ctcLink Reference CenterResourcesRemediation HCMFaculty Workload (FWL) Process Part 2 (4/25/17)

Faculty Workload (FWL) Process Part 2 (4/25/17)

Topic:  Faculty Workload (FWL) Process

Meeting Date/Time:  April 25, 2017

Meeting Facilitator(s):  Brian Lanier & Josie Lomax

WebEx Recording:  Due to the personal information available within this Listen & Learn remediation session, the recording is being hosted in the Community of Practice Canvas course. This is in keeping with our FERPA commitment. All SSN/Bank Data are redacted. Please contact Jo Munroe for viewing access.

Key HCM Module Involved

  • Payroll for North America
  • Workforce Administration
  • Faculty Workload (FWL)

Remediation Ticket Information

Meeting Notes

Sam: talking about FWL business process, would like Spokane to share the current business process and explain what they would like to see change in the system (Tacoma shared last session)

Spokane: District, so managed at college level by instructional admin support in each division, 400 FTF, 897 adjunct, Admins build classes based on course instruction that is entered by the curricc. Committee, Admins generate contracts for the faculty (175 day FTF, plus moonlight/overload, and then any other PTF contract), Admins then go into faculty workload and bring up HCM info, looking for % of load and pay dates, Deans need to approve, send emails to each dean to review each contract individually, department needs to then notify of approvals, Admins cannot override pay, anything pay impacting must come through HR, workaround using HCM prevents too much information from coming through

Sam: for adjustments, do they go back to get resigned on the contract

Spokane: (before) contracts would be ordered in HR, get scanned to division to get printed/get signed by Deans and employee, so resending was rare, recalculation did require communication and resigning

Sam: so still HR did the work, and the division would sign it, but HR provided the proof?

Spokane: Admin asst still determined everything about the contract, HR just did input, but now Admins do input and HR just validates

Sam: Let’s talk about what you would like to see change

Spokane: No manual touches, workflow does it automatically for signing, extra step for current workaround is less easy to miss,

Sam: Workflow engine is different than email notification.  We are working on making it more than an email notification in AWE.

Spokane: Dean does not approve until HR signs off, but right now people can sign it before HR wants to allow approval.  Not being able to stop these approvals is another issue.

Sam: So the departments generate the contracts?

Spokane: Admins do entry but can’t say whether they are the final versions of the contracts.  Contract priority isn’t always known by the admins.  HR is the gatekeeper.

Sam: Notifications for HR > Dean > Instructor > HR?

Spokane: HR doesn’t want notification of signing.  They want to be able to see a report on unsigned contracts.  Want metrics on people who regularly don’t sign (supervisory tool to send to Deans).

Sam: You want the Dean to sign?

Spokane: Yes, just Deans not Admins.  Melody right now is the signer in the absence of the Dean.  Delegation is something that needs to be talked over internally.

Sam: Let’s look at the workflow a little more.  Approval set to position not a person was the thought before, but it sounds like you want it to a person.

Spokane: How can we have that without the reports to functionality?  It isn’t implemented.

Jameeka: We talking about the approval process.  If those who need to be approvers are full time staff/employees they would have a position number.  So then you would be able to do it by position.

Spokane: Why is the system not pulling from who’s listed in that department as Dean?

Sam: We did not pull anything yet.  They was she sees it, if it pulls by position then whoever moves into that position next would still be the approver.

Spokane: Why is not looking at the person ordering the contract and then looks at their supervisor?

Jameeka: This involves further research and discussion for the reports to/position/supervisor workflow discussion

Sam: Workflow is in campus for this, which isn’t the same as HCM setup

Spokane: Wants it to look at who is submitting the contract and then automatically flow to the supervisor.  Unless they delegate it to an admin, in which case there are more complications.

Sam: This is helpful as a concept, and looking at person/supervisor is an avenue we can investigate but it would take a lot of touching of the system to keep it up.

Spokane: HR should always be able to override.

Sam: So AWE is one thing, but what else to change?

Spokane: Want contract types from 300+ to 15.  Why do they have to keep rolling each quarter forward?  Contracts can’t be ordered until the roll has happened.  When they do roll then, and if the class wasn’t offered they have to manually touch the contracts a lot.

Sam: I can’t promise 15.

Spokane: I would like them greatly reduced!

Sam: There are factors which will impact how many can be eliminated.  We’re trying to gather information for the changes we are considering.

Spokane: what about assignment types?

Sam: Each institution needs to be separate because it’s in Campus.  This will aid reporting.  Spokane is always going to be divided into 171 and 172.  Contract Type is delivered functionality, and we’re looking into removing the class dependency.  Once it is tested and migrated the colleges will be notified.

Spokane: Currently very labor intensive, it isn’t sustainable.  Because there is so much manual work it is also prone to error.  When will we see the changes?

Sam: We need to get more information before we’d be able to answer that question.  We have a big list of FWL changes.  Each change needs to be completed individually.

Spokane: There was a combo code issue.  When you select a Job Data Empl Rcd you have to select a combo code, but the combo codes come from all Empl Rcds not just the one selected.

Sam: We thought the fix was already in place for that.

Spokane: Fix was in for Earn rcd but not combo code.

Sam: Can you provide examples of this?  Testing was done prior to migration for the fix.

Spokane: Need to see assurance of this fix.

Sam: It is only picking the codes from the selected empl rcd.  Please do take screenshots or share the screen on a future session.

Spokane: Can Admins be set up to see combo code/budget screen?  View Job Data brings them to CTC Earnings Dist but they can’t see the combo codes.  How do they find the accounts attached?  Is this a security issue?  Right now only people who can modify/correct Job Data can see those accounts.  We don’t want them to modify, but we want them to see the chart string.  Admins have a division so there are too many budgets that they need to be aware of.

Sam: Spokane should submit a ticket to change the security to allow view only access to the details screen they can’t use in CTC Earnings Dist.  Are there any admin asst on the phone?

Spokane: No, they aren’t participating in this.

Sam: Do they actually process one by one, or do they do it in batch?

Spokane: Each person does it the way that works best for them.  Some do it one by one.  Some do it in batch.  It depends.

Sam: Batch in this means entering everyone then calculating it once.

Spokane: Same answer.  Spokane doesn’t use Short Work Break.  Anyone on SWB can’t be seen by FWL, so the moonlight and overload is a large work issue to get contracts settled.

Jameeka: Tacoma is this an issue for you?

Mark: AP is not here today and he doesn’t want to speak for her.

Jameeka: That sounds like it might be a local security setup issue.

Spokane: SWP having payroll inactive is a problem for them with system access in general.  Couldn’t order contracts until after faculty are back from SWP.  Summer effort, ordering contracts, is on a different empl record so ordering those contracts is complicated.

Jameeka: So they are in a new empl rcd?

Spokane: Yes.  They were instructed to make a full new record.  So Primary job is the FTF job, and additional jobs are there if they are moonlighting in depts. outside of their division or another if they are on another campus, and another one for summer effort.  Special calculations take place for the other non FTF job.

Jameeka: So are they FTF paygroup?

Spokane: No those jobs are the PTF paygroup.

Jameeka: So if the SWB didn’t harm system access, would it work for you by paygroup?

Spokane: There are still issues.  Campus can’t see it when it’s on SWB.

Jameeka: We’ll look into it and check with AP to see if there are other issues.  

Spokane: Want to make sure that the formula being use (special code for summer effort), is looking at the step they are on for the empl rcd is maintained.

Sam: Can always inform when testing is desired.

Spokane: A fix was supposed to be in place for that.

Sam: We did migration for summer effort and it has not yet been put in use for 2017.  It wasn’t ready in summer 2016.  When we do new configuration to make adjustments it might make an error somewhere else, so it would be best to work on every single item in one large project (to make sure all the dependencies don’t cause issues with one another).

Spokane: Tend to agree, but it needs to be in a reasonable time frame.

Sam: We’re targeting 6-7 months for full development.

Spokane: Do you need an affirmative or negative from us to decide all at once or piece by piece?

Brian: How long would you need to talk to management?  How about next Tuesday?

Spokane & Tacoma: ok (probably)

Sam: Back to FWL… would like to more entry options available to Admins for input on descriptions

Spokane: Special assign contracts we would like to know what they are getting paid for.  Could take or leave the option for more input.  Right now the admins feel very put upon.

Sam: They put the info in once, and then everything comes over to FWL.  Entry would happen in Term Workload.

Spokane: So for auditing it would be helpful to know what they are getting paid for, but the Admin asst would go in and add another component and attach it to the contract?

Sam: It’s in Term workload page and then comes over to FWL. (demonstration on her screen)

Spokane: Now they have seen it, yes pull over the information.

Sam: They do enter the information, they put it in comments, so we’re trying to avoid double entry.  

0 Comments

Add your comment

E-Mail me when someone replies to this comment