, with members of the team having daily meetings to resolve smaller problems. On a Monday morning, everybody knew what each person was doing that week with documentation being freely shared by all parties. Knowledge transfer was able to take place, and the project was handed over to the client for them to maintain going forward. The project was completed within budget and deadlines were met. Phase two of this project has now been planned to set up a forecasting process using the IBM Cognos software.
Both of the clients above were in similar industries and similar in size. The approaches, as you can see, were somewhat different. I personally enjoy working with different organisations to see how they approach different aspects of work. Some are better in some areas than others, but when it comes to this type of work, project management goes a long way. When using an external party the implementation should be collaborative with each party having their distinct responsibilities in the delivery of the solution. This way, accountability lies with all involved and the likelihood of success is greater. I feel quite lucky to have experienced a badly managed project as I now have the insight to the warning signs and can take appropriate action. I am even luckier to witness more project successes and can continue to develop my own project management skills to ensure the solutions I deliver are a success.
The first of the recent projects I have worked on was left in the control of a contractor. The client had taken on the contractor for work in a specialist area (not IBM Cognos Planning), but there had been an element of exposure to Planning implementations in the past. This is where I filled the knowledge gap. I scoped and designed the solution for a basic budgeting process, however, I constantly faced rejection for my ideas from the contractor (not the client), who then tried to implement a contributor application sized at 45 million cells!! It didn't work. During this period the project slipped, and with no direction from the client the contractor continued to call the shots. After two months of work, the client did not have a fully working solution and missed the budget process start date despite my best efforts to take control of the project from the contractor.
In contrast to this project, I have been involved in another budgeting exercise that was run by both client and IBM Cognos partner. The team was made up of two project managers (one internal, one external), and a development team of four (two internal, two external). The client's employees faced the usual issues of having to do their jobs on top of implementing the project, but the majority of the implementation was completed by the external consultants reporting into the client. Meetings were held weekly at a designated time, with members of the team having daily meetings to resolve smaller problems. On a Monday morning, everybody knew what each person was doing that week with documentation being freely shared by all parties. Knowledge transfer was able to take place, and the project was handed over to the client for them to maintain going forward. The project was completed within budget and deadlines were met. Phase two of this project has now been planned to set up a forecasting process using the IBM Cognos software.
Both of the clients above were in similar industries and similar in size. The approaches, as you can see, were somewhat different. I personally enjoy working with different organisations to see how they approach different aspects of work. Some are better in some areas than others, but when it comes to this type of work, project management goes a long way. When using an external party the implementation should be collaborative with each party having their distinct responsibilities in the delivery of the solution. This way, accountability lies with all involved and the likelihood of success is greater. I feel quite lucky to have experienced a badly managed project as I now have the insight to the warning signs and can take appropriate action. I am even luckier to witness more project successes and can continue to develop my own project management skills to ensure the solutions I deliver are a success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
