<?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>topic Re: Section Access with Hierarchical Visibility in Management &amp; Governance</title>
    <link>https://community.qlik.com/t5/Management-Governance/Section-Access-with-Hierarchical-Visibility/m-p/2538056#M32433</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;AFAIK there is no direct possibility for different access-rights in regard to their hierarchy-level respectively levels of granularity because it's against the core-aim of an access-control to allow access to a certain data-level or to deny them.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Strictly spoken you have not a single access rule else n ones but you want to combine them. I suggest not to discard the idea of keeping them in n application separate too easily because it keeps the matter logically and technically simple - and it may not have mandatory disadvantages in regard to performance &amp;amp; redundancy as wells as in the usability against more complex approaches.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Nevertheless there are possibilities to combine conflicting access rules with some extra efforts. You may take the following (and the there linked postings) as starting point:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://community.qlik.com/t5/Design/Basics-for-complex-authorization/ba-p/1465872" target="_blank"&gt;Basics for complex authorization - Qlik Community - 1465872&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;to see if it might be adaptable for your scenario. Personally I would tend to your already mentioned approach by adding appropriate aggregated layer to the data-set. This could be added to the origin fact-tables with an approach like:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://community.qlik.com/t5/Design/Fact-Table-with-Mixed-Granularity/ba-p/1468238" target="_blank"&gt;Fact Table with Mixed Granularity - Qlik Community - 1468238&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;and does not mandatory require extra access-keys.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Beside the above I suggest to consider a check if you really need 3 fact-tables because quite often contain the facts the same kind of information (like sales + budget + forecast&amp;nbsp; - only the direction of the data is different) and they might be merged (mainly per concatenate but also with n join/mapping measurements) to a single fact-table which would simplify the data-model, avoiding linking-troubles and saving efforts.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2025 07:33:12 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>marcus_sommer</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-12-04T07:33:12Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Section Access with Hierarchical Visibility</title>
      <link>https://community.qlik.com/t5/Management-Governance/Section-Access-with-Hierarchical-Visibility/m-p/2537853#M32430</link>
      <description>&lt;P data-start="396" data-end="410"&gt;Hi everyone,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P data-start="412" data-end="500"&gt;I’m building a Qlik Sense application for a sports club.&lt;BR data-start="468" data-end="471" /&gt;The data model consists of:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL data-start="502" data-end="780"&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="502" data-end="558"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="504" data-end="558"&gt;Three fact tables connected through a &lt;STRONG data-start="542" data-end="556"&gt;link table&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="559" data-end="664"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="561" data-end="587"&gt;The link table contains:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL data-start="590" data-end="664"&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="590" data-end="628"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="592" data-end="628"&gt;&lt;CODE data-start="592" data-end="626"&gt;key = autonumber(team_id &amp;amp; date)&lt;/CODE&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="631" data-end="644"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="633" data-end="644"&gt;&lt;CODE data-start="633" data-end="642"&gt;team_id&lt;/CODE&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="647" data-end="664"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="649" data-end="664"&gt;calendar date&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="665" data-end="708"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="667" data-end="708"&gt;&lt;CODE data-start="667" data-end="676"&gt;team_id&lt;/CODE&gt; links to a &lt;STRONG data-start="688" data-end="706"&gt;team dimension&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="709" data-end="780"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="711" data-end="780"&gt;The team dimension contains &lt;STRONG data-start="739" data-end="756"&gt;department_id&lt;/STRONG&gt; and &lt;STRONG data-start="761" data-end="778"&gt;team_group_id&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;P data-start="782" data-end="882"&gt;Section Access currently restricts data based on &lt;STRONG data-start="831" data-end="842"&gt;team_id&lt;/STRONG&gt;, because all facts refer only to teams.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;HR data-start="884" data-end="887" /&gt;
&lt;H2 data-start="889" data-end="925"&gt;&lt;STRONG data-start="892" data-end="925"&gt;Roles and Access Requirements&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/H2&gt;
&lt;P data-start="927" data-end="972"&gt;There are two leadership levels in this club:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;H3 data-start="974" data-end="1003"&gt;&lt;STRONG data-start="978" data-end="1003"&gt;1. Department Leaders&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/H3&gt;
&lt;UL data-start="1004" data-end="1288"&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="1004" data-end="1061"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="1006" data-end="1061"&gt;Responsible for all &lt;EM data-start="1026" data-end="1039"&gt;team groups&lt;/EM&gt; in their department&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="1062" data-end="1134"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="1064" data-end="1134"&gt;Should see &lt;EM data-start="1075" data-end="1102"&gt;total performance numbers&lt;/EM&gt; for &lt;STRONG data-start="1107" data-end="1132"&gt;all other departments&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="1135" data-end="1220"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="1137" data-end="1220"&gt;Must &lt;STRONG data-start="1142" data-end="1149"&gt;not&lt;/STRONG&gt; drill down into team groups or individual teams of other departments&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="1221" data-end="1288"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="1223" data-end="1288"&gt;Drilldown should only be possible inside their &lt;EM data-start="1270" data-end="1275"&gt;own&lt;/EM&gt; department&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;H3 data-start="1290" data-end="1319"&gt;&lt;STRONG data-start="1294" data-end="1319"&gt;2. Team Group Leaders&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/H3&gt;
&lt;UL data-start="1320" data-end="1574"&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="1320" data-end="1363"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="1322" data-end="1363"&gt;Responsible for one specific team group&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="1364" data-end="1436"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="1366" data-end="1436"&gt;Should see aggregated results for &lt;STRONG data-start="1400" data-end="1434"&gt;all groups in their department&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="1437" data-end="1507"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="1439" data-end="1507"&gt;Can drill down to individual teams &lt;STRONG data-start="1474" data-end="1505"&gt;only within their own group&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="1508" data-end="1574"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="1510" data-end="1574"&gt;Should not see team-level details for groups they don’t manage&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;HR data-start="1576" data-end="1579" /&gt;
&lt;H2 data-start="1581" data-end="1627"&gt;&lt;STRONG data-start="1584" data-end="1627"&gt;Desired User Experience (Pivot Example)&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/H2&gt;
&lt;UL data-start="1629" data-end="2005"&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="1629" data-end="1829"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="1631" data-end="1682"&gt;A department leader opens a pivot table and sees:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL data-start="1685" data-end="1829"&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="1685" data-end="1750"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="1687" data-end="1750"&gt;All departments and their total performance for a given month&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="1753" data-end="1829"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="1755" data-end="1829"&gt;Only the department they manage can be expanded into team groups → teams&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="1831" data-end="2005"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="1833" data-end="1885"&gt;A team group leader opens the same pivot and sees:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL data-start="1888" data-end="2005"&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="1888" data-end="1940"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="1890" data-end="1940"&gt;All team groups of their department (aggregated)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="1943" data-end="2005"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="1945" data-end="2005"&gt;Only their own group can be expanded into individual teams&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;HR data-start="2007" data-end="2010" /&gt;
&lt;H2 data-start="2012" data-end="2043"&gt;&lt;STRONG data-start="2015" data-end="2043"&gt;Core Technical Challenge&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/H2&gt;
&lt;P data-start="2045" data-end="2110"&gt;Since Section Access currently works via &lt;CODE data-start="2086" data-end="2095"&gt;team_id&lt;/CODE&gt;, we need to:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;OL data-start="2112" data-end="2588"&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="2112" data-end="2201"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="2115" data-end="2153"&gt;Generate &lt;STRONG data-start="2124" data-end="2148"&gt;aggregated fact rows&lt;/STRONG&gt; at&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL data-start="2157" data-end="2201"&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="2157" data-end="2177"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="2159" data-end="2177"&gt;department level&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="2181" data-end="2201"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="2183" data-end="2201"&gt;team group level&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="2202" data-end="2310"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="2205" data-end="2241"&gt;Introduce artificial keys such as:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL data-start="2245" data-end="2310"&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="2245" data-end="2275"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="2247" data-end="2275"&gt;&lt;CODE data-start="2247" data-end="2273"&gt;AGG_DEPT_&amp;lt;department_id&amp;gt;&lt;/CODE&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="2279" data-end="2310"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="2281" data-end="2310"&gt;&lt;CODE data-start="2281" data-end="2308"&gt;AGG_GROUP_&amp;lt;team_group_id&amp;gt;&lt;/CODE&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="2311" data-end="2358"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="2314" data-end="2358"&gt;Add these artificial IDs to Section Access&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="2359" data-end="2440"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="2362" data-end="2440"&gt;Maintain correct behavior across three fact tables linked via the link table&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="2441" data-end="2588"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="2444" data-end="2479"&gt;Ensure the access model supports:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL data-start="2483" data-end="2588"&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="2483" data-end="2525"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="2485" data-end="2525"&gt;global visibility of high-level totals&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="2529" data-end="2588"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="2531" data-end="2588"&gt;local drilldown restricted to one’s responsibility area&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/OL&gt;
&lt;HR data-start="2590" data-end="2593" /&gt;
&lt;H2 data-start="2595" data-end="2636"&gt;&lt;STRONG data-start="2598" data-end="2636"&gt;What I'm Asking the Qlik Community&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/H2&gt;
&lt;P data-start="2638" data-end="2693"&gt;Do you have best practices or recommended patterns for:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL data-start="2695" data-end="2976"&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="2695" data-end="2783"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="2697" data-end="2783"&gt;Implementing hierarchical access where detail visibility depends on the user’s role?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="2784" data-end="2846"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="2786" data-end="2846"&gt;Combining normal fact rows with synthetic aggregated rows?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="2847" data-end="2976"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="2849" data-end="2895"&gt;Designing a Section Access model that shows:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL data-start="2898" data-end="2976"&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="2898" data-end="2919"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="2900" data-end="2919"&gt;totals everywhere&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI data-start="2922" data-end="2976"&gt;
&lt;P data-start="2924" data-end="2976"&gt;details only in the user’s department or team group?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;P data-start="2978" data-end="3088"&gt;Any insights, examples, or patterns from similar implementations would be very helpful.&lt;BR data-start="3065" data-end="3068" /&gt;Thanks in advance!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2025 16:39:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.qlik.com/t5/Management-Governance/Section-Access-with-Hierarchical-Visibility/m-p/2537853#M32430</guid>
      <dc:creator>jobru-07</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-12-02T16:39:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Section Access with Hierarchical Visibility</title>
      <link>https://community.qlik.com/t5/Management-Governance/Section-Access-with-Hierarchical-Visibility/m-p/2537968#M32431</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.qlik.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/357309"&gt;@jobru-07&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I think there are different ways to do this, but I have been able to reproduce the behavior you expect on the dashboard below.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Since I didn't have any data sample, I built a simple one in excel. I'm attaching it too in order you can reproduce the code, perform modifications if needed and to understand how the data is built.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I'm attaching both since I think it would be very difficult to explain it only via text. Hence, I believe it would be easy for you to understand if you read the code directly.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I hope this helps you and if you have any doubt, let me know.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Kind Regards&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Daniel&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2025 15:37:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.qlik.com/t5/Management-Governance/Section-Access-with-Hierarchical-Visibility/m-p/2537968#M32431</guid>
      <dc:creator>Daniel_Castella</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-12-03T15:37:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Section Access with Hierarchical Visibility</title>
      <link>https://community.qlik.com/t5/Management-Governance/Section-Access-with-Hierarchical-Visibility/m-p/2538056#M32433</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;AFAIK there is no direct possibility for different access-rights in regard to their hierarchy-level respectively levels of granularity because it's against the core-aim of an access-control to allow access to a certain data-level or to deny them.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Strictly spoken you have not a single access rule else n ones but you want to combine them. I suggest not to discard the idea of keeping them in n application separate too easily because it keeps the matter logically and technically simple - and it may not have mandatory disadvantages in regard to performance &amp;amp; redundancy as wells as in the usability against more complex approaches.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Nevertheless there are possibilities to combine conflicting access rules with some extra efforts. You may take the following (and the there linked postings) as starting point:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://community.qlik.com/t5/Design/Basics-for-complex-authorization/ba-p/1465872" target="_blank"&gt;Basics for complex authorization - Qlik Community - 1465872&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;to see if it might be adaptable for your scenario. Personally I would tend to your already mentioned approach by adding appropriate aggregated layer to the data-set. This could be added to the origin fact-tables with an approach like:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://community.qlik.com/t5/Design/Fact-Table-with-Mixed-Granularity/ba-p/1468238" target="_blank"&gt;Fact Table with Mixed Granularity - Qlik Community - 1468238&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;and does not mandatory require extra access-keys.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Beside the above I suggest to consider a check if you really need 3 fact-tables because quite often contain the facts the same kind of information (like sales + budget + forecast&amp;nbsp; - only the direction of the data is different) and they might be merged (mainly per concatenate but also with n join/mapping measurements) to a single fact-table which would simplify the data-model, avoiding linking-troubles and saving efforts.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2025 07:33:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.qlik.com/t5/Management-Governance/Section-Access-with-Hierarchical-Visibility/m-p/2538056#M32433</guid>
      <dc:creator>marcus_sommer</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-12-04T07:33:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

