FWL Package 2 (10/5/17)

Meeting Information

  • Meeting Topic:  FWL Package 2
  • Meeting Date:  October 5, 2017
  • Meeting Facilitator(s):  Samah El Sayed

HCM Module Involved

  • Faculty Workload (FWL)

Meeting Notes

Jameeka: Good afternoon, we’re having this meeting to go over the updates in Prod for FWL and upcoming updates as well.  So I’ll turn it over to Sam to go over the particulars.

Sam: Everything in FWL Package 1 is in Prod since 3 weeks ago.  Would you like me to demonstrate some of the new functionality?  We already configured that email notification for Spokane to be out.  So would you like the demonstration?

Melody: I don’t need to see it.

Mark: It’s just me today, and I don’t feel the need for a Package 1 demo.

Sam: Ok.  For Package 2 I had a demo from Bhuvana for the approval workflow.  She added 4 more pages of setup for the approval workflow.  So 1st level is setup for who is approving the contract etc…. and IT at the local college will need to maintain the configuration.

Melody: Why is that?  So once this is moved to prod Admins won’t need to put “HCM” in the note field?  And also will this eliminate the need for 300+ contracts?  So we can have a standard set of contracts?

Sam: When I said the IT people I said the setup, not the functional.

Melody: But our IT set up nothing for us.

Sam: You need a role or an email address.  So address would need to be set up by the IT people at your college.  The language in the email will come from you or HR.

Melody: So you said create a “group” I don’t understand why a group is needed if it’s going to a specific person to approve.

Sam: When a single person is not available who can sign the contract?

Melody: Not the other Deans, just HR.

Sam: Ok… let me show you the new functionality.  I’m not sure it’s something you as an HR office would maintain, though, or if it’s a one time configuration.

Jameeka: Wasn’t the group just an option?

Sam: Yes, but something when the Dean is not available, we need a backup.  That’s why I say group.  Whoever sees it first can approve it.

Melody: Ok, but I need it to be delegated to me.  I shouldn’t be approving it before the Dean, or without the Dean’s express permission.

Jameeka: So, to clarify, if Melody isn’t there she can have it set up for other approvers, but there are different levels of approval… so through the Dean first, then others in between.  So it wouldn’t be just you approve if the Dean isn’t there, it’s more there are stages of approval.  First stage would be the Dean level.

Melody: Is it pulling the email address from CTC_LINK?

Sam: No, it must be set up initially and entered into the workflow.

Melody: So any time someone changes a supervisor we’ll have to go and fiddle with the email setup.

Sam: It can be set up by role (Job Class), or if there is a specific person you can select an email and input the email address.  So you can choose “Supervisor” or an “EMPLID”

Bhuvana: There are multiple options for how to set up your user list.  

Sam: As you can see on the screen you can put in a role (role name), an email address, a custom definition, or a SQL definition. I will set it up for you.

Melody: What do you mean by role and role name.

Jameeka: It’s a role, like a security role.

Sanjiv: If it’s a 2 step approval, it would go to the Dean first, then to the HR.  When we are designing 2 steps, the Dean can be a single person based on the Job but if that second level is HR then that’s less defined.  So we can define a role in HR, like a security role, so that it goes to the right person in HR.  It’s another way of defining approver.I know we are showing something technical just for understanding, but you’re just going to give requirements not perform this configuration.Delegation functionality is a different concept, and that’s in HCM and very specific.

Melody: This is not too technical, I get it.

Sanjiv: So this is about how you define the user list.  This is just setup.  If you want to give access only to a few people in HR, then you’ll have to use something other than role.

Melody: Ok.

Sanjiv: And this is the same process for approval workflow in HCM.

Sam: This is just a draft right now, what you see.  So it sounds like we need a delegation piece for this?

Jameeka: Not necessarily.So we’re just showing them what’s in the works.

Sam: Right so Bhuvana is designing the contract page with a submit and approve button.  So the Dean…

Melody: HR gets the contract first then the Dean.

Sam: So my first level would be HR, then second level is the Dean.  Is there another level?

Melody: Nope.  It gets accepted by the faculty member.

Sam: Ok so I’ll put this in my notes and put it in place for you.  And once it’s done I’ll show you end results, because it’s still in development right now.  I cannot promise it by the end of the month, but we’re working on it. I have started making changes to contract in PQA to reduce the number of contracts. Is this the way you want it?  What do you think?

Melody: This is what I think I heard you say.  We’re going to have to create distribution lists, but then Sanjiv said we could define it on role which would then use the typical approval workflow.

Sam: Yes.  And the email portion is more about creating a larger distribution email which would have to be done locally first.

Melody: So admin asst in Spokane would set up classes, and initiate and generate a contract, then they submit, then it would go to that first approver level in HR, then HR would approve and submit and then it would go to the supervisor, and then once they approve it will notify the faculty to accept the contract yes?

Sam: Yes.  That is the logic of the design.

Melody: And we’ll reduce the contracts down per campus, yes?  300+ is not sustainable.  All those tickets we file to add subjects to contract types would be a thing of the past?

Sam: Yes, and right now I’m going through and matching formulas for contracts.  So all A contract types calculate the same, with different categories.  Instead of the categories, I would combine all the As into 1.  So it wouldn’t be about a category, it’s about what is calculated the same way.  I’m looking at common contracts first, and I’ll be leaving unique formulas alone.

Melody: So you’re looking at combining all adjunct contracts to one for a category.  So everything at A will be one, and everything at B would be another contract type.

Sam: If I have a good understanding of the subject.

Melody: I’d like to push pause here.  Because now we limit contract types and admins might choose the wrong thing.  I would prefer it be broken out by workload category.  I would like to talk about this outside of this meeting.

Sam: I can’t combine unlike categories because it makes 2 contracts.

Melody: I’m fine with that, legacy was like that.  It just causes payments to be stretched.  We shouldn’t be paying a two week contract over 11 weeks.  But we can talk about this later.

Sam: That’s actually all I have for FWL for today.  To let you know it’s in place and in progress and that it will be done soon.

Josie: This is the last session, do you have any issues or questions?

Melody: Where are we for adjunct leave, Sanjiv?

Sanjiv: We can’t proceed yet because we need to segregate the instructional and non instructional and you wanted another checkbox in FWL for absence.  Unless that is done we can’t get the FTE separated.  

Melody: Give the new sick leave laws, it’s likely and we’ve warned our administrators, it doesn’t matter the type of funding whether they can accrue leave or not.  So we may not need that check box.

Sanjiv: About hourly employees, for every 40 hours they get 1 hour of CSL.

Melody: Because of that we’re taking a leap that since we give it to PTH we can’t exclude it from PTF.

Sanjiv: That’s a valid point, I’m glad you’re seeking a clarification for us. Once you know we can go back to what we were doing earlier instead of using the same Benefits FTE calculation.

Melody: So can you pull that data from FWL?

Sanjiv: Now that you’re saying we don’t need the checkbox we’ll wait for that.  The other point is that  the way we are fetching the FTE for PTF will that be good enough for other formulas. I would like to have another session to clarify rules for employees with LeeAnn and Dennis. But we need to know about the checkbox first.

Mark: I’m not sure if other people in our office is thinking about this, but with the new sick leave rules I’m not certain that our person is involved about how it effects PTF or not. So we need to all be involved.

Melody: We have PTH who are also PTF and we need to think about them here in Spokane.

Sanjiv: We have not yet gotten all the information from Ed McCallister at SBCTC.  In the meantime I encourage you to be proactive.

Pam: For new employees in the contract we want to know about averaging for benefits.  (This refers to the absence eligibility group used for PTF.)  We put in 170P17 Q1 at the time of hire and then leave accrual for adjunct leave aren’t getting.

Melody: So when we do adjunct leave accrual can we have that rule change?  

Sanjiv: Right now we have no timeframe for the solution.  Until we have a timeframe then we’ll be able to tell you when you can stop using the eligibility group. Right now we don’t have all information needed for requirements for various projects. The hourly employees are the topmost priority.  PMO needs to assign additional items to us. I will definitely address this when we can get to PTF rules.

Melody: Anything else?

LeeAnn: What about LWC?

Josie: Currently our testing environments are down, we have a plan we started to fix this, but we can’t test it at this time.

Nan: We have a laundry list of items that were broken in configuration, do you know what is happening with that list?

Jameeka: We are aware and have done a review, but we’re waiting on feedback to know what we specifically need to do on that.

Nan: Remediation was determined with no input from us.  So this list are things we need to function.  So we consider them remediation items.

Jameeka: Thanks for your input.

Melody: We appreciate what you’ve been doing for us, and I have cleared everyone’s calendar from the Remediation meetings.  So when we do need to get back together, since we have a hard time having a room, we would like a couple days notice to find a room and gather.

Jameeka: We totally understand that.  Do we have days that work better for everyone?

Melody: It all depends on payroll cutoff.

Jameeka: We’ll keep that in mind.

Spokane and Tacoma: Afternoons are better than mornings.

Jameeka: So when we get together on an as needed basis we’ll give as much notice as possible.  Anything else?

0 Comments

Add your comment

E-Mail me when someone replies to this comment