Not sure if this exact topic shows up elsewhere, but after some digging, I was still interested in clarifying best practice for budgeting in Pigment (scenario vs. version). I found this in the responses of a similar post:
For versions vs scenarios, this is a hot topic. We are right at the moment where I would suggest to use scenarios. Knowing there is currently a constraint: one scenario cannot reference another via a formula (we are working on it though).
besides that, it behaves mostly the same as using a standard dimension for versions, except that you can easily compare to snapshots (thus fixing your numbers).
With my limited understanding it seems like scenarios are preferable in that they respond to changes in the model over time (i.e. if there’s a change in dimensionality in a metric, the new dimensionality is accessible through your budget scenario), and they are very visible when selecting “scenario” in pages or elsewhere.
However, given that the nature of a budget is static, I was curious how we’d prevent budget scenario changes as a result of newly uploaded actuals? In that sense, it seems like a snapshot/version is easier to keep static. Would you leverage period type and have the actual/forecast split be at the start of the year for a budget scenario? Or is there another way to keep it static if it lives as a scenario rather than a version?
Any clarification or best practice tips on budgeting in Pigment is greatly appreciated!
CC:
Best answer by BrunoRodriguez
View original
