Reporting as a relationship to network hierarchies

[Mark Messinger]

Near the bottom of another message thread https://smarttransportation.ning.com/forum/topics/do-networks-alway... I learned the concept of a "placeholder" network. The network is created, but with no direct means of associating users to it. However, it's possible to associate other networks as children to this placeholder network. In a manner of speaking, the users of all the children network are therefore associated with the parent placeholder network. That sounds useful for creating reports, since it sounds to me as though a placeholder network can be used a reporting tool for reporting only users associated with children of the placeholder network.

I'd like to clarify the relationship of network hierarchy to reporting. I think the reporting needs drive, to a great extent, the network hierarchy I choose to create.

Imagine this network hierarchy:

The TMA network is configured to include all of Region A, but only a portion of Region B and none of Region C.

Note that Employer Network A and Employer Network B are both parents to Worksite Network AB.

In this example, there are no "placeholder" networks.

If a report is run at Regional Network A, I would expect it to include information about users within Regional Network A, Employer Network A, Division Network A, and all users in Worksite Network AB. Is that true, including the part about all users at Worksite AB?

But, because Worksite Network AB is shared by two Employer Networks - one associated with Region A and other Region B - would not the report include information about users in both Regions A and B? How could users associated with Employer B be excluded from the report run by Region A?

If Employer Network A runs a report, are users at Worksite AB which are employees of Employer B included?

If a user has a home address in Region A and a work address in Region B, that user appears on both reports run by Region A and those run by Region B. You cannot simply add the Region A and Region B reports together, without counting this same user twice. If we want to count the user only once, we have to either run the report at the State level or (if both the home and work address are within the TMA) we can run the report from the TMA level.

Thanks for any comments.

[OSUsustainability]

I have a similar situation. Except my "Employer Network A" is an University Network, and my "Worksite Network AB" is a Program network operated by the University.

In my situation, which is both similar and different from yours, the answer to "If Employer Network A runs a report, are users at Worksite AB which are employees of Employer B included?" is no.
As my situation goes, people who are not members of the university but members of the Program network, do not show up on reports run by the university.

Now I don't know how this will change with a Worksite Network, but I hope this helps a little

-OSU Sustainability

[Mark Messinger]

Thank you for your reply. It's good to learn that users commuting to a multi-employer worksite will be reported separately by-employer. I assume this will happen only if the users have been correctly associated with the parent Employer network (and not simply associated with the Worksite, by its location). Perhaps that is the issue you found with the University network operating as a parent to the Program network?

Maybe the question I should have originally asked ought not to have been about the effect of network hierarchy on reporting. It sounds as though I should have asked about the effect of network hierarchy on user association. If a user becomes associated with one network, is that user automatically associated with all parents to that network? In the case of a University network, for example, user association is not automatic. State, Regional and some other network types associate users automatically, based on location. But other types of networks associate through other means. It sounds as though you have discovered, OSU Sustainability, that simply being associated with a Program network doesn't automatically associate the user with the parent University network.

Have other administrators found that this is true?