PAYROLL FUNDING DECISION LOG

DATE / DECISION
9/12/03 /
  1. The scope for phase 1 is limited to classified, unclassified, and LTE's. We will coordinate directions for student funding to make sure we're headed the same way. The ultimate goal is to have a single funding engine for all employees.
  1. The original design for payroll funding could handle UW-Madison work study funding. We will not attempt to handle student funding because work study funding is more complicated on other campuses. The current student funding changes are needed to handle the complexities for other campuses.
  1. We are proceeding under the assumption this is a UW-Madison project, although other campuses could potentially use the funding engine.
  1. Kronos costing level and new SFS chartfields will not be included in this phase because they are not yet defined. We will keep these in mind in designing reports, screens, etc. and plan on bringing these in soon after phase 1.
  1. Encumbrances will be a major benefit to campus users, but these are not included in phase 1. When phase 1 is complete we will continue this project and begin work on phase 2, which will include encumbrance updates. This will include batch initialization and changes that result from APBS appointment updates.
  1. There are reports coming from payroll history that include funding information. The future direction will be to have users obtain this information from SFD, so replacing these reports is outside the scope of this project.

9/26/03 /
  1. We need to assign fringe benefit funding according to the proportion paid on each funding source for the salary payments. This will be the initial funding, which will be updated by payroll interface by the addition of pool account numbers where needed. This decision reversed on 10/31. This decision reversed again on 3/19/04.

10/24/03 /
  1. We are re-stating the decision that future payments are in the scope (i.e. payroll), but correction of funding on past payments is not in the scope.
  1. To document business requirements, we will use the Business Applications Requirements Report process and format, with a target completion date of November 21. Then we will proceed to design.

10/31/03 /
  1. Payroll interface has a program to re-allocate fringes based on changes in the payroll suspense file. We will provide default fringe benefit coding to the suspense file and payroll interface will take care of allocating funding to 100% of the fringe benefit transactions. This includes the initial assignment of funding, handling of the special rules (NIH fellows, etc.), and assignment of pool coding. Assignment of fringe benefit coding is completely outside the scope of this project. This decision was reversed 3/19/04.
  1. Payroll interface will perform all of the editing of funding on the salary and fringe benefit funding after it has been assigned to payroll transactions. This means Madison edits that aren't there now will be added.

11/7/03 /
  1. The following data is required from Lawson (for phase 1) that is not currently listed in the payroll interface output: classified regular pay hours, unclassified rate, unclassified pay basis. The APBS request will need to be modified to add these fields. These fields are in legacy and will need to be picked up, assuming a timeline of implementation prior to APBS.
  1. The SFS Strategic Planning Committee has agreed that update of the payroll suspense file will remain centralized. This decision could be revisited if the number of payroll funding edit corrections is high, but the volume is actually expected to decline.

11/14/03 /
  1. The student system has an exception rule, which is the same as our proposed clearing account/default funding error rule.If a person is under or over funded at a payroll calc, or if funding were invalid at final posting, the difference would be posted to this rule.
  1. We will add back a fixed dollar per pay period rule (or fixed dollar amount over an interval rule) to our list of rules.
  1. Following are agreements regarding entry of the different types of rules:
  • Begin and end dates: no edits against the appointment
  • Pay period: provide a pick list, which translates to begin and end dates
  • Pay type: pick list
  • Percentage (proportional rule): Must add up to 100% 1/9/04 this was changed to provide a warning.
  • FTE%: Display the percentage from IADS/Lawson. An FTE schedule will be required from Lawson. Refer to issue #4 in the issue log. 1/9/04--This is not available. Current FTE will be displayed.
  • Summer session: yes/no indicator
  • Dollar limit: need to get ITD payments from SFD to make this rule work. If this is difficult to do in the time constraints of phase 1, this rule could be deferred to phase 2.
  • Hours: no edits against appointment.
Display only: pay rate from IADS/Lawson.
11/21/03 / The following guests were included in this meeting when the decisions below were made: Al Benzschawel, Carol Block, Ernie Mergen, Lynn Quamme.
  1. We confirmed that we agree with the decision made by other groups that legacy payroll and APBS will not run payroll calcs on the same night. This is the best way to ensure that only one stream of payroll output is routed to payroll interface (PI) in a single night.
  1. Data provided to PI will consist of 5 files: one that contains the salary payment detail, one that contains the employer share fringe benefit detail; and three files that contain control totals data needed to verify the accuracy of data that is loaded to PI.
  1. We confirmed decision #10 that all assignment of fringe benefit coding to transactions related to salary payments routed through the funding engine will be handled by the fringe benefit allocation process that is contained in PI.
  1. All salary payment data coming from APBS will be routed through the funding engine. A table will be used to select transactions (based on business unit) to have funding assigned by the funding engine. Should other institutions decide to begin using the funding engine, it will be a matter of updating the table to select their records. Fringe data can go directly from APBS to PI. For those institutions not using the funding engine, APBS will assign coding to the employer share based on APBS funding. For those going through the funding engine, APBS will assign the transactions to the appropriate business unit's default funding. (If there are appointments jointly funded by Madison and another institution, APBS would assign their coding and determine the amount to be assigned to Madison, and use default funding for the Madison portion.) See decision #19 for the procedure for then assigning Madison funding to the fringe transactions.
  1. Target date for implementation of phase 1 will be moved to January, 2005 to coincide with APBS. The team will re-visit this decision in July, 2004 if APBS is delayed for any reason.
  1. We are assuming Payroll History will no longer be used for classified and unclassified payrolls when APBS comes up. To make this happen, all reports coming from Payroll History will need to be replaced by either APBS (payroll-related) or SFD (funding-related). Replacing these reports is outside the scope of this project.

12/5/03 /
  1. For funding edits, we will plug into the edit module developed for encumbrances and salary cash transfers.
  1. Begin date will default to system date.

12/12/03 /
  1. For choosing the funding rule that applies, always use calc begin and end dates. If payment begin and end dates don't fall within the calc dates, look for a specific rule regarding pay type (retro, etc.).
  1. FTE rule is turned into a proportional rule behind the scenes. So, if Lawson FTE does not equal funding FTE, fix through conversion to proportional. Provide a report prior to each payroll showing where Lawson FTE does not equal funding FTE.
  1. If a there is a combination of fixed dollar and proportion or FTE for the same time period on an appointment, take the fixed dollar first. Then allocate the percentages to the remainder. Display the fixed dollar rule first. (Assume the intent of a fixed dollar rule is to spend a grant balance). Select rules based on date first, then fixed dollar, then proportion or FTE.

1/9/04 /
  1. Authorization should be consistent with encumbrances. The user must be authorized for the deptID entered on the rule.
  1. Appointments may be split-funded between divisions/departments, so different users may enter rules for the same appointment. If a proportional rule does not equal 100%, allow this with a warning/override. Also allow if FTE rules to not equal appointment FTE (with a warning). Since an FTE schedule is not readily available, edit against the current appointment FTE. The user can decide if the warning is related to an error, to a funding rule that will need to be entered by another user, or to a future change in FTE. Provide an error report if the proportional rules do not equal 100% or FTE's do not equal current FTE at time of payroll. If not corrected, apply error rule funding to the balance.

1/30/04 /
  1. There was an IADS clone developed for budget that will be available at the same time as Lawson. There may be programming advantages to getting appointment data from this instead of Lawson directly. We should pursue this possibility if the data we need is available and there are savings.
  2. Rounding: Use the same rules as encumbrance system and salary cash transfers. These are: 1) never change gross pay, and 2) assign the leftover cent to the largest split.
  3. Batch load will be required for initialization in phase 1 and for updates soon after. A standard interface needs to be developed and discussion regarding fiscal year end should begin soon after phase 1 is up.
  4. The payroll voucher comes from payroll history. We'll assume this is an issue for the group looking at replacement of payroll history reports.
  5. It is better to get error reports than a listing of all funding rules. Example error reports: proportional rules that do not add up to 100%, expired rules, appointments without rules, rules that change in the next pay period. We should also look at getting a pre-calc report for unclassified staff. Also, we should look at procedures for departments reporting the need for a rule change and see if the current fiscal year report is still needed.

2/13/04
Steering
Committee
Meeting /
  1. Gareth Green will coordinate user training.
  1. The APBS project is hiring a consultant to work on procedures/workflow/forms issues. We need to connect with this consultant to get funding project issues addressed at the same time.

2/20/04 /
  1. The most recent file layout for the 5 files required by payroll interface is what Lawson is expected to provide as input to the funding engine and payroll interface is expecting from the funding engine. It is possible a new file will be added for an ACH and checks total table. If this is required by PI, it will be provided by Lawson and passed through the funding engine. PI testing will occur March-May with APBS data. Funding can begin testing any time after this testing is complete. Funding will use the same files provided by Lawson, and will replace funding data in the salary work file and record count data in control files. We may decide to keep the old records and flag them as "replaced", or write over the old records. As long as an audit trail is kept, the details can be worked out when specifications are written.

2/27/04 /
  1. Two additional fields may be required from APBS to perform the assignment of funding. These are process level and department. Process level is the legacy unit code (A for Madison) plus the 2 digit division code. Department is the 4 digit department/subdepartment code from the UDDS. Combined, these two are the legacy UDDS. These fields are needed in order to match error funding to an appointment when there is no appointment ID in funding.

3/12/04 /
  1. The following fields are required from APBS for display: employee name, employee ID, position ID, position type, pay basis, title code, title description, pay rate, position begin and end dates, FTE, process level, process level description. In addition, SSN may be needed for searching, but it will not be displayed. This is consistent with the UW System direction for salary encumbrances and salary cash transfers.
  1. The "start" screen will allow the user to enter a position ID or to search based on partial name, full name, or SSN or employee ID. If the position ID is entered, this will take the user directly to the rule entry screen. If search criteria are entered, a list of positions matching the criteria will be provided and the user will use a radio button to select the appropriate position. This should work just like the salary encumbrance and salary cash transfer start screens.
  1. The rule entry screen should include a "clear" button to clear default funding, which should be provided based on the process level/department related to the position. There should be a rapid entry screen that would allow a user to enter multiple rules with different begin and end dates. This would result in a results screen being returned with the funding displayed separately by time period. (User could check the option to expand this to a display by pay period). Users would select rules for each time period and test a sample gross payment. These rules by date range could also be edited for sum not equal 100%, invalid mixed rules, etc. There should also be an option to scroll through appointments within a department. Begin and end dates should have the calendar date select feature we saw in student funding.

3/19/04 /
  1. Processing time is limited after suspense file update, so we want to limit the number of records sent through the fringe benefit allocation program. Instead, the funding engine will allocate funding and then call the fringe benefit allocation program to assign fringe funding. Then a trigger will be sent to payroll interface.
  1. Refer to "position funding interfaces.doc" for a detailed description of the processes involved with maintaining business unit control tables, receiving APBS data, selecting records for allocation, and passing data to payroll interface.
  1. We fully endorse the direction of using IAA for authentification. DoIT will investigate whether this technology is ready for use for this application. UW System was also interested in this for salary encumbrances and salary cash transfers, but this wasn't ready. They are hooked into the netID used in the portal. Authorization is a different issue. This is handled inside the datamart. We will use the same process as is used for WISDM, Brio, salary encumbrances, and salary cash transfers.

3/26/04 /
  1. We confirmed and expanded decision #44. DoIT is researching the availability of IAA as an authentication service. If it is not available yet, we will use UDS (universal directory service). For authorization, the WISDM tables used to grant access for each user/role will be used. These tables have the capability of granting authorization by deptID, fund, project, PI, or org manger. We will be consistent with salary encumbrances and salary cash transfers and limit this to authorization by deptID.
  1. Valid privileges are: administration (update department profile), update appointment rules, and read-only. A user with read-only privileges may view the department profile data and rules for the deptID for which s/he has authority to access. If any rule for an appointment falls within the user's authority to view, the user may view all other related rules for that appointment.

4/2/04 /
  1. Rules will only be archived if they have been used to create transactions (expenditure or encumbrance).
  1. There is no need to store position-related information displayed at the time a funding rule was created or updated.
  1. There is a need to include funding rule data in the data warehouse.
  1. Refer to "position funding user reports.doc" for a detailed description of requirements for user reports.