Related to this's post: https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-indoors-ideas/multi-level-allocations-in-space-planner/idi-p/16...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.
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:
Facilities Cost Centers: The structural hierarchy used to track space ownership codes, regardless of who sits there.
HR Org Charts (Workday): The operational hierarchy attached to employee data that populates Occupants layer.
The Bottleneck:
In the current Space Planner allocation wizard, we are forced to pick one single tier 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. Real-world space demand doesn't respect clean hierarchy lines.
Space demands are almost always mixed-resolution. A single move project frequently requires moving an entire macro-level department (e.g., all of History) while simultaneously moving a micro-level sub-group from a completely different branch (e.g., a 3-person team from Creative Writing).
The Solution/Feature Request:
Instead of forcing a single, blanket selection from the Occupants attributes, Space Planner needs to support Mixed-Resolution or Ad-Hoc Grouping.
Multi-Tier Filtering: Allow planners to define allocations down to different levels of the hierarchy within the same plan.
Custom Value Lists: 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.
