Dearest Friends--
We're finding a sort of odd situation as we're still in the throes of migrating from v10 to v11 (insert shame here). For the most part, we're actually looking good with our staged data but for one odd anomaly--some of our associations aren't carrying over as affiliations but rather are staying associations. Namely, it seems that our "Officers/Trustees" for Foundations and Family Foundations aren't always carrying over properly. The common thread that I seem to be finding is that instances in which there are multiple "Officers/Trustees" seem to not carry over as affiliations but rather remain associations.
In TRU_ASSOCIATION_MAPPING I have tried the associations as either "Default Affiliation Type" or "Officer/Trustee" to no avail ... any thoughts?
Thank you thank you!
Brian Jones
Brian,
The only thing that comes to mind is to double check the Customer Types/Groups involved. It shouldn't be possible to form an association in V11 between two records that have differing groups. I would check TRU_CUSTOMER_MAPPING to make sure that the officers/trustees are being mapped into the correct customer type during conversion. And also TR_CUST_TYPE to see which group each customer type is currently pointed at.
If all of that looks good (i.e., the officers are being migrated as individual records and the foundations as organizations) and you feel good about your association mappings, it is likely a problem that will need some attention from Tess Support. Associations were definitely the trickiest part of the migrations I went through and I couldn't have done it without David Woodall's help :)
- Levi
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Thank you, Levi!
Since “Officers/Trustees” are purely associations in v10, should I see them in my TRU_CUSTOMER_MAPPING/TR_CUST_TYPE tables? What’s really thwarting me is that some of them seem to be carrying over while others are not. While all of my associations appear to be solid, I’m going to look away and try to get a fresh pair of eyes on it tomorrow.
Worst case scenario, It turns out that there are appear to only be a handful of issues here and we can do them manually without too much duress. I’m just fearful since I can’t seem to pinpoint the issue directly … makes me wonder if other issues may be floating around that we’re missing!
And poor David … I’ve had him essentially on speed dial for some other reporting issues we’ve been dealing with, he’s amazing (and has the patience of a saint)!
The way the merge works is that it is not a mapping issue with the v10 association that decides if it migrates to an affiliation or association but actually the type of constituent of each related record. For example if a household is related to a family foundation with a constituent category of organization the relationship type will be an association as organization/household to organization/household is an association. If the related constituents are unlike (individual to household or individual to organization) the relationship will be an affiliation. Remember that the merge takes the N1/N2 flag into account as well. There are a variety of combinations that can happen depending on the constituent type migration of the related records and the N1/N2 flag on the record. Given all that it is not totally surprising that there is a mix of affiliations and associations just depending on how your data is structured. If you feel this data has been generated in error please feel free to open a TASK ticket.
Best,
Anna