How to aggregate the costs of each individual BOM level in connection with MS Navision

[Manuel1]

Hello QLIK Community,

at the moment I am despairing of the following topic and I hope someone can assist me here. What is it about:

It should be possible to aggregate the costs of each individual BOM level so that the total costs (material costs, production costs) for the product are visible at the end. The used ERP ist Microsoft Navision 2009.

I know that the "Hierarchy" syntax should work but i don´t have any clue, how to use it correct. At the moment I use the following script similar to that topic: https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView-Scripting/Bill-of-Materials-from-Navision/td-p/414790

Fakten_BOM:

Hierarchy ( Article_Nr., BOM_Nr., Node_Name, BOM_Name,Child, Pathfield,'|',Level)
Load

Article_Nr.,

Article_Nr. as [Node_Name],

BOM_Nr.,

BOM_Nr. as BOM_Name,

Description

Version

Art,

Amount

FROM
[XYZ.qvd]
(qvd);

The result is not as desired, because within my Table-Box I only see results until Level 2. But there are at least 8 Levels within BOM´s.

Does anyone have an experience in aggregating the costs of each individual BOM level in connection with MS Navision? If so can you give me a hint how to solve the problem? 

Many thanks in advance

Greetings

Manuel

[Brett_Bleess]

Best I have to offer is the following Design Blog post, note there is a link to a related post at the bottom too, so check both things, as I am hoping this may get you on the right track, below that is the base URL to the Design Blog area you can use to further search the 700+ mostly how-to posts out there.

https://community.qlik.com/t5/Qlik-Design-Blog/Bill-of-Materials/ba-p/1462792

https://community.qlik.com/t5/Qlik-Design-Blog/bg-p/qlik-design-blog

There are some posts on using the AGGR function and Set Analysis, which you are likely going to need to do, so do spend some time looking around at the posts, start your search with a single word and see what comes back, then add more words based upon what you get back or change things etc., I find that to be most efficient.

Regards,
Brett