IBM Apptio

Apptio

A place for Apptio product users to learn, connect, share and grow together.


#Aspera
#Apptio
#Automation
 View Only
Expand all | Collapse all

Negative Amounts on Weightings

  • 1.  Negative Amounts on Weightings

    Posted Mon February 20, 2017 06:33 AM

    Are negative amounts treated differently than positive amounts when using them as allocation weightings?

     

    For example our Fixed Assets allocation is weighted by our depreciation amount, for 1 month a year this amount is always negative for all fixes assets. During this month the amount flowing on the model goes to 0%.

     

    Is this because they are negative allocation weightings? (I've checked all other options and can't figure it out)







    #CostingStandard(CT-Foundation)


  • 2.  Re: Negative Amounts on Weightings

    Posted Mon February 20, 2017 05:29 PM

    Julie,

     

    What version of Apptio are you currently running?  The reason that I ask is due to the fact that negative allocations are treated a little different and requires us to add a flag within the back end to support these allocations.  

     

    If you are on a version greater that 11.8.3.1 you may need to submit a support ticket to have them add this flag to your instance.

     

    Thanks,

    Ryan


    #CostingStandard(CT-Foundation)


  • 3.  Re: Negative Amounts on Weightings

    Posted Tue February 21, 2017 03:07 AM

    Hi Ryan,

     

    We're on 11.8.3.4 so will raise a support ticket. Thanks for you help


    #CostingStandard(CT-Foundation)


  • 4.  Re: Negative Amounts on Weightings

    Posted Tue February 21, 2017 06:45 AM

    No worries Julie,  if support does ask just tell them it's the JVM Argument for Negative Amounts and they should be good to go.

     

    -Ryan


    #CostingStandard(CT-Foundation)


  • 5.  Re: Negative Amounts on Weightings

    Posted Tue February 21, 2017 11:28 AM

    Hello Ryan,

     

    How it works for the version below 11.8.3.1? We are on Version r11.8.0.9

     

    Thanks

    Prem


    #CostingStandard(CT-Foundation)


  • 6.  Re: Negative Amounts on Weightings

    Posted Tue February 21, 2017 11:31 AM

    Prem,

     

    Prior to 11.8.3.1 the system was able to do the calculation properly, but with some performance improvements in newer releases they have added a flag in the background to assist with the negative allocations.

     

    -Ryan


    #CostingStandard(CT-Foundation)


  • 7.  Re: Negative Amounts on Weightings

    Posted Tue February 21, 2017 11:34 AM


  • 8.  Re: Negative Amounts on Weightings

    Posted Tue February 21, 2017 11:37 AM


  • 9.  Re: Negative Amounts on Weightings

    Posted Wed August 09, 2017 01:02 AM

    In R12, I resolved this by creating an alternate key for negative values...keeping the original key for positive values. Additionally, I created new Weighting Value field in my target object's table to be the absolute value of the original value Used for allocation weighting. Likewise, I set my weighting in the allocation definition to use the new Weighting Value column. After confirming the positive values we're allocating, I created another allocation line for the negative values referencing the "alternate" key and same Weighting Value column.

     

    Works like a charm...in R12! ;-)


    #CostingStandard(CT-Foundation)


  • 10.  Re: Negative Amounts on Weightings

    Posted Wed August 09, 2017 05:03 AM

    Thanks Matt. I can't wait to get on to R12, so many of the niggles we've found in R11 have been sorted out in R12!!


    #CostingStandard(CT-Foundation)


  • 11.  RE: Re: Negative Amounts on Weightings

    Posted Tue March 31, 2026 11:44 AM

    Hi Matt,
    In our case, we are on R12+ and we have many negative values (i.e., credits on each service wise), which are not getting allocated. Our existing allocations are more than 20. So, is there any way to tackle this scenario?



    ------------------------------
    Nitish Collooru
    ------------------------------



  • 12.  RE: Re: Negative Amounts on Weightings

    Posted Mon April 13, 2026 12:05 PM

    Hi @Nitish Collooru. Did you try creating a new allocation strategy in your Dev workspace or a branch to validate my approach for handling negative values? If so, what was the result?

    Having more than 20 outbound allocations from a single object seems awfully high. Were you describing the number of allocations you have for your entire solution or the number of outbound allocations from a single object?



    ------------------------------
    Matt Temple
    Senior Product Manager
    IBM
    Long Beach CA
    714-349-6102
    ------------------------------