Administrative Process Redesign
University of Wisconsin-Madison
APPOINTMENT CREATION PROCESS PROJECT
FINAL REPORT
MARCH 17, 2010
Appointment Creation Process Project Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... ii
Body of the Report ......................................................................................................................................1
Problem Statement ..............................................................................................................................1
Project Scope/Boundaries ....................................................................................................................1
Project Goal ..........................................................................................................................................1
Project Team ........................................................................................................................................1
Key Stakeholders ..................................................................................................................................2
Current Process ....................................................................................................................................2
Data Analysis/Key Findings ...................................................................................................................4
Impact of HRS on Current Process .......................................................................................................6
Future Process ......................................................................................................................................7
Benefits.................................................................................................................................................9
Next Steps.............................................................................................................................................9
List of Appendices.................................................................................................................................9
Appendix A: Team Charter ........................................................................................................................10
Appendix B: Voice of Customer ................................................................................................................13
LIST OF FIGURES
Current Process (diagram) ..........................................................................................................................3
Current Process - Benefits Enrollment (graph) ...........................................................................................6
Current Process with HRS - Benefits Enrollment (graph)............................................................................7
Future Process (diagram) ............................................................................................................................8
i
Appointment Creation Process Project Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the spring of 2011 the University of Wisconsin System, including UW-Madison, will begin using
PeopleSoft (aka HRS), a new human resources management software application. The UW-Madison
launched this project as part of the Administrative Process Redesign Project (APR) in order to
understand the current process for setting up employee appointments (positions) and potential changes
that might be needed in order to successfully implement HRS.
The goal of this project was to propose a standard process for appointment creation which would
ensure that necessary information is entered so that employees are paid accurately and on-time (first
eligible pay period), that employees will be able to meet enrollment deadlines for benefits plans, and
that employees will have access to systems that rely on appointment creation (e.g., information
technology). Any proposed new process needs to be feasible under HRS.
Through an analysis of the current process, it was determined that three types of data are required in
order to create an appointment: person, appointment, and funding; and that two types of roles are
found in the process: data gatherers and data enterers. Most units use two computer systems to create
appointments: Paydata to initiate the process and 3270 (mainframe) to set up the appointment and
payroll data. The voice of customer and data analysis revealed two key findings: 1) the process is
variable across campus and is cumbersome and difficult to execute, and 2) there is a perception that
lack of funding information regarding funding source causes delays in appointment creation.
The analysis of the impact that HRS would have if implemented with the current process showed that
the timing of appointment creation is critical, particularly in relation to eligibility for enrollment in
benefits plans. Under HRS, the employee’s coverage effective date for benefits will be time-stamped
with the self-service enrollment date, and access to self-service is predicated on appointment creation.
The timing of the current process may lead to an adverse impact on benefits for 40% or more of new
appointments.
The project team recommends that person and appointment data be entered into the system at least 7
days prior to the appointment begin date. In order to facilitate this timing, the following key elements
should be a part of the future process:
Appointment and person data entry should be separated from funding data entry with
standardized roles in the process and training across campus
Data should be entered by staff who are closer to where the need for the appointment was
initiated (i.e., the department level in most cases)
Data reentry should be eliminated and replaced with an electronic approval process.
The recommended future process will enable the UW-Madison to better utilize the HRS system within
the current decentralized structure. Employees should experience on-time payroll, access to enroll in
benefit plans, and access to other campus systems. Rework and delays should be eliminated in the
central benefits office for benefits enrollment. Moreover, departmental and division level staff should
see a reduction in the delays associated with the current paper/manual work flow and an elimination of
data reentry.
ii
Appointment Creation Process Project Final Report
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Beginning in 2011, the University of Wisconsin System, including UW-Madison, will be launching
PeopleSoft (aka HRS), a new human resources management software application. This project was
initiated in order to understand the current appointment creation process and potential changes that
might be needed in anticipation of HRS.
PROJECT SCOPE/BOUNDARIES
The appointment creation process begins when the top candidate has been identified and the terms of
appointment have been successfully negotiated and approved.
The process ends when all necessary information has been entered into the appointment system
(currently 3270).
The project is constrained by the following conditions:
Solution must be feasible under HRS and within the human resource environment currently in
place regardless of geographic location
Solutions must comply with all budgetary and fiscal requirements as specified by the sponsors
Benefits eligibility is a consideration for the solution
Solutions must not require the development of a new IT system
PROJECT GOAL
The goal of this project is to propose a standard process for appointment creation to ensure that the
new appointment information is entered completely and accurately the first time to provide for
Accurate and on-time payroll (first eligible pay period)
Accurate and on-time eligibility to enroll in benefit plans
Access to systems (e.g., information technology)
PROJECT TEAM
Team Members
Team Role
Home Organization
Hope Simon
Project Leader (Asst Director)
Nelson Institute
Emuye Asfaw
APO Representative
Academic Personnel Office
Susan Baculik
CHR Representative
Classified Human Resources
Mary Beth Ellis
Department Administrator Rep
College of Letters & Science
Nancy Graff Schultz
Auxiliary Divisional HR Rep
Athletics
Megan Jeffers
Benefits Rep
Office of Human Resources - Benefit Services
Gene Masters
College IT Rep/HRS/Paydata
College of Engineering
Jeff Oelke
Blackbelt
Engineering Prof Development
Daun Wheeler
College Divisional Rep
College of Letters & Science
1
Appointment Creation Process Project Final Report
KEY STAKEHOLDERS
Hiring Person (supervisor)
New Hire
Data Gatherer(s)
Data Enterer(s)
o Paydata (Department level)
o PSID/APPT (Division level)
o MPAY/PMAS (Division level)
o Salary Enc/WISDM (Division level)
Division-level administration
Department-level admin (Manager/Supervisor, Chair, Director)
Department-level hiring committee
Office of Human Resources (Benefits office)
CURRENT PROCESS
Three types of data are needed to carry out the process to completion:
o Person data
o Appointment data
o Funding data
Two types of roles are found in the process: data gatherers and data enterers. Organization of these
roles ranges from a single person completing the entire process (typically in smaller and/or centralized
divisions) to multiple data gatherers and enterers in both department and division offices (typically in
larger and/or decentralized divisions).
The process is currently carried out in the mainframe (3270) legacy system. Many units, particularly
those that are large and/or decentralized, also use the web-based Paydata system to generate a form
that includes the necessary information for creating an appointment.
Under the current process,
Information is manually re-keyed on a routine basis
o Data collected  typed into Paydata/IADS form  Form printed  re-typed into 3270
Payroll staff enter all three data types (person, appointment, funding)
o Most new appointment information is entered just prior to the payroll calculation date
(typically, 1-4 weeks after appointment start date)
Benefits enrollment requires an active appointment in system
o Applications for benefits plans can be processed for retroactive coverage
The following map outlines the current process that is carried out using Paydata/IADS forms and the
3270 mainframe system.
2
Appointment Creation Process Project Final Report
Division
Office
Current Process
Enter Data in
CHRIS (close
recruitment)
Division Office
reviews/
approves info
on
Paydata/IADs
form
Data Enterer
#2 enters
Person & Appt
info from
Paydata/IADs
form into 3270
Data Enterer #3
enters Funding
info from
Paydata/IADs
form into 3270
for payroll
Data Enterer #4
enters Funding info
from Paydata/IADs
form into WISDM for
salary encumbrance
New
Hire
Department
Office
Yes
Gather
Person,
Appt,
Funding
Data
Classified
Appt?
No
Data Enterer #1
completes &
prints Paydata or
IADs form w/
Person, Appt &
Funding info
Paycheck,
Benefits Eligibility,
Access to systems
Provide
data as
needed
3
Appointment Creation Process Project Final Report
DATA ANALYSIS/KEY FINDINGS
Voice of Customer – Project team members met with data gatherers and enterers in 8 units on campus
spanning centralized and small to decentralized and large. Units included: Chemistry/Letters & Science,
Pediatrics/School of Medicine and Public Health, Waisman Center/Graduate School, Facilities Planning &
Management, Division of Information Technology, Law School, School of Human Ecology, and Athletics.
VOC Analysis & Conclusions –
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
most units feel the process works fine in their area
most units have a unique form that they use to gather the necessary information for the
appointment
units with a large number of grants feel that funding information is the most difficult to obtain and
is a source of delays in the process
in smaller divisions and large departments with delegated authority for entry into central systems
(i.e., 3270), the creation of Paydata/IADS forms, creation of appointment and payroll entry in
3270, and entry of salary encumbrance is done in the division office (or delegated department)
with a combination of HR and payroll staff working together
some small units (e.g., DoIT and FP&M) separate out appointment creation from payroll entry (in
3270) between the HR and payroll staff
large, decentralized divisions typically follow a model where departments create the Paydata/IADS
forms and the division payroll office creates the appointment and enters payroll/salary
encumbrance in 3270
some larger units enter salary encumbrances in the division-level fiscal office
Data Mining – With the assistance of staff in the Division of Information Technology, appointment and
payroll data was retrieved from 3270 for all appointments (except student hourly) with begin dates
between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2008. For those appointments with matching Paydata records
(i.e., Paydata was used to initiate the appointment creation process and a Paydata record exists), related
data was retrieved as well.
Data Mining Analysis & Conclusions –
o
o
o
Comparing appointment creation date in 3270 to appointment begin date shows:
 For classified appointments, 61% are created before or within the first week of the
appointment; 33% are created by the end of the first two weeks of employment (by the first
eligible pay period calculation date); 5% of classified appointments are created after the first
two weeks and the vast majority of these are LTE appointments (93%)
 For unclassified appointments, one-third are created more than 7 days before the appointment
begin date, 21% between 1 and 7 days prior to the begin date, 41% between the begin date
itself and 30 days after the begin date, and 5% are created more than 30 days after the
appointment start.
Comparing creation dates in Paydata vs. 3270 shows that for most unclassified appointments,
departments are entering the appointment information before or within the first week of
employment (79%) and the rest before the payroll calculation date (19%). Classified
appointments appear to be entered closer to the appointment start date which makes sense in
light of the typical recruitment pattern for classified employees (most begin work shortly after
they accept the offer of employment).
Conclusions regarding appointment entry –
4
Appointment Creation Process Project Final Report
o
o
 The data shows that the appointment creation process works for our current environment.
Employees are paid on time.
 Our VOC analysis provides insight into the pattern we see for appointment creation (in
particular, the 3270 data) in that people responsible for the appointment creation and payroll
entry deal with employees in batches based on payroll calculation dates.
 Enrollment in benefits is a manual process using paper forms which are typically signed and sent
to the benefits office prior to the appointment being entered into the system. The benefits
office must delay processing until the appointment is entered. In gathering the voice of the
customer for the OHR benefits office, the team found that appointment creation following the
completion and routing of benefits enrollment forms (as opposed to appointment creation
prior to benefits enrollment form completion) leads to a significant amount of rework in the
benefits office. The staff must periodically (and often repeatedly) check the appointment
system to see if an appointment has been entered in order to process the forms. Furthermore,
assuming the benefits enrollment forms are completed on time and the delay is only in the
appointment creation, those employees are still able to enroll in benefits because of
retroactive coverage capability.
 A significant non-value adding aspect of appointment entry based on payroll deadlines is that
employees cannot access IT systems or other systems that are dependent upon appointment
entry in the system. This leads to work arounds including using login ID’s and passwords of
former employees, sharing login and passwords with current employees, not being able to
carry out duties as assigned in the first few weeks of employment, etc. (these work arounds
were well documented by the IT Access for New Employees Team in Phase I of APR).
For appointments that were initiated using Paydata, changes to the Paydata appointment record
during the first month of the appointment were tabulated to understand the level and types of
changes or rework that happens at the department level prior to the first paycheck. The
perception is that staff avoid creating appointments until all the details and terms of the
appointment are known and that this causes delays in appointment creation.
The data shows that across all appointment types (classified and unclassified excluding student
hourly) only 18% of appointment records in Paydata were modified in the first month of the
appointment. The majority of those modifications were made to student assistant (teaching,
project, and research assistants) appointments (11%). Of those appointment records that were
reworked, 8% had changes to the basic appointment data (e.g., continuity status, pay basis,
probation status, appointment end date, funding responsibility), 7% had modifications to the rate
of pay, 5% changes to the appointment title, 7% changes to the appointment percentage, and 2%
had adjustments made to the funding source.
Data on salary cost transfers performed against the set of new appointments was also examined.
The general feeling on campus is that appointment creation is delayed because the funding source
is not confirmed (or set up in the case of a new grant) prior to the appointment start and often not
before the first payroll calculation. This leads to appointments being paid on temporary funding
for the first payroll and then processing a salary cost transfer after the fact to correct the funding.
The number of salary cost transfers for appointments in the data set was determined at intervals
of within 1, 3, and 6 months after the begin date of the appointment. The logic for this was that if
grant funds are involved, transfers should be processed within 90 days of the original expenditure
to reduce audit risks and comply with federal guidelines. Overall less than 1% of appointments
had salary cost transfers (SCTs) within 1 month of the appointment begin date, 1% had SCTs in the
first 3 months of the appointment, and 2% within the first 6 months. In comparison, 19% of all
appointments in the system (excluding student hourly) – continuing and new – had SCTs between
7/1/07 and 12/20/08.
5
Appointment Creation Process Project Final Report
Key findings
All units have a different process which is cumbersome, difficult to execute, and units are tightly
staffed in this area. These issues are hidden in that staff go above and beyond to make the process
work leaving the impression that the current state is “not that bad.”
There is a perception that a lack of information regarding funding source causes delays in
appointment creation but the data does not seem to confirm that perception.
IMPACT OF HRS ON CURRENT PROCESS
The APR project team met with the HR team for the HRS project in order to better understand the
functionality and possible constraints of HRS given our current process. It was clear from these
discussions that our current process and HRS are incongruent in two key areas:
1. Data entry – For data entry into HRS, an electronic approval process does not currently exist
(i.e., no workflow of department-level entered data to the division level for approval). More
effort will be required to navigate data entry panels. HRS as delivered has fewer validations of
and restrictions on entered data which would lead to a greater chance for input errors.
2. Timing of appointment creation – The current process is driven by payroll deadlines leading to
appointment creation after the appointment begin date. Under HRS, coverage effective date for
benefits will be time-stamped with enrollment via self-service. Access to self-service is
determined by appointment creation. The end result may be an adverse impact on benefits
eligibility for 40% or more of new appointments.
The graphs below depict how the timing of appointment creation will impact employee enrollment in
benefit plans under the current mainframe (3270) system versus HRS with no changes to the process or
technology.
Current Process - Benefits Enrollment
6
Appointment Creation Process Project Final Report
The graph above shows that under the current environment, benefits enrollment is not problematic for
95% of appointments (those entered within 30 days of the appointment begin date and represented by
the green area). This is due to the ability of the central benefits office to enroll employees in plans with
retroactive coverage.
Current Process with HRS - Benefits Enrollment
In contrast, the graph above shows that if HRS were brought on-line with the current process, 41% of
appointments may miss the first available month of coverage (appointments entered between the
appointment begin date and up to 30 days after) and 5% of appointments lose the enrollment
opportunity for benefit plans that have a 30-day enrollment deadline.
FUTURE PROCESS
As demonstrated by the analysis of the data and the characteristics of HRS as delivered, the timing of
the appointment creation process in relation to the appointment begin date will be significant in the
future environment. To avoid potential adverse impacts on employee benefits, the APR team
recommends that person and appointment data should be entered at least 7 days prior to the
appointment begin date. In order to enable the campus to create appointments in this time frame, the
APR team recommends a future process with the following key elements:
Appointment and person data entry should be separated from funding data entry and roles within
the process should be standardized with uniform, campus-level training
Data should be entered by staff who are closer to where the need for the appointment was
initiated (i.e., the department level in most cases)
Data reentry should be eliminated and replaced with an electronic approval process
7
Appointment Creation Process Project Final Report
The following map outlines the future process that is carried out using a front-end or equivalent system.
Division
Office
Future Process
Enter Data in
CHRIS (close
recruitment)
Data Enterer #1 enters
Person & Appt info
into PVL/CHRIS “front
end” or equivalent
system
Department
Office
Yes
New
Hire
Division Office
Approver #1
Reviews/ Approves
Person & Appt entry
in “front end”
(feeds into HRS
Human Resources)
Gather
Person,
Appt,
Funding
Data
Classified
Appt?
No
Data Enterer #2 enters
Funding info into
PVL/CHRIS “front end”
or equivalent system
Person paid on time.
Benefits and Systems
access eligibility
established on time.
Provide
data as
needed
8
Division Office
Approver #2
Reviews/ Approves
Funding entry in
“front end” (feeds
into HRS Commit
Accounting)
Appointment Creation Process Project Final Report
BENEFITS
The recommended future process will enable the UW-Madison campus to better use the HRS system
within our current decentralized structure. It will also provide added benefits for staff and new
employees including:
Positive experience for new employees because they will be set up for payroll, benefits and access
to systems on time and as expected rather than missing their enrollment eligibility for benefits
resulting in rework in the central benefits office as well as in division and department payroll
offices.
Improved work environment for department and division level staff through:
o elimination of delays associated with the current work flow
o elimination of re-entry of data resulting in capacity for value-added work
o increased sense of empowerment for department-level staff
Campus-wide efficiency gain through adoption of a standard process
o Departmental and divisional staff will be able to make a smooth transition when transferring
to other divisions/departments
Avoidance of need for a large centralized service center with HRS super-users
Success in the future process can be evaluated by the following measures:
Metrics
Current
Future
On-time Data Entry: person and appointment data
entered and approved
33% >= 7 days prior
to appointment start
99% >= 7 days prior
to appointment start
Electronic Data Flow: # of times data is entered
2 to 3 times
1 time
Separation of Person/Appt and Funding Data: # of
divisions that have separated person/
appointment data entry and approval from
funding data entry and approval
<10
>25
NEXT STEPS
The APR team presented its analysis and recommendation to the project sponsors in September 2009
where the recommendations were met with approval. The team was not originally charged with
implementing solutions, and will therefore, pass all of its data, findings, and recommendations over to
the Office of Human Resources. The HRS project will continue to work on the technical aspects of the
future process for development of the front-end or equivalent system.
APPENDICES
A. Team Charter
B. Voice of Customer
9
Appointment Creation Process Project Final Report
APPENDIX A
TEAM CHARTER
10
UW-Madison - Administrative Process Redesign (APR)
Redesign Team Project Charter
Project Name
Appointment Creation Process
Executive Sponsor(s)
Darrell Bazzell, Vice Chancellor, UW-Madison
Steve Lund, Interim Director, Office of Human Resources, UW-Madison
Process Owner(s)
UW-Madison – Office of Human Resources: Steve Lund (Interim Director, OHR
and Director, Academic Personnel Office), Mark Walters (Director, Classified
Human Resources Office), Richard Laufenberg (Director, UW Service Center
[payroll])
Problem Statement
Beginning in 2011, the University of Wisconsin System, including UW-Madison,
will be launching PeopleSoft (aka HRS), a new human resources management
software application. This project was initiated in order to understand the
current appointment creation process and potential changes that might be
needed in anticipation of HRS.
Business Case
To avoid significant financial and qualitative costs for UW-Madison and its
employees, a standard campus model for the Appointment Creation Process
will:
1. improve productivity and efficiency through the elimination of queue
times, redundant data entry and rework
2. improve internal and external customer satisfaction through a
reduction of information errors, lead times, and costs associated with
implementing HRS
3. create capacity among divisions and central HR through streamlining of
data entry and elimination of redundant data entry
4. ensure data quality through standard training, cross-training within
divisions/departments, and shortened learning curves for staff
transferring within UW-Madison.
Mission
Define a standard campus model for the Appointment Creation Process for the
UW-Madison campus to fit within the parameters of HRS (the human resources
enterprise system to be implemented within approximately two years)
Goal
August 31, 2009, propose a standard campus model for the Appointment
Creation Process to assure that the new appointment information is entered
completely and accurately the first time to provide for
Accurate and on-time payroll (first eligible pay period)
Accurate and on-time eligibility to enroll in benefit plans
Access to systems (e.g., information technology)
Scope / Boundaries
Process begin: Top candidate has been identified and terms of appointment
have been successfully negotiated and approved.
Process end: All necessary information has been entered into the appointment
system.
Solution must be feasible under HRS and within the human resource
environment currently in place regardless of geographic location
Solutions must comply with all budgetary and fiscal requirements as
specified by the sponsors
Benefits eligibility is a consideration for the solution
Solutions must not require the development of a new IT system
Team Members
Team Role
Home Organization
Hope Simon
Emuye Asfaw
Susan Baculik
Mary Beth Ellis
Nancy Graff Schultz
Megan Jeffers
Project Leader (Asst Director)
APO Representative
CHR Representative
Department Administrator Rep
Auxiliary Divisional HR Rep
Benefits Rep
Gene Masters
Jeff Oelke
Daun Wheeler
College IT Rep/HRS/PayData
Blackbelt
College Divisional Rep
Nelson Institute
Academic Personnel Office
Classified Human Resources
College of Letters & Science
Athletics
Office of Human Resources - Benefit
Services
College of Engineering
Engineering Prof Development
College of Letters & Science
Additional Subject
Matter Experts
Area of Expertise
Home Organization
Gary Mitchell
Barb Vogel
Classified Staff Rep
DoIT Rep
School of Medicine & Public Health
Application Development &
Integration
Payroll Rep
To be named
Project Timeline
Define:
Map and Measure:
Analyze:
Improve:
Control:
Support Required
Date this Document
was Last Updated
Date(s) Approved by
Executive Sponsor
Charter Completed (5/14/09)
Process Information and Data Collected (6/19/09)
Data has been analyzed and baseline exists (6/30/09)
Improvement Plan Exists (8/31/09)
New Process is Stable
12/11/09
Darrell Bazzell & Steve Lund
07/30/09
Appointment Creation Process Project Final Report
APPENDIX B
VOICE OF CUSTOMER
13
VOC/Walk-the-process Questions
Data Gatherer:
1. Who is involved in gathering data in your unit?
a. Person data
b. Appointment data
c. Funding data
2. By what means, by whom, and how long before the date of hire do you receive notification
regarding an appointment?
a. Plenty of time, enough time, barely enough time, no time, after the fact
3. How do you get all of the necessary information that you need to create an appointment? Do
you have a consistent way to gather that information? Who provides the information, what is
captured, is there a hiring form?
4. Is information returned to you in a timely manner?
a. Do you receive complete information?
b. What information is most difficult to obtain?
c. How long does it take?
d. If you are delayed in your steps of the process, what or who causes your delay?
5. What are the steps that you see which seem unnecessary or redundant?
6. Is your role in the process stable or do your requirements often change?
7. Where does the data go next?
Data Enterer:
1) After you receive the data, what determines when you will enter it? (deadlines, batching, other?)
2) Do you receive accurate and complete information the first time?
a. How do you get the necessary info to create an appointment?
b. How is the information communicated? Who provides, what, hiring form?
3) Do you receive your info by the required deadlines?
a. What percent of time does the data get to you: with plenty of time, enough time, too little time,
after the fact
b. If you are delayed, what causes the delay?
c. What percent of the time does the data change after you first receive it?
i. … after you enter it?
4) Have you missed paying someone due to lack of info?
a. How often?
5) Have you incorrectly paid someone?
a. What was the cause of the error?
b. How often?
6) What are the steps you see as unnecessary or redundant?
7) Are the steps in your part of the process clearly defined, or do they change from time to time or
person to person?
Unit
Athletics
Pediatrics
DoIT
Waisman
FPM
Law
SOHE
Chemistry
*makes arrangements for VOC meeting
APR Team
Nancy
Hope *
Mary Beth
Nancy *
Jeff
Susan *
Hope
Susan *
Mary Beth
Emuye *
Daun
Emuye *
Nancy
Daun *
Jeff
Data Enterer Matrix
1
1a
1b
2
3
3a
3b
4
4a
5
Athletics
deadlines
Y
dir of HR
dir of HR
Y
95% plenty
LTEs I-9
rarely
rarely
N
DoIT
FIFO
Y
form
form
Y
plenty
N/A
rarely
rarely
N
hiring form
plenty (all
N/A; hiring
Y except SA perm) SA's 40% unit doesn't
(60%)
plenty
comm
rarely
rarely
N
appt -plenty
payroll-?
rarely
(appt) ?
(payroll)
rarely
(appt) ?
(payroll)
N
rarely
rarely
N
rarely
N
rarely
N
10%
rework
N
1-3 days of hire or
Waisman FIFO for SA
Y
hiring form
FP&M
first few days
Y
hiring form
hiring form
Y (appt) ?
(payroll)
Law
FIFO
Y
form
form
Y
plenty; SA 95%
plenty
N/A
Y
form (for AS)
email (CP/CL)
form (for AS)
email (CP/CL)
Y
plenty
enough
funding info
rarely
CP/CL
rarely, ET
30%, FA/AS
5%
enough
int'l hires
rarely
50-75% on
time, rest late
but can pay
funding info sometimes
50-75%
new acct
C&A
SOHE
FIFO
Chem
deadlines
Y
P&BS
P&BS
Y except
TA's & STS
Peds
deadlines
Y
form
form
Y
N
paydata/IADS +
appt ltr
paydata/IADS
+ appt ltr
N
N
paydata + appt
paydata + appt ltr, ltr, CV, PVL 1st
CV, PVL 1st page page
N
L&S Div
deadlines
SMPH Div deadlines
N/A; TBD
N/A
new appts on
50% on time, day of calc,
rest late but
funding
can usually pay changes
95% C&A
ET 15%, all
other
rarely
N
5% rework Y
Data Enterer Matrix
5a
6
6a
6b
division HR
3270 payroll
entry
division payroll
dept
division payroll
dept
none
clear
process
department HR/
payroll (split by
class/ unclass)
dept HR/ payroll dept HR/ payroll
split by class/
split by class/
unclass
unclass
division HR
dept HR/ payroll
split by class/
unclass
paper
IADS
clear
process
division HR
division payroll
dept
none
clear
process
hiring form (not
IADS or paydata);
division office
division office
7
Athletics
N
N
N/A
N/A
none
DoIT
N
N
N/A
N/A
none
Y
due to
complex $
splits
not often
Y
due to trades
bargaining
agreement
not often
Waisman N
FP&M
Law
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
8
clear
process
clear
process
SOHE
N
N
N/A
N/A
none
clear
process
Chem
N
N
N/A
N/A
none
clear
process
Peds
N
Y
due to info
comm issue
too many clear
infrequent hands
process
L&S Div
N
N
not often
cus can
typically get
Y
SMPH Div on EOM
N/A
N/A
due to info
comm issue
each calc
there are
some
creates
IADS/paydata
form
none
clear
process
none
clear
process
division HR
3270 appt entry
salary
encumberance
CHRIS
division HR
division HR
N/A
division HR
division HR
division payroll
division HR
division HR
?
division office
central CHR
division office
division payroll
division payroll
dept
division payroll
dept
?
?
department
payroll
division payroll
dept
division payroll
dept
division HR
division payroll
P&BS
division payroll
dept
division payroll dept
division HR
division fiscal
department
payroll
division payroll
dept
division payroll
dept
division HR
division payroll
hiring dept
division payroll
dept
division payroll
dept
division HR
division fiscal
Data Gatherer
1a person
Athletics
DoIT
1b appt
1c
2 3 consistent 4
method?
timely
HR dir
(perm)
Hiring sup
(LTE)
HR dir (perm) HR dir (perm) day of decision/ Y –
Y
HR asst (LTE) HR asst (LTE) plenty of time supervisor,
CBC, LTE
new form & I9
office of HR office of HR DoIT payroll day of decision/ salary
Y
(not payroll) from hiring
plenty of time determinatio
sup
n worksheet
Waisman P&BS
hiring
(unclass) HR subdept
asst (class) completes
form –
gatherer
varies
hiring
subdept
completes
form –
gatherer
varies
4a
4b
4c how
complete difficult long
info
Y
I-9 for LTE varies
4d delays
I-9 docs for duplicate I- Y
new hires 9
HR dir (for
perm); HR asst
for LTE
Y
N/A
N/A
N
Y
HR creates/
enters appt
N
Y
P&BS & HR asst
create paydata
none
5
6
7
plenty of time Y – hiring
all but SA’s;
form, I-9
SA’s often after
the fact
Y
typically funding
complete;
sometime
s funding
missing
minimal
new grant
funding
hiring form
hiring form plenty of notice Y – hiring
from subdept from subdept except for LTE form, I-9
sup or HR
sup or HR
Y
Y
none
Y
NO DELAYS paper
IADS
Y
create IADS
form; enter
appt info 3270
FP&M
HR asst (2
by udds)
Law
Assoc dean, assoc dean, assoc dean
UBS (SA/SH) hiring sup for
SA
plenty of time
Y – checklist Y
for AS, FA,
CP/CL auth
form for SA
Y
none
Y
NO DELAYS N
Y
Univ Bus Spec
SOHE
Hiring sup
Hiring sup
Hiring sup
plenty of time
Y
none
Y
funding
N
Y
P&BS enters
appt/ payroll
Chem
P&BS
P&BS
P&BS
enough time
Y except
funding
funding
Y
P&BS
HR asst
HR asst
HR asst
barely enough
time
Y except
funding
funding
few days
up to
several
weeks
?
get
N
funding
info from PI
Peds
hiring form Y
for AS/SA FA
– offer ltr & I9
N – no form; generally
offer ltr or
make
contacts
Y – form for Y most of
appt type
the time
funding
changes
Y
PB&S
N