<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>idea Allowing Mixed-Resolution &amp;amp; Dynamic Allocations in Space Planner in ArcGIS Indoors Ideas</title>
    <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-indoors-ideas/allowing-mixed-resolution-amp-dynamic-allocations/idi-p/1710871</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Related to this's post:&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-indoors-ideas/multi-level-allocations-in-space-planner/idi-p/1690897/jump-to/first-unread-message" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-indoors-ideas/multi-level-allocations-in-space-planner/idi-p/1690897/jump-to/first-unread-message. &lt;/A&gt;Aaron has highlighted a critical gap, and I want to add some context to why the current single-tier allocation model breaks down in production.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;At our university, we manage over 100 departments and 50 administration units, which further branch into hundreds of sub-units and teams. We are constantly caught between two parallel, misaligned data hierarchies:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;OL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Facilities Cost Centers:&lt;/STRONG&gt; The structural hierarchy used to track space ownership codes, regardless of who sits there.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;HR Org Charts (Workday):&lt;/STRONG&gt; The operational hierarchy attached to employee data that populates Occupants layer.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/OL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;The Bottleneck:&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In the current Space Planner allocation wizard, we are forced to pick &lt;I&gt;one single tier&lt;/I&gt; of the hierarchy (e.g., choosing strictly "Department" OR "Team") to run a plan. This rigid, all-or-nothing approach doesn't match how real space requests land on a planner’s desk.&amp;nbsp;Real-world space demand doesn't respect clean hierarchy lines.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Space demands are almost always &lt;STRONG&gt;mixed-resolution&lt;/STRONG&gt;. A single move project frequently requires moving an entire macro-level department (e.g., &lt;I&gt;all of History&lt;/I&gt;) while simultaneously moving a micro-level sub-group from a completely different branch (e.g., &lt;I&gt;a 3-person team from Creative Writing&lt;/I&gt;).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;The Solution/Feature Request:&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Instead of forcing a single, blanket selection from the Occupants attributes, Space Planner needs to support &lt;STRONG&gt;Mixed-Resolution or Ad-Hoc Grouping&lt;/STRONG&gt;.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Multi-Tier Filtering:&lt;/STRONG&gt; Allow planners to define allocations down to different levels of the hierarchy within the &lt;I&gt;same&lt;/I&gt; plan.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Custom Value Lists:&lt;/STRONG&gt; Give users the ability to explicitly define or cherry-pick a mixed list of values across different organizational levels to use as the allocation categories.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 20:38:36 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>ZiweiZ6352</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2026-06-29T20:38:36Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Allowing Mixed-Resolution &amp; Dynamic Allocations in Space Planner</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-indoors-ideas/allowing-mixed-resolution-amp-dynamic-allocations/idi-p/1710871</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Related to this's post:&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-indoors-ideas/multi-level-allocations-in-space-planner/idi-p/1690897/jump-to/first-unread-message" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-indoors-ideas/multi-level-allocations-in-space-planner/idi-p/1690897/jump-to/first-unread-message. &lt;/A&gt;Aaron has highlighted a critical gap, and I want to add some context to why the current single-tier allocation model breaks down in production.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;At our university, we manage over 100 departments and 50 administration units, which further branch into hundreds of sub-units and teams. We are constantly caught between two parallel, misaligned data hierarchies:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;OL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Facilities Cost Centers:&lt;/STRONG&gt; The structural hierarchy used to track space ownership codes, regardless of who sits there.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;HR Org Charts (Workday):&lt;/STRONG&gt; The operational hierarchy attached to employee data that populates Occupants layer.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/OL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;The Bottleneck:&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In the current Space Planner allocation wizard, we are forced to pick &lt;I&gt;one single tier&lt;/I&gt; of the hierarchy (e.g., choosing strictly "Department" OR "Team") to run a plan. This rigid, all-or-nothing approach doesn't match how real space requests land on a planner’s desk.&amp;nbsp;Real-world space demand doesn't respect clean hierarchy lines.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Space demands are almost always &lt;STRONG&gt;mixed-resolution&lt;/STRONG&gt;. A single move project frequently requires moving an entire macro-level department (e.g., &lt;I&gt;all of History&lt;/I&gt;) while simultaneously moving a micro-level sub-group from a completely different branch (e.g., &lt;I&gt;a 3-person team from Creative Writing&lt;/I&gt;).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;The Solution/Feature Request:&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Instead of forcing a single, blanket selection from the Occupants attributes, Space Planner needs to support &lt;STRONG&gt;Mixed-Resolution or Ad-Hoc Grouping&lt;/STRONG&gt;.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Multi-Tier Filtering:&lt;/STRONG&gt; Allow planners to define allocations down to different levels of the hierarchy within the &lt;I&gt;same&lt;/I&gt; plan.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Custom Value Lists:&lt;/STRONG&gt; Give users the ability to explicitly define or cherry-pick a mixed list of values across different organizational levels to use as the allocation categories.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 20:38:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-indoors-ideas/allowing-mixed-resolution-amp-dynamic-allocations/idi-p/1710871</guid>
      <dc:creator>ZiweiZ6352</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-06-29T20:38:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

