Summary Item override

3.09K viewsFormulas and Functions
0

Dear Quantrix Users,

Using summary items in a matrix it seems to me that they have absolute eclipsing priority. That means another formula for a particular cell which is evaluated by a summary item will be ignored.

Did I miss something, or is there any way to get round this?

Regards,
– Raoul

0

Good thoughts and well worth considering. What do others think?

0

Hello Mike,

thank you for the model showing the two approaches to summary items.

I first encountered the issue with summary items when I linked categories between different matrices. “Automatic” summary items will be calculated in both matrices, effectively meaning the formulas are linked (i.e. copied) as well. “Manual” summary items (i.e. the approach you are demonstrating in your model) will not be linked (copied).

There is a a clear advantage having “automatic” summary items being linked (copied) together with linked categories between different matrices (especially in large models). However if in a particular matrix you for example want absolute and relative figures side by side, a sum(summary) item will give strange results unless you can override the priority.

Maybe it would be a good thing to have the option to overrule absolute priority in “automatic” summary items.

Regards,
– Raoul

0

Hello Raoul – Thanks for your post.

You are correct in your observation that Summary Item formulas have absolute eclipsing priority.

A way around this is to create an item that will contain the summary in the matrix then write the formula using the sum(summary) statement. Doing it this way allows you to use the appropriate SKIP and IF statements to resolve the eclipses in the Matrix.

Attached to this post is a Quantrix Model file showing the difference between the two approaches.

A question for the Quantrix Users… Should the automatic summary items rules be relaxed? That is, should we allow the user control over how the automatic summary items eclipse other formulas?

Post your thoughts on this thread for consideration!

Thanks,

-Mike