PDP based on multi-select field

ARosser
ARosser Member
in Governance & Security

For my company the primary data point for PDP is division. In all but 1 system this is a single select required field and is seamless. In one system location is multi-select which is understandably problematic for PDP.

This is how it is set on one of the "good" datasets

image.png

Compared to the "bad" dataset

image.png

I have to add a rule for every possible combination. I'm currently up to 202 but that list grows regularly. If custom filter allowed CONTAINS I would be good to go. But alas, here we are. The only option I can think of is to create a beast mode for each policy (44 currently) that looks something like this.

Name: PDP:1001-Springfield Sprinkler

CONTAINS(`Division`,'Springfield Sprinkler')

OR

CONTAINS(`Division`,'Springfield')

Then set the policy to

PDP:1001-Springfield Sprinkler = TRUE

Clearly, this is VERY cumbersome and will be a pain to maintain. I would love some thoughts on other paths.

Tagged:

Best Answer

  • ColemenWilson
    ColemenWilson Coach
    Answer ✓

    You could create a new field in the "bad" dataset to split the Division field on the comma delimiter, then clean up the leading characters, then append the data so you can then apply PDP policies as you do on the "good" datasets.

    So your data would go from looking like this:

    Screen Shot 2025-01-24 at 11.42.54 PM.png

    To this:

    Screen Shot 2025-01-24 at 11.43.17 PM.png

    Would that work for you?

    If I solved your problem, please select "yes" above

Answers

  • ColemenWilson
    ColemenWilson Coach
    Answer ✓

    You could create a new field in the "bad" dataset to split the Division field on the comma delimiter, then clean up the leading characters, then append the data so you can then apply PDP policies as you do on the "good" datasets.

    So your data would go from looking like this:

    Screen Shot 2025-01-24 at 11.42.54 PM.png

    To this:

    Screen Shot 2025-01-24 at 11.43.17 PM.png

    Would that work for you?

    If I solved your problem, please select "yes" above

  • ARosser
    ARosser Member

    It's not ideal as the data is getting aggregated and pivoting the data will make things more complicated. Using your example above the revenue for a single record is $100. With the pivot it becomes $300 using a simple sum. If I use AVG or MAX I lose the ability to aggregate in the report using beast modes because totals get messed up. Unless I use FIXED BY. Then I'm right back to managing a ton of beast modes. That may be my only option though.

Categories