An essential feature for systems that easily adapt to organizational changes is a mechanism that automatically synchronizes modified master data to user interfaces like screens and reports. In fusion_place, masters are implemented as dimensions. When a member tree within a dimension changes, this change is automatically propagated to forms and Excel-Link sheets. While this applies to accounts and product groups, the dimension representing the organization (hereafter, the ‘organization dimension’ ) is particularly crucial for adapting to organizational changes.

As organizations change over time, we must be able to aggregate actual results or budgets for each period according to the then-current organizational structure. This is a more fundamental requirement than the “year-over-year comparison based on the current fiscal year’s organization” discussed later, and thus requires a different solution.

The following three patterns represent different approaches to this problem. Applications Before Organizational Change is the most straightforward solution and can be used at any time. While it requires minimal operational effort if the requirements are satisfied, switching applications is necessary to view aggregation results based on the pre-change tree structure. Depending on the situation, this may feel inconvenient.
Unified Generation Member Trees or Generational Member Trees enable aggregation and reporting within a single application, applying the historical organizational structures to the historical data and the current organizational structures to the current data .

When a Unified Generation Member Tree is employed for aggregation reporting with historical organizational trees, each lowest-level department will have a corresponding member for each generation.

Alternatively, if you set up a Generational Member Tree, each department at the aggregation level will have a corresponding member in each of the generational trees.

When multiple members exist for a single department, the question arises of how to configure access permissions for those members. The access permission management mechanism in fusion_place which consists of the Access Permission Type and the Particiant, is based on the idea of restricting the accessible data scope using a single member per dimension which can be specified (called 'responsibility key') as a starting point.

The following two patterns also represent different approaches to the same problem. The Participants by Generation approach is simpler and requires less operational effort if the requirements are met. On the other hand, from the perspective of common users, the Permission Scope Trees approach may be preferable because it does not require the extra step of selecting a participant.

When organization changes, you may wish to compare the current fiscal year’s data against the previous year’s data based on the current organizational structure.

To perform year-over-year comparisons based on the current fiscal year’s organizational structure, it is not sufficient to simply aggregate data from the previous and current fiscal years using the new organizational tree. When lowest-level departments are split or merged, special consideration is required when comparing their data against the previous year. Furthermore, the previous year’s values must be reclassified to aggregate the previous year’s values and the current year’s values for lowest-level departments based on the new organizational structure basis and compare them at the aggregated department level.

Additionally, when using the Unified Generation Member Trees, adjustments to prior-year values are also required when the position within the organizational tree changes—such as when a lowest-level department is transferred to a different business unit—in addition to splits and mergers. This is because while members in their original positions should retain prior-year results, members in their new positions require prior-year values for year-over-year comparisons.

The patterns in this section provide approaches for addressing such issues.

Note that performing year-over-year comparisons based on the current fiscal year’s organizational structure introduces a certain degree of operational complexity. On the other hand, once the budget is established, the primary focus during mid-year performance management shifts to comparing actuals against the budget or forecasts, resulting in some companies placing less emphasis on year-over-year comparisons. For such companies, investing significant effort into year-over-year comparisons may not be worthwhile. We recommend determining the approach based on the actual business situation and the degree of need. Please be aware that none of the methods mentioned here are difficult to apply retroactively.