--0000000000003f64f7064a8fef2d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi All, I'm hoping to get clarity on how we are treating Grand Rapids and Chicago for reporting, particularly around incentives. In the targets received so far, I see Grand Rapids and Chicago are combined. Should these be combined in all areas of reporting? For any reporting where we track against a target, if targets are combined we will need to combine the sites in tableau. So I guess my questions are a) are we treating them as one for targets? b) if yes, is there a reason we wouldn't combine the sites for all reporting, but still be able to keep separate offices as the layer deeper than the site? Thanks, Sarah -- Sarah Powers Director, Strategic Analytics TheKey.com [image: TheKey] --0000000000003f64f7064a8fef2d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All, I'm hoping to ge= t clarity on how we are treating Grand Rapids and Chicago for reporting, pa= rticularly around incentives. In the targets received so far, I see Grand R= apids and Chicago are combined. Should these be combined in all areas of re= porting? For any reporting=C2=A0where we track aga= inst a target, if=C2=A0targets are combined we will need to combine the sit= es in tableau.=C2=A0 So I guess my questions are= =C2=A0 a) are we treating them as one for targets? b) i= f yes, is there a reason we wouldn't combine the sites for all reportin= g, but still be able to keep separate offices as the layer deeper than the = site? Thanks, Sarah -- Sarah Powers Director, Strategic Analytics TheKey.com --0000000000003f64f7064a8fef2d--