SABHRS Executive Council Meeting Minutes
Thursday, October 3, 2002
Members or Designees Present:
Darrell Zook, Chair, Department of Transportation
Ann Danzer, Co-Chair, Department of Environmental Quality
Ann Bauchman, Department of Natural Resources & Conservation
Steve Austin (representing Lynn Chenoweth, Department of Revenue)
David Clark-Snustad, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Jane Hamman, Office of Budget & Program Planning
Tony Herbert, Information Technology Services Division
George Harris (representing Frieda Houser, Department of Agriculture)
Teri Juneau, Department of Commerce
John McEwen, Department of Administration
Cathy Muri, Department of Administration
Tammy Peterson, Department of Labor & Industry
Mick Robinson, Department of Public Health & Human Services
Debbie VanVliet (representing D. J. Whitaker, Helena College of Technology)
Julia Dilly, Office of Public Instruction
Lois Lebahn, Recorder, Administrative Support
Terry Johnson, Legislative Fiscal Division
Kris Schmitz, Montana State Library
Also present: Chuck Virag, Steve Bender, Brian Wolf, Martha Watson, Administration; Dawn Brewer, State Fund
Darrell Zook called the meeting to order at 3:05 pm.
HRMS 8.3 Upgrade Fit/Gap Recommendations - John McEwen/Martha Watson
John McEwen said the primary purpose of this meeting is to present to the SEC a FIT/GAP analysis and related
recommendations that the SABHRS and State Personnel Division staff has agreed to as part of the HR 8.3 upgrade
project. Most of these are for your information. There are some points we may discuss based on the business
change that is implied in the rollout of 8.3. A document that summarized the analysis and recommendations to be
discussed was provided to Council members in advance of this meeting. John used this document to guide his
presentation. Following is a summary of the discussion that occurred related to each topic presented.
Compa Ratio. The Compa Ratio (comparison ratio) is a display only field. The State has used this field to assist
with determining a rate of pay in a promotion or demotion. The compa ratio is only reliable for employees with an
October 1 pay plan date and who are in the 25 grade statewide plan. Given the minimal benefit of this field, the
recommendation is to eliminate the related modification.
A question was asked concerning the business process change associated with not implementing the modification.
John clarified that the business process change only impacts those payroll/personnel staff that use the compa ratio to
calculate a pay adjustment. Since it isn’t useable in many cases, he doesn’t think the impact will be significant.
Mail drop. John explained that the recommendation is to use the Location field to sort paychecks and advices.
This will eliminate the 7.5 modification that was made to keep the Group ID and Mail Drop in sync. The Location
field values must accurately reflect the physical location of an employee. Martha said there are some agencies that
haven’t reflected accurate physical locations in this field. Those agencies must correct this problem.
Pay Check and Advice Print Process. John stated that certain modifications must be made to print paychecks and
advices, and to reflect useable leave information on these forms. To minimize these modifications leave balances
will be reported differently. Currently we have previous balance, earned, taken and current. The leave earned and
taken is during that pay period activity. Under the new way of doing this, we will have the beginning year-to-date
balance, year-to-date current and year-to-date taken and current year-to-date. So three of the four items change on
the pay stub. If employees want to know what they earned during the pay period, they will have to calculate it. We
will need to do some education on how to read leave information on paychecks or advices.
John also stated that employees in multiple jobs will only receive one paycheck. Currently they receive one for each
job, with leave activity and balances reported for each job. For these employees, we will need to develop an
alternate means of providing leave balance information for each job.
Teri Juneau stated that leave balance information is used to calculate payouts. Will this change have any impact on
how that calculation is made? John said there will still be a leave accrual report to meet this need.
Time Reporter and Group Membership. John explained that all employees with reported time must be enrolled
in Time and Labor. The way this data is maintained has changed in version 8.3. As a result, the recommendation is
to use the delivered setup procedure and to not bring forward our current modifications. This will force a change in
the procedure followed when a new employee is hired.
Time Entry. John said we are planning to drop the MT Time Entry modification with release 8.3. We will use the
PeopleSoft delivered timesheet with some modifications as illustrated on page 6 of the handout.
Ann Danzer asked if this will impact those that must code multiple org units (Task Profiles) when entering time?
Tammy Peterson said she has the same question. Their concern is that task profiles can only be entered by selecting
a value from a drop down box. Time enterers could receive many pages of task profiles. Time entry could become
very time consuming and prone to more errors. Martha indicated that one of the implementation goals is to provide
employees with access only to pertinent task profiles by taking advantage of work group definitions and task group
David Clark-Snustad asked if payroll staff will still have the ability to enter summary time for a pay period. Martha
said there are three different ways for time to be entered into the system. The methods include rapid, mass and
weekly time entry.
Darrell said that MDT uses an interface to the system. Their interface is based on the current custom front-end. He
asked how will eliminating the custom front-end impact interface agencies? Martha said that eliminating the custom
front-end will result in the need to change the interface. She said a staff person is currently evaluating the interface
and that she would provide more details after that work is complete.
Teri Juneau asked if the policy of reporting time in 30-minute increments can be enforced with payroll processing
rules. John said the system allows you to record time in any increments. To build this edit is tricky. Let’s drop it
and assume employees will follow the policy about recording time in ½ hour increments or we can change the
policy. Martha mentioned that such an edit would slow system response time. Cathy Muri asked, what would
happen if someone entered a .15? John said that the system would pay based upon what is entered. John said he will
look into getting rid of the policy.
Ann Bauchman asked if the employees will need to go through HCT for training. John said training of payroll staff
would be through the HCT. We haven’t talked about employee training on time entry. Chuck Virag said that
employee time entry training would likely occur through briefings and/or a train the trainer approach.
Mick Robinson expressed a concern about the cost of training associated with the upgrade. He would prefer train
the trainer, especially for employees with view only access and do it in-house. Ann Bauchman expressed the same
concern and asked, is there any way we can have SABHRS staff or department staff who volunteer to serve as
trainers so we don’t need to pay HCT?
Darrell asked to table further discussion on training and to address it at the next SEC meeting. It was also agreed
that the questions regarding time entry functionality should be addressed at the next meeting.
Workers Compensation. John stated that PeopleSoft doesn’t have a solution that fits Montana’s workers’ comp
rules and, therefore, must customize the system to meet our needs. We will, however, take a different approach to
making the modifications. The question was asked, will a report exist that reflects workers’ comp information for
each position? Martha said such reporting requirements will be met.
Expense Reimbursement and Processing. John stated that since we don’t have the expense module, we are
building the functionality into SABHRS. This is necessary so that we can reimburse employees for both taxable and
non-taxable expenses, and properly withhold taxes.
Darrell asked why didn’t we purchase the expense module. Chuck said that the decision was primarily based upon
the cost of the module. It is a financial module that interfaces with HR and accounts payable. It costs $50,000 or
more. It was demonstrated in March when PeopleSoft came in and given the price indications we decided not to
pursue it. Secondly, our customization is a bolt on to time and labor, and we are utilizing functionality that’s
delivered. We could actually use time and labor vanilla to enter expense information. We think as we move into
self-service that would be too confusing. One of the issues is that the time reporting code list would expand
Darrell said that MDT uses the time and labor interface to report expenses. Will MDT still have the ability to
provide expense information through this interface and to include expense reimbursements on paychecks? Martha
said MDT will still have the ability to send employee expense information through the time and labor interface.
Chuck said that the vision is to provide employee self-service expense reporting in phase 2 of the upgrade project.
A few modifications to the bolt on will be required.
Darrell said will it address travel advances? Martha said yes. Darrell said if a travel advance is paid back outside
the system, can you adjust the system so it will reflect that? Currently, you can’t do that. The current system will
not allow us to adjust the balance in the system. Martha said she would follow up on this question.
Steve Austin said that the Department of Revenue has experienced problems with recovering travel advances.
Employees with travel advances would leave the agency and the system did not indicate that they had a travel
advance, so the employee didn’t pay it back. Martha said that can be fixed. She said she would follow up on this
October 17, 2003 SEC Meeting Agenda Items - All
Darrell stated that we already have two agenda items carrying forward to discuss at our October 17 meeting. One is
the training issue, and the other is a follow up to questions asked today.
Chuck asked Darrell to add a demonstration of the new Citrix functionality to the agenda. We have a Citrix upgrade
in November. We also may want to discuss FIT/GAP recommendations relating to finance upgrade.
SEC Goals and Objectives - Darrell Zook and Brian Wolf
Darrell reminded the members of past discussions concerning the need for a Council operating plan. He indicated
that MDT has gone through a planning process. He provided a handout entitled, What is the Balanced Scorecard?
He explained that this document describes a planning methodology. MDT hired a consultant to lead them through
this planning methodology. The consultant is now on staff at MDT. This consultant has volunteered to lead the
SEC through this planning methodology and Brian Wolf has agreed to serve as an event sponsor. Darrell suggested
that the Council consider using this consultant and methodology to develop a business plan. He thought it would
require two days.
Brian said this is a working group. All of us have lessons learned from the initial implementation of SABHRS and
we learn as we go through these upgrades. It is appropriate to discuss the role of the Council relative to SABHRS,
and how it should interface with the Department of Administration. We need to determine how do you interface
with your direct organizations and tiers that we support. I think it is an exercise we should go through every so
often. This is a good systems methodology. You can use this or something different, but first you need to decide
that something needs to be done. Brian expressed his support for such an exercise and indicated that he felt that the
ITSD and the Department of Administration should go through this with the Council so we all better understand
each other’s goals.
Mick agreed that we need to take on a planning process and is very supportive of this effort. Ann Danzer agreed
that it will give us a positive direction. Tammy agreed and said it will help us identify what we should focus on.
Darrell suggested this be done by the end of December before the Legislature starts.
John asked if the SEC members are appointed every year. Chuck said members are appointed for a two-year term.
Everyone will be on the Council for another year. John explained that he just wants to make sure the right people
are involved in the planning process. It was suggested that perhaps some other people need to participate, but you
can’t have too many or the process becomes cumbersome.
Mick suggested that we must decide whether we are going to do this and get it on the calendar. Darrell said he must
make sure it fits with the consultant’s schedule. He said he would work with the consultant, Tammy, Mick, and
Brian to come up with some scheduling options. John requested it be after November 15.
A motion was made to proceed with the planning for goals and objectives utilizing the MDT consultant. Ann
Bauchman seconded the motion and the Council unanimously approved the motion.
The meeting adjourned at 4:20 pm