AnsweredAssumed Answered

A Plan for Partitioning

Question asked by Jim_Fuhring on Oct 7, 2009
Latest reply on Oct 8, 2009 by Paul_Maxwell
I've received some good information in this forum on the do's and don'ts of partitioning. We think it's a good solution to the problems we are facing at my company. I want to use this forum to propose a straw man plan for partitioning across an entire company - we are global. To my understanding, partitioning is hierarchical in nature. Thus, at the top level is the global company. A change to that partition changes every partition under it. Global reporting capability is thus tied to changes at this level.  The next level down for my company is at the organizational level: Sales and Marketing, Information Systems, R&DI, Operations, International, etc. Each of these areas would have their own partition. This allows them to do the following...which I think is the main "win" with partitioning:  1) Can have their own unique list data, i.e. processes that are used in IS are different than in Operations (for example, IS uses RUP and Operations uses Six-Sigma or PRINCE2  to run projects. Basically, Operations will see processes they know about and IS will see process they know about.2) Can have their own unique required fields - this is key to reporting data quality in my opinion and is the main advantage of partitioning3) Can have thier own attributes that are not shared4) Can have their own workflow, i.e. the requisition process may be slightly different  At the next level down are the functional areas within the above organizations. Within IS is Operations IS, R&D IS, and Sales & Marketing IS, and Shared Services IS, and Infrastructure IS, etc.1) The only uniqueness that I can see with an functional area would be the scoring or weighting critiera given to a project. Each area really has different drivers. Operations, for example, is really focuses on productivity, efficiency, and compliance. Those are the main drivers for their projects. In Sales and Marketing, it could be innovation, capacity (customer data), product growth. Here is where I see the weighting of the scoring criteria being different for each area.  As a general rule, I wouldn't partition any further down the chain than this. Thoughts?    

Outcomes