Subcommittee on ADP Senate Budget Committee FINAL REPORT March 2010 Summary. The Budget Committee’s Subcommittee on ADP has completed a six‐month review of the roll‐out and implementation of Automated Data Processing (ADP), a major component of the USG’s Shared Services initiative at Georgia State University. The review finds multiple and persistent problems that have affected employee pay, research grants, and the integrity of overall accounting processes at College and unit levels. Because of the sheer volume of such problems and the amount of redirected effort expended to address them, employee morale has suffered. Efficiency gains that were pledged as byproducts of—
and justification for‐‐the conversion to ADP have not yet materialized. By all accounts received during this review, the magnitude of problems associated with the conversion to ADP surpasses what is normally to be expected from a transition of this sort. This report acknowledges and emphasizes the impressive work done by the GSU implementation team at all levels in response to the difficulties encountered, and it strongly recommends that they receive the gratitude of the full Senate. It summarizes the subcommittee’s efforts to (1) systematically collect performance data from ADP users across campus, (2) share that data with the ADP implementation team to facilitate problem identification and problem solving, (3) enhance constructive communication between ADP users and the implementation team, and (4) advance short‐ and long‐term recommendations. Background and Context. The Senate Budget Committee at its October 8, 2009 meeting authorized creation of a Subcommittee on ADP. The subcommittee’s charge was to collect information from the University community that would help identify the scope and kinds of problems associated with the ADP rollout. Specifically, the subcommittee aimed to determine the magnitude of pay‐related issues associated with introduction of this new system, their impact on faculty/staff/students, and the implications for research grants and contracts. Identifying non‐deliverables and clarifying system vulnerabilities encountered during ADP implementation was seen as necessary for resolution of the most acute problems (illustrated by 7% of faculty, staff, and students going unpaid on September 30, 2009). In addition to helping remedy acute problems, the subcommittee was charged with examining the broader context of Georgia State University’s decision to adopt the ADP system and the steps taken prior to and during rollout. Given that the University has now changed payroll systems twice in five years, there is opportunity for the Senate Budget Committee to derive and distribute recommendations for future use based upon lessons learned from past experience. Process. 1) Members of the subcommittee met on October 20, 2009 with Jerry Rackliffe (Senior Vice President for Finance and Administration), Beth Jones (Associate Vice President for Finance and Administration), Robert Elmore (Director, Payroll), and Robert Stevens (Director, Financial Systems) to gain necessary background and context on GSU’s decision to adopt ADP. 2) Subcommittee members solicited the systematic collection of data from all Colleges and Schools. Requests went out to chief administrative officers for data from system users regarding issues that they or their employees had encountered in using the new system. Information as to the increase in workload required to support the new process, sufficiency of data to make decisions, impact on grants/contracts, was deemed relevant. A similar request was sent by Staff Council to each of its members. 3) A meeting of interested parties (including chief administrative officers as well as College HR and financial officers) was convened on Friday, October 16, 2009. That meeting began the process of comparing pre‐ADP functionality with current ADP functionality in the following areas: hiring, payroll, time sheets, reports of absence, workflow, intersystem communication, and earnings distribution. 4) The Senate Budget Committee met on November 12, 2009 to consider the subcommittee’s interim report (see “Interim Report” in Appendix) and to hear from Vice President Rackliffe about the reasons for adopting ADP and the current state of implementation efforts. The Budget Committee unanimously adopted the subcommittee’s interim report. 5) The subcommittee requested the immediate convening of one or more open meetings allowing University users of ADP to: get direct information about the system's current status, ask questions they felt were relevant, and share their concerns and ideas for how to move forward. Several informational sessions were held in the Speaker’s Auditorium in early November, at which Jerry Rackliffe provided context on the ADP implementation and fielded questions from staff and faculty. Starting in November, a series of open forum sessions was announced for each Monday from 11/16 through 12/14 and an additional set form 1/11 through 1/25. The meetings were set at a common time (3:00) and located in classrooms of the College of Law. 6) The subcommittee solicited and collected additional user feedback on ADP in February 2010. That data was presented (see “Update” in Appendix) to the Senate Budget Committee at its February 11, 2010 meeting. Findings. The shift to a Shared Services model employing ADP was premised on “achieving best‐in‐class efficiencies for administrative support functions in the University System of Georgia.”1 The USG White Paper describing pursuit of a shared services concept pledges that doing so “will result in the following benefits: 1. Reduce overall risk by creating redundancy in critical support areas through shared services, providing for disaster recovery and business continuity. 2. Reengineer processes utilizing best practices. 3. Upgrade systems to latest technology to automate and streamline manual processes. 4. Facilitate complex financial reporting through highly‐integrated technology platform and databases. 5. Enhance specialized knowledge through training and skills development. 6. Standardize processes, policies and procedures to minimize variability and errors. 7. Increase customer service through dedicated service desk.”2 1 “Shared Services Concept: Designed to better serve University System of Georgia internal and external customers,” USG Shared Services Initiative www.usg.edu/sharedservices 2 University System of Georgia White Paper, “Payroll Consolidation: A Shared Services Approach,” www.usg.edu/sharedservices/paper
Of ADP, the White Paper concludes, “The payroll consolidation through shared services provides the University System of Georgia with the opportunity to provide world class administrative support services by leveraging new technology, enhancing functionality, and minimizing risk through a shared services environment.” A 2008 press release from the USG describes the BOR’s rationale for adopting a shared services model: “The Board’s approval today creates a framework that will maximize efficiency and effectiveness in a large and complex organization with more than 38,0000 employees and an annual budget of $6.1 billion,” said interim vice chancellor for Fiscal Affairs Usha Ramachandran. “Our current model has us providing service to our customers through hundreds of separate and unconnected databases. That is not the model used by other large enterprises, nor is it the model our funding partners in the governor’s office and the General Assembly expect us to continue to utilize in the 21st century.”3 The shared services model would then employ ADP as the key payroll agent. ADP’s website describes the company: “Automatic Data Processing, Inc., with nearly $9 billion in revenues and about 570,000 clients, is one of the world's largest providers of business outsourcing solutions. Leveraging 60 years of experience, ADP offers the widest range of HR, payroll, tax and benefits administration solutions from a single source. ADP's easy‐to‐use solutions for employers provide superior value to companies of all types and sizes. ADP is also a leading provider of integrated computing solutions to auto, truck, motorcycle, marine and recreational vehicle dealers throughout the world.”4 Research universities do not figure prominently in the corporate self‐description. The Human Resources website at Georgia State University describes the transition to ADP as “a complex and challenging task that will be rewarding to the campus community when completed.”5 The subcommittee was advised that Georgia State University adopted the shared services model and the ADP payroll system upon instructions from the Board of Regents. GSU HR and payroll experts were among the representatives from eight USG institutions who constituted the steering committee for the transition to ADP. Georgia State University is the only one of the System’s four research universities to have implemented ADP to date. The subcommittee has been told that both the Georgia Institute of Technology and the Medical College of Georgia are slated to make the transition, but the University of Georgia has opted out. As of February 2010, none of the HR websites of the other research universities makes any reference to ADP, and the list of ADP campus coordinators on the USG website makes no reference to any of the other research universities.6 Georgia State University is serving as a sort of test institution for ADP implementation in research universities because of its size and profile. Against this backdrop, the performance of ADP since its rollout in Summer and Fall 2009 has not lived up to the projections of increased efficiency. Indeed, our findings suggest that it has unfortunately met few if any of the pledges described in the USG’s White Paper. One estimate presented at the Senate Budget Committee’s February 11, 2010 meeting placed a “Regents Approve Plan for Payroll Consolidation,” http://www.usg.edu/news/release/regents_approve_plan_for_payroll_consolidation/ 4 “About ADP,” http://www.adp.com/about‐us.aspx 5 Georgia State University HR Payroll and Benefits, “Latest News” http://www.gsu.edu/hr/35702.html 6 Shared Services, http://www.usg.edu/sharedservices/campus_coordinators/ 3
dollar figure on the amount of redirected effort necessary to address ADP shortcomings at between $3‐4 million. The subcommittee notes with appreciation the efforts of those who organized a series of open meetings to help GSU’s ADP users adjust to the new system. The convening of such sessions helped reduce some of the uncertainty and frustration that university faculty and staff felt after the 2009 rollout. The message conveyed at these sessions was generally one of “this is an admittedly imperfect system, but it is one we needed to adopt, and please bear with us as we work to fix all of the problems.” It is also important to note that testing for a new ePAF commenced in January 2010 with rollout scheduled for March 2010. Users and college staffs indicated that this is a welcome development. Further, there was progress toward developing reports that assist with review for payroll distribution accuracy. The subcommittee acknowledges that many people have worked extra hours to resolve the problems that this report documents. The Senate needs to recognize and thank the unit‐
level business managers, college financial and administrative officers, staff at University Payroll, and the leadership provided by Jerry Rackliffe, Beth Jones, Robert Elmore, and Robert Stevens. A lot of people devoted a lot of time to putting out a lot of fires. Recommendations. The subcommittee divides its recommendations into two groups—
one set of ideas for immediate consideration, and a second set to guide future transitions in payroll systems. For Immediate Attention 1. Project Map and Timeline. The subcommittee recommends that those charged with managing the extended transition to ADP provide College financial, HR, and administrative personnel with an estimated timeline for resolution of all known problems with the system. 2. Shift from Open Forums to Small, Targeted Working Groups. While the initial open forum meetings were successful in reducing the finger‐pointing and helped refocus attention on devising fixes, some Staff Council members and HR representatives who attended the latter sessions report that they did not take away much that could assist them in trying to move forward with ADP. Therefore, the subcommittee recommends that a series of smaller working groups replace the open forums. The working groups should focus on areas of specific concern, e.g., sponsored research, eTIME issues related to student assistants, access issues for unit administrators, and the like. 3. Increase User‐End Access to ADP Programmers. Those persons throughout the University who have struggled so significantly with ADP have frequently complained that they have little direct opportunity to express both concerns and ideas with ADP personnel about how to better tailor the systems to GSU’s needs. The subcommittee recommends that ADP programmers be asked to participate in select working group sessions with faculty and staff as a condition of GSU’s continued partnership with them. 4. Clarify and Rectify Costs to Sponsored Research. Research faculty continue to worry that problems with ADP implementation are placing grant‐funded research at the University in jeopardy. The potential for dollars lost and for the University to fall out of compliance is real, and it must be recognized as GSU continues to pursue an enhanced research profile. The subcommittee recommends that those responsible for managing ADP’s implementation supply the Senate Research Committee with an impact assessment of ADP on sponsored research. If there has been no negative impact, then evidence to this effect can go a long way toward eliminating the fears of research active faculty on campus. If significant dollars have indeed been lost or the University’s compliance called into question, then research active faculty deserve to know how and when those losses will be remedied and reversed. 5. Opt‐Out if Timely Resolutions Not in Place. If a majority of the problems from ADP implementation are not fixed in a timeframe deemed satisfactory by the University leadership, then the subcommittee recommends that the University pursue the option of a waiver from ADP and shared services. The right to request a waiver is provided for in the USG White Paper on Shared Services. Georgia State University has clearly made a good faith effort to adopt the system as requested by the Regents, even though its peer institutions in the System did not seek a simultaneous adoption. If ADP continues to disrupt the smooth functioning of GSU as a research university, then we should be able to exercise the right to find a superior alternative. For Long­Term Consideration The shift to Shared Services and ADP represents the second major payroll system transformation at Georgia State University in five years. The report concludes by offering recommendations derived from the lessons of the 2009 ADP rollout. 1. Improve Likelihood of Successful Implementation by Enlarging the Decision‐Making Table. Georgia State’s tradition of shared governance has meant that broad input from multiple faculty and staff constituencies can improve the quality of decision‐
making. Given the major impact that any systems overhaul can have on a university’s mission, we recommend that the next proposed payroll transformation include more active participation from the University Senate from the start of deliberations. 2. Avoid Rolling Out New System Amidst Unprecedented Budgetary Uncertainty. Although crippling economic downturns are not always easy to anticipate, it may be wise once they have begun to suspend major system changes. The timing of ADP’s implementation at GSU could not have been worse. A system that did not deliver what it promised was implemented at a moment when faculty and staff had not received raises or cost‐of‐living adjustments, when they were being furloughed, when reductions‐in‐force were discussed as potential possibilities, and when operating budgets were being slashed. The hardships encountered by GSU employees were real, and they literally meant in some cases that people had difficulties paying their bills. Difficulties associated with a rush to implement ADP compromised morale at a time when the University is supposed to be planning for its ambitious future. The subcommittee therefore recommends that future decisions to shift systems be tempered by recognition of the overall economic environment. 3. Extend Period of Parallel Testing, Integration, and Migration Until Major Parties Satisfied. In retrospect, the lead‐up to ADP’s rollout in Summer 2009 was too brief. The USG graphic below indicates a remarkably brief period of testing in Spring prior to full implementation. An additional apparent lesson from the ADP conversion is that financial and HR personnel at college and school level should be involved in crafting a reasonable timeline for testing, integration, and migration. The subcommittee recommends inclusion of such personnel in the planning stages of any future payroll conversion. 4. Test New Systems on Largest, Most Complex Research Units. Good pre‐
implementation testing should always be conducted in the least hospitable conditions, rather than the most conducive ones. Testing of ADP did not extend to some of GSU’s largest and most complex units (College of Arts and Sciences, for example) and that proved to be a weakness of the initial screening process. The subcommittee recommends that future payroll system conversions target large, complex research units for testing before the final decision to adopt. At a time when Georgia State University is planning for the world class university that it should become in its second century, we hope not have to worry about the nuts and bolts of payroll operations. Those should be assumed as functional givens. While thanking all those who have tackled the herculean task of minimizing the disruptions of conversion to ADP, this subcommittee report closes by encouraging the Senate to (1) constructively assist in resolving any remaining implementation problems, (2) support a move away from ADP if satisfactory and timely fixes are not put in place, and (3) fully consider the lessons learned from this conversion so that it can play a more effective role in any similar future system changes. Respectfully Submitted by the Members of the Subcommittee: William Downs (chair) Rose Sevcik Cherian Thachenkary Katherine Willoughby Bill Prigge Amber Amari APPENDIX 1. Senate Budget Committee Subcommittee on ADP UPDATE, FEBRUARY 11, 2010 Presented at meeting of Senate Budget Committee Progress in Opening Up Channels of Communication o Regularly scheduled open forums now held. o Some small group working sessions underway (e.g., ePAF development). o Multiple fixes now in place and others in process (see attached update from Beth Jones, Associate Vice President for Finance and Administration) →
Subcommittee recommends recognition, with gratitude, of those on the implementation team who have worked so hard to smooth the transition Reported Issues and Ongoing Concerns o Payroll errors attributable to ADP remain pervasive. One college (Arts and Sciences) reports 631 employees (faculty, staff, and students) with such errors in the November 2009 pay period alone, and financial officers and accountants for the college indicate that “January is no better.” Instead, they are “informed of increasingly wrong payroll in the months of December and January.” Root of errors is coding of employees with multiple speedtypes. Non‐payments, underpayments, and overpayments in that college have reportedly quadrupled when compared to January 2009. These errors are compounded by the inability of departments to see individual check disbursements. Examples: ‐ ADP is reportedly at fault for failing to correctly process a payroll adjustment to a grant‐funded faculty member in Political Science during her partial leave in Fall 2009, resulting in incremental overpayments over that semester totaling $6,367. The faculty member is now being asked in February to issue repayment. ‐ Payroll errors compounded by furloughs. One college reports on January 15, 2010 no fewer than 44 furlough‐related payment errors from September 2009 still unresolved. ‐ Faculty member in Psychology overpaid in November 2009. Remedy at that time was to schedule funds to be taken out of January pay. Instead, faculty member subsequently overpaid in December and January. Faculty member now owes $1,800. ‐
Employee in Chemistry underpaid by $980, with only one of three paychecks in 2010 being correct. Employee estimates number of hours spent trying to resolve personal pay issues in the “high 20’s.” Staff in Chemistry, currently in the middle of planning a department‐wide move, report that they have neither the time nor the staff to manually check time sheets submitted to date against ADP payroll. ‐
PSHR/ADP FTE conversion errors – a faculty member coded as ¾ time in PSHR converted incorrectly into ADP as full‐time and was subsequently charged 8 hours of furlough instead of 6 hours. Problem identified at the college level and corrected by HR on 2/10/10. o
Processing Delays. Example: All Geosciences GTAs (19 students) overpaid in September 2009. All graduate students provided refund checks by October 2009. Receipt of overpayments not acknowledged until January 2010, and no credits returned to department budget as of February 10. ‐
Four PAFs (two for post‐doctoral associates and two for senior research scientists) from Psychology hand‐delivered on 11/11/09 but not processed until 1/28/2010. ‐
PAF for visiting faculty member increasing salary from ¾ time to full‐time submitted to HR on 11/5/2009, but not yet processed as of 2/11/10. o
Problems with eTIME. Several colleges/areas report difficulty and inaccuracy with eTIME, resulting in potential underpayment/overpayment of employees, as well as confusion and increased workload for managers and supervisors. In addition, uncertainty was expressed regarding the extent of HR oversight on timesheet and timecard submissions. In many instances, timecards are being approved by HR without actual departmental supervisory approval. Examples: ‐ Due to a half day of inclement weather, four hours of unscheduled leave were to be automatically entered into eTIME for all employees. The unscheduled leave was entered incorrectly as one minute, which required managers and supervisors to manually correct every single non‐exempt level time sheet. Time sheets that were not manually corrected could have resulted in overpayment of employees. ‐ The requirements for entering lunch time for non‐exempt employees are complex and differ according to the number of hours worked. This causes a great deal of confusion for managers and supervisors and results in inaccurate reporting. One VP area has identified a number of overpayments caused by confusion over complex reporting requirements for non‐exempt employees. ‐
The College of Law reports several instances where two time cards (paper and electronic) were processed in one reporting period for temps/student assistants due to the fact that no system is in place to catch overpayments and multiple time entries. o
o
Inefficiencies. ADP is blamed for issuing W2 forms with incorrect taxpayer IDs. The error resulted in the need to reprint and re‐mail W2 forms to university employees. Problems with time entries. Users report continuing problems with student assistant and temporary time entries. Complexities exist in reporting hours with funding sources that cross departments and units. Many areas remain reliant on paper timesheets to ensure correct payment distribution. An open forum and retraining sessions were promised on this topic in January, but they seem to have been delayed. o
Difficulties in Prior Period Adjustments. ‐ College staff report continuing access issues with ADP's PPGRA system. In addition to not being able to change past entries when the need arises, staff have not been able to access hire and payroll report information or input pay for anyone in another college, and this severely curtails their ability to research and resolve pay issues. Staff report delays after submitting requests for help from Shared Services to resolve the access issues blocking entry into PPGRA. Such delays exceed some of the markers College staffs were given for turnaround of solutions from Shared Services. Without prompt resolutions, new entries for graduate assistant January pay were in jeopardy, and personnel were also unable to address corrections to errors made during the Fall semester. ‐
A recent (2/10) implementation of a prior period adjustment system is working to correct thousands of furlough and change of distribution errors; however, the system, while referencing the check number being corrected, cites the date the adjustment was input. This means that an adjustment for a check in September is dated February. This causes issues in trying to determine if a correction has been done, in ensuring that effort is correctly reported for a period, and in including adjustments before a grant closes. o
Impact for Research and Sponsored Programs. ‐ Drawdown of federal funds and invoicing other sponsors for reimbursement are presently very risky because of the possibility that some payroll expenses are overstated and others understated because of delays in processing payroll adjustments. Staff report they cannot trust the accuracy of the source data. ‐
There are currently 234 open sponsored projects with end dates of January 31, 2010 or prior. There are concerns that we may not be able to get full reimbursement from sponsors for those projects that already ended, due to payroll charges not appearing on the project accounts. The research office typically has 30 to 45 days after termination to submit final invoices, and given the number of projects that ended December 31 or prior, they may end up with a significant amount of unreimbursed costs. ‐
Financial reports generally require certification of the accuracy of the information in the report. Normally the research office will coordinate final reports with the PI and department administrator because they would have o
documentation of payroll expenses that should be charged to a project, but presently all expenses included in financial reports are not reflected in the financial system at the time of submission. This could lead to numerous audit findings. Because of such problems, there is a crucial need to review each invoice and financial report that has been submitted to sponsors to ensure accuracy or make corrections, once payroll adjustments are posted to project accounts. This represents a tremendous cost to the University in terms of man hours that must be devoted to this effort at the Research Financial Services, the department administrators, and PI levels. Checks and Balances. Concerns regarding checks and balances in ADP payroll continue. College staff report occurrences where payments have been made in excess of 80 hours (up to 160 hours in one case) and EFTs are not being cross‐
checked to ensure monthly payroll distribution amounts are whole and correct. The EFT matter may have to do with the complexity of furloughs. Checks should be automated and not rely so heavily on after‐the‐fact review by unit‐level staff. o
Oversight and Organizational Structure. There is uncertainty about the extent of HR oversight on timesheet and timecard submissions. Staff members wonder how many are being approved and paid without actual supervisory approval. o
PERS. Effort reports not rolled out for Summer/Fall yet due to source data issues with ADP. Delays could produce vulnerabilities for next year's audit. Overarching Concerns →
The number and variety of known problems (and those yet to be discovered) have the potential for a domino effect into FY11, compounding other likely budgetary constraints. →
Morale continues to diminish and needs to be revived. ADP users report that despite an advertised increase in efficiencies, everything they do now takes at least twice the time it did before the transition to ADP. Further, the onus is being placed on unit‐level business managers and college staffs to identify ADP problems, bring them to the attention of those who can design fixes, and then follow‐up to ensure timely resolution. This constitutes an inefficient placement of burden. ADP users voice for a clear desire to see automated checks and balances within the system. →
Uncertainty about organizational responsibility. Until automated checks are in place, ADP users request increased clarity about whom to go for in the event of particular problems. →
Inability to conduct accurate expenditure reviews. College staffs worry about the potential for present data inaccuracies to snowball disastrously at fiscal year‐end close. Requests and Recommendations. 1. Project Map and Timeline. The subcommittee renews its request of the implementation team that College financial, HR, and administrative personnel be provided with an estimated timeline for resolution of all known problems with the system. 2. Shift from Open Forums to Small, Targeted Working Groups. While the initial open forum meetings were successful in reducing the finger‐pointing and helped refocus attention on devising fixes, some Staff Council members and HR representatives who attended the latter sessions report that they did not take away much that could assist them in trying to move forward with ADP. Therefore, the subcommittee recommends that a series of smaller working groups replace the open forums. The working groups should focus on areas of specific concern, e.g., sponsored research, eTIME issues related to student assistants, access issues for unit administrators, and the like. 3. Increase User‐End Access to ADP Programmers. Those persons throughout the University who have struggled so significantly with ADP have frequently complained that they have little direct opportunity to express both concerns and ideas with ADP personnel about how to better tailor the systems to GSU’s needs. The subcommittee renews its recommendation that ADP programmers be asked to participate in select working group sessions with faculty and staff as an expectation of GSU’s continued partnership with them. APPENDIX 2.
SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE
Subcommittee on ADP
Interim Report, October 30, 2009
Approved by Senate Budget Committee, November 12, 2009
Background. In response to concerns from across campus that transition to the new
Automated Data Processing (ADP) system has resulted in several significant problems, the Senate
Budget Committee at its October 8 meeting authorized creation of a Subcommittee on ADP. The
subcommittee’s charge is to collect information from the University community that will help
identify the scope and kinds of problems associated with the ADP rollout. Specifically, the
subcommittee is to determine the magnitude of pay-related issues associated with introduction of
this new system, their impact on faculty/staff/students, and the implications for research grants
and contracts. Identifying non-deliverables and clarifying system vulnerabilities encountered
during ADP implementation are necessary for immediate resolution of the most acute problems
(illustrated by 7% of faculty, staff, and students going unpaid on September 30). In addition to
helping remedy acute problems, the subcommittee is to examine the broader context of Georgia
State University’s decision to adopt the ADP system and the steps taken prior to and during
rollout. Given that the University has now changed payroll systems twice in five years, there is
opportunity for the Senate Budget Committee to derive and distribute recommendations for
future use based upon lessons learned from past experience. The subcommittee was asked to
produce an interim report by the end of October detailing its initial findings. If asked by the
Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, the subcommittee will then produce a set of
recommendations by the end of the Fall semester.
Steps Taken.
1) Members of the subcommittee met on October 20 with Jerry Rackliffe (Senior Vice
President for Finance and Administration), Beth Jones (Associate Vice President for
Finance and Administration), Robert Elmore (Director, Payroll), and Robert Stevens
(Director, Financial Systems).
2) Subcommittee members solicited the systematic collection of data from all Colleges and
Schools. Requests went out to chief administrative officers for hard data (not anecdotal
stories) from system users regarding issues that they or their employees have
encountered in using the new system. Information as to the increase in workload
required to support the new process, sufficiency of data to make decisions, impact on
grants/contracts, was deemed relevant. A similar request was sent by Staff Council to
each of its members.
3) A meeting of interested parties (including chief administrative officers as well as College
HR and financial officers) was convened on Friday, October 16. That meeting began the
process of comparing pre-ADP functionality with current ADP functionality in the
following areas: hiring, payroll, time sheets, reports of absence, workflow, intersystem
communication, and earnings distribution.
Findings.
The shift to a Shared Services model employing ADP was premised on “achieving best-in-class
efficiencies for administrative support functions in the University System of Georgia.”7 The USG
White Paper describing pursuit of a shared services concept pledges that doing so “will result in
the following benefits:
1. Reduce overall risk by creating redundancy in critical support areas through shared
services, providing for disaster recovery and business continuity.
2. Reengineer processes utilizing best practices.
3. Upgrade systems to latest technology to automate and streamline manual processes.
4. Facilitate complex financial reporting through highly-integrated technology platform
and databases.
5. Enhance specialized knowledge through training and skills development.
6. Standardize processes, policies and procedures to minimize variability and errors.
7. Increase customer service through dedicated service desk.”8
Of ADP, the White Paper concludes, “The payroll consolidation through shared services provides
the University System of Georgia with the opportunity to provide world class administrative
support services by leveraging new technology, enhancing functionality, and minimizing risk
through a shared services environment.”
The subcommittee has been advised that Georgia State University adopted the shared services
model and the ADP payroll system upon instructions from the Board of Regents. GSU HR and
payroll experts were, we determined, among the representatives from eight USG institutions who
constituted the steering committee for the transition to ADP. Georgia State University is the only
one of the System’s four research universities to have implemented ADP to date. The
subcommittee learned that both the Georgia Institute of Technology and the Medical College of
Georgia are slated to make the transition, but the University of Georgia has opted out. Georgia
State University is serving as a sort of test institution for ADP implementation in research
universities because of its size and profile.
Against this backdrop, the performance of ADP since its rollout in Summer and Fall 2009 has not
lived up to the projections of increased efficiency. Indeed, our findings suggest that it has met
few if any of the pledges described in the USG’s White Paper. Following are some of the key
broad problems, concerns, and questions presented by the University community to the
subcommittee:
1. Overall frustration with an implementation strategy that lacked structure, did not allow
for high-end user feedback or extensive parallel testing before rollout.
2. There is a perception that the conversion was rushed without running the PeopleSoft
system in parallel for a more extended period as a backup.
3. The rationale for GSU adopting the ADP system was not articulated effectively, and when
the system failed to perform as promised GSU users have predictably wondered why the
other research universities succeeded in avoiding a similar fate.
7
“Shared Services Concept: Designed to better serve University System of Georgia internal and external customers,”
USG Shared Services Initiative www.usg.edu/sharedservices
8
University System of Georgia White Paper, “Payroll Consolidation: A Shared Services Approach,”
www.usg.edu/sharedservices/paper
4. The preexisting PeopleSoft system was considered by some to be one of the brighter
spots we had. With the failure of ADP to make a smooth and effective transition, many
GSU users are asking why did the University replace PeopleSoft if it was not broken?
5. When it became clear that ADP was not functioning as promised, frustration among users
mounted due to poor communication, uncertainty about a timeline for remedies, and lack
of access to ADP representatives and programmers.
Beyond these general but important concerns, a host of specific problems and processes are
inventoried in Appendix 2.1. This inventory describes increased work hours devoted to seeking
fixes for ADP glitches, delays in proper payment, barriers to verification of pay amounts prior to
pay dates, difficulties in system access, increased vulnerabilities to fraud, duplication of effort,
delays in Personnel Effort Reports (PERS), delays in monthly expenditure reviews, and an
accumulated frustration for personnel due to system uncertainty and efforts to “put out fires.”
The subcommittee received reports that ADP problems are directly impacting the University’s
research efforts. The delay in posting payroll data has prevented monthly closing of the
accounting system, which results in a delay of the following month-end activities in Research
Financial Services:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
IDC cannot be accurately calculated because personal services expenses not posted to
sponsored project accounts.
Invoices to sponsors/federal cash drawdowns cannot be processed, which are due 30-45
days after month end. This noncompliance with terms of award could result in nonpayment.
Financial Expenditure Reports delayed resulting in noncompliance of award terms and
conditions.
Project accounts cannot be analyzed and closed for awards terminating July and August
2009.
Personnel Effort Report certifications process delayed for Summer semester
Delay in getting project speedtypes into ADP (Original estimate was 48 hours but
average time is 96 hours)
RFS lacks access to earnings distribution to assist department administrators with
retroactive payroll adjustments and transfers.
Appendix 2.2 provides an extended description of concerns and issues encountered by the HR
representative for one academic department in the College of Arts and Sciences.
Additional evidence is provided by feedback from other ADP users:
o
“We used to have an automated, scheduled process to create files for Federal Work
Study in PeopleSoft and send them to Banner but it is now a manual process in ADP. We
are two months behind processing FWS files for Financial Aid because Payroll has not
been running the manual process in a timely manner… the loss of an automated process
for FWS has created workload and workflow issues for the university. There should be a
BOR-hosted, scheduled, automated process to create FWS files in ADP, and also for
many other types of files that used to be created automatically from PeopleSoft.”
o
“ When hiring work-study student assistants - we complete and approve the PAF and
send it to HR - THEN, an additional step since ADP - HR sends the PAFs to Financial Aid
for approval of the work study award - adding to the delay in input of the PAF - causing
the student assistants to miss a couple of pay dates. This only applies to work study
student assistants, but it has been causing us HUGE headaches.”
o
“…the old system allowed for as short as a 2 week period between when a hire packet
and ePAF were due to HR and the new student employee's first check was issued. In
ADP, the minimum official time is one month and is as long as a month and six
days...effectively 5 weeks. And that is if everything goes perfectly.”
o
“I hope none of you are having as many problems with ADP as we are, but if so
something really needs to be done. Right now the system is simply not functional. I just
called payroll about a student assistant payment, and was told ADP is down so they are
unable to even look to see if he was paid, much less if not why not, what needs to be
done or when he may be paid. Many of our graduate students were not paid on time,
with some checks as much as 10 days late. Departments still have no access to payroll
information, cannot do payroll transfers, expenditure reviews, PERs, grant closeouts
etc... It would be very helpful to me if HR could at least enter the data from the ADP
payrolls 8/8 to present into the old PeopleSoft system so we could all go about our
business while they iron the kinks out of ADP.”
The subcommittee was informed there are at least 54 file transfer processes that need to be
automated as a result of ADP. These are listed in Appendix 2.3, and they represent processes
that are presently being handled manually.
Immediate Action Requested.
Compounding the substantive problems with ADP are the frustrations of CAOs, business
managers, PIs, and others who perceive barriers to access, voice, and communication with the
decision-makers and implementers. The subcommittee therefore requested the immediate
convening of one or more open meetings allowing University users of ADP to: (1) get direct
information about the system's current status, (2) ask questions they feel are relevant, and (3)
share their concerns and ideas for how to move forward. Importantly, the subcommittee
recommended that top personnel from ADP as well as ADP programmers be in attendance at
each open forum. Rather than put GSU officials in the difficult position of answering for ADP, we
believe ADP should answer for their product and hear firsthand the nature and intensity of
frustrations on our campus. We acknowledge here that Jerry Rackliffe and Beth Jones agreed to
move quickly on scheduling these meetings, and the subcommittee offered to assist in mobilizing
attendance. We have been informed that the first of these is tentatively scheduled for the first
week in November.
Key staff throughout the University are looking for an immediate and sound strategy with clearly
articulated timelines and deadlines for completion. These should match the non-deliverables by
ADP to date.
Simultaneous to the remedies being put in place by ADP, we should be looking at processes that
may not be able to be addressed or solved by ADP. We need to determine whether ADP can
actually fit all of a research institution's needs. GSU should be working on customized solutions
that allow for flexibility in its relationship with ADP. An example of a unique relationship with
ADP might entail more extensive system access to information that would enable us to create
effective and sustainable workarounds to disrupted business processes.
If ADP fails to remedy the inefficiencies and vulnerabilities of its systems in accordance to these
timelines, then we would recommend that Georgia State University consider requesting a waiver
from participating in shared services. Under Item 5 (p. 3) of the USG’s White Paper on Shared
Services, “Under limited circumstances, institutions can request a waiver from the Chancellor
from participating in the shared services project.”
The subcommittee submits that this is not the time for playing the blame game. There are acute
problems that require immediate fixes. The Senate can provide support in the efforts to solve
these problems. The leaders of Georgia State’s Finance and Administration divisions are
themselves quite clearly frustrated that a system premised on the production of efficiency gains
has not yet delivered. For their part, college staffs have been operating blind with an imperfect
system and should not be held culpable for incidents of non-payment to faculty, staff, and
students. It is a measure of progress that a team from ADP is now on campus working these
issues, although the sobering news is that some of those issues may take months to resolve.
Next Step(s).
The subcommittee will take further action as instructed by the Budget Committee and its chair,
Dr. Hugh Hudson. One form that such action may take is the proposal of immediate remedies
and recommendations derived from the open forums to be held beginning in November. A
second step may be the derivation of policy-relevant lessons learned from the ADP transition that
may be applied the next time payroll systems change.
Members of the Subcommittee:
William Downs (chair)
Rose Sevcik
Cherian Thachenkary
Katherine Willoughby
Bill Prigge
Amber Amari
Appendix 2.1. INVENTORY OF FUNCTIONALITY CONCERNS WITH ADP IMPLEMENTATION
PRE-ADP FUNCTIONALITY
ADP FUNCTIONALITY
COMMENTS
None at this time – using
paper PAF
Payroll is in process of implementing a “fix”
to scan in all paper PAFs so they can be
accessed. Additional work hours.
Loads existing personnel data from system
Have to look up and write
existing data
Payroll says that ADP is working on a
replacement to ePAF that will be available
in spring 2010. Although this will be “no
cost” from ADP, it will cost the university in
people time.
Flexible approvals so PIs and other units
can approve, if necessary
Approvals collected on
paper
Much more time consuming.
Searchable (can find past ePAFs in
seconds)
Have to go through paper
PAFs to find past PAFs
Much more time consuming.
Trackable – audit trail, real time status
available to see where ePAF is in process
No way to tell where PAFs is
in processing
Paper PAFs being lost/misplaced in HR –
duplicate PAFs have to be produced,
resulting in people not being paid on time
or correctly
Able to verify position numbers and other
data for entry
Not able to verify data for
PAF which delays
processing
I. Hiring
A. Personnel Action Form
EPAF (electronic personnel action form),
used for hiring, term, changes in data,
budget amendment information
Work-study hires automatically routed to
Financial Aid for approval
Paper PAFs have to walked
through Financial Aid or, if
they go to HR without FA
approval, have to be sent to
FA and then back to HR
Etime requires work
schedule set up for nonexempt. Not being set up
when hired. No process for
delivery of this information
to Payroll.
Current process much more time
consuming even when routed correctly.
Loss of automation.
Delay of first paycheck
Greater potential for fraud
B. HIRE PROCESS
EPAF completed and approved
Hire packets completed by employee
Input of ePAF and packet by payroll
Paper PAF completed and
approved
Hire packets completed by
employee
Input of PAF and packet by
payroll
eTime requires work
schedule to be set up for
non-exempt employees
before they can use eTIME
eTime access has to be set
up for employee
Hire process (ePAF and hire packet
completed) to paycheck took about 2
weeks
Hire process (PAF and hire
packet completed) to
paycheck takes about 4-5
weeks minimum
Input of new employees has been slow
because of volume to employee hour ratio
no tool (PAF?) set up for informing Payroll
of employee's work schedule
Timecard and eTime access has been slow,
resulting in delay in employee receiving
first paycheck
Information regarding International
employee status is correct and viewable in
the system
In ADP, seems like
everybody is defaulted to
citizen status.
C. Graduate Assistant and PTI hire/pay process
New employee completes hire packet in
HR
Payroll inputs information
Hiring unit inputs graduate assistants and
PTIs in PPGRA screen (GSU product) of
system
New employee completes
hire packet in HR
Payroll inputs information
Hiring unit inputs graduate
assistants and PTIs in
PPGRA screen (GSU
producet) of system
On-line query of GA and PTI by
department and date range
No query or report at this
time.
Complete report given to colleges prior to
first payroll of each term
No query or report
functionality for payroll
distribution/review process
for current or back pay
(requested for PPGRA of
ADP 10/1/09)
There were problems rolling out the new
PPGRA for fall so there was a short turn
around time.
Payrolls could not be verified prior to pay
date to prevent over and underpayments.
Result – many people paid who shouldn’t
have been and additional person hours
needed to correct over and
underpayments.
Access issues – can’t access all people
outside unit who need to be input
Lengthy delays in getting access to PPGRA
for people needing to input payroll info
There were some system problems getting
entered pay info to produce checks.
D. Faculty hiring system (Manager Faculty
Events – MFE)
Multiple input screens to hire faculty
One page printout
If institutional codes or major codes need
to be added, they were added by GSU
Searchable
Input hire data in ADP and
then…
Multiple input screens to
hire
One page printout available
but not accessible to all who
need it
If institutional codes or
major codes need to be
added, they have to be
requested of Provost’s
Office who requests them of
Shared Services
Cannot use multiple search
criteria (all institutions, only
300 shown, no wild card)
Additional steps
Additional steps
Access issues
Additional steps adding time and effort
Inefficient
Less data captured (leaves, terminations,
etc. not input in ADP MFE
II. Timesheets and ROAs
A. Bi-weekly payrolls– student, temps, and
non-exempt staff
Timesheets completed, signed by
supervisor and PI, if grant
Students and temps clock in
and out in ADP. Timecard
approved by one designee
Since clocking/out in can be done from any
computer, additional paperwork to verify
clock in times must be done.
Time input into system between noon
Friday and noon Tuesday every other
week
Students being paid from different budgets
and/or areas had timesheet input made by
each area and specified to each
speedtype. These were approved by the
budget/hiring area individually.
Non-exempt employees log
in changes to regular
schedule
Designated eTime
supervisor approves time
between 5:15 p.m. on
Friday and 9:00 a.m. on
Monday every other week
Supervisor has to correct
timecards where missed
punches and incorrect time
off entries are made
Employees overpaid
(furloughs doubled,
correcting entries, payroll
fixes, differs from timecard)
causing confusion , extra
work, and audit issues
Etime requires work
schedule set up for nonexempt. Not being set up
when hired. No place on
PAF for this information.
If person has primary and
secondary hiring unit, only
the primary approver can
approve, not both.
Transfer speedtype input
not being done in timely
manner – paper timesheet
requiring a paper PAF to get
person paid. Transfers not
working in all cases.
Restrictive time period for unit staff having
to process timecards every other weekend
Extra workload
Payroll personnel working weekends and
long hours to meet deadlines
No approval for secondary budget hours.
People being paid being paid correctly and
from timecards that have not been
approved by employee or supervisor potential fraud
Payroll is adding 2 hour estimate for
"missed punches" on timecards of students
and temps - potential over and
underpayments
Students and staff can change timecard
after manager approves card. Also,
supervisor can change timecard without
employee approval.
Only one approver. No process for PI
approval if grant. Audit liability and more
open to fraud.
B. Exempt employees – Reports of Absence
Paper ROA due by 10th of month following
reported month
III. Access/Workflow
A. Access
Current month’s ROA must
be approved by employee
and eTime approver by 20th
of current month
Any changes from
submitted ROA must be
submitted on paper ROA,
listing all month’s absences
eTime approver may not be employee’s
supervisor.
Double work now.
Request form with signatures
Reported to be no process,
no approvals for access
Access reported to be non-systematic and
unorganized
Limited access but functional accessibility
for those with responsibilities
Access by all to some areas;
limited access to those with
responsibilities
Those with oversight responsibilities don't
have access and tools to do job
Stable environment
Screens change, access
changes from day to day
B. Workflow
Flexible workflow so all necessary
signatures could be documented
electronically (varies by PAF and budgets
involved).
Paper PAF "walked" through
to gather all necessary
signatures
new ePAF will need flexible workflow to
satisfy audit needs
1. Earnings Detail Report – to get info on
how much an individual has been paid and
how that payment was distributed – used
to analyze problems and correct
distributions
No report – in process
(requires digital certificate)
Reports were requested of ADP on 8/26/09
2. Leave balance query – to determine if
employee has sufficient leave prior to
approving leave.
Non-exempt employees
cannot input vacation or
sick leave on time cards if
they don’t have any
available
IV. Reports and Reporting
3. PPGRA report – to view all graduate
assistants’ and/or PTIs’ pay amounts and
distribution by department by period.
No report – in process
4. Review Paycheck – to view paycheck
information as soon as an employee’s
payroll has been processed.
No comparable info
available
5. Payroll reports for start of term
6. Work history
7. Demographic data
8. Termination input in MFE (see below)
and captured in system
need to be able to see all graduate
assistants and PTI by inputer, not by
department
No checks and balances
Limited work history data
transferred into ADP
Demographic information
for existing employees not
transferred. New faculty
demographics input during
MFE (see below) process
Termination of faculty info
is communicated by e-mail
to Provost’s Office and
Institutional Research
Incomplete data on GSU employees
GSU must report this data to BOR, state,
and federal agencies.
Duplication of effort
V. Intersystem Communication
A. Delivery of check info to employees -
EasyView (for both payroll and employee
reimbursements through Disbursements
ADP for payroll information
Moved from one system based on campus
ID and password to two systems with
different userids and passwords.
EasyView for employee
reimbursements through
Disbursements
Addition cost ($7800 maintenance fee) to
keep EasyView going.
B. Payroll to GL (financial system)
Download within days of a payroll
No payroll information in
financial system since
implementation of ADP
(8/11/09)
Georgia State personnel are working on it
At beginning of fiscal year, current fiscal
year payrolls that have passed and
adjustments were transferred after
previous fiscal year books were closed
No ADP to Spectrum data
transfers done to date
ADP issues with speedtypes, account codes
(not correct), etc.
Rest of fiscal year, payroll data transfers
done within 10 days of end of month or
less
Research Financial Services accountants
have had to estimate personnel costs
(manual work) for August and September
for reports. Will need to re-do when real
figures are available
Projects that closed in August and
September do not have personnel data to
view
Personnel Effort Reports (PERS) for
summer (data through August) delayed.
University is out of compliance.
Units have not been able to complete
August and September expenditure reviews
C. ADP to other systems
Automated interface between PeopleSoft
and Banner for Federal Workstudy student
compliance and management
Manual process
Currently 2 months behind in processing.
Georgia State may need to build own
interface.
IS&T reports 54 other interfaces need to be
automated.
ADP requires an older version of Java than
Banner requires, so computers have to
download correct version each time faculty
or staff switches system.
VI. Earnings Distribution
A. Changing personnel data (distribution,
salary, etc) –
EPAF completed and approved
Paper PAF completed and
approved
Input ePAF by payroll
Input PAF by payroll
Changes to ADP and
TimeCard have to be made
B. Adding new speedtypes to payroll system
Input of data has been slow because of
volume to employee hour ratio
ADP and timecard changes have been slow,
resulting in delay in employee receiving
correct amount charged to the correct
speedtypes. Prior period adjustments need
to be made to correct. Over payments and
underpayments have also resulted.
URSA requests Budgets (M. Renfroe) add
new speedtype
URSA requests Budgets (M.
Renfroe) add new
speedtype
Speedtype added to PeopleSoft
New speedtype requested
of Shared Services
Action being performed by outside agency,
no control – delays
C. Adjusting incorrect distributions on prior
period checks
ePAF completed and approved by
appropriate people
PAF completed and signed
by appropriate people
Corrections to distribution made in system
by college administrative staff or by
Budgets staff
PAF or copy sent to Budgets
for input
System is in the works. Initially all
adjustments will be done by Budgets.
When this system is operational, it will be
rolled out for college input.
Adjustments updated into payroll system
and financial system daily (usually)
No adjustments to ADP pay
checks have been made to
date.
Departments and PIs cannot see payroll
information. Reports that have been
provided as interim solution do not include
all checks for all people in division.
Furlough distributions that were distributed
incorrectly during September (at least 5
payrolls) will need to be adjusted by
personnel in Budgets.
VII. Other costs
A. Makeup checks
Generally 2 to 3 times a month
Checks produced in house
Visible in system in all reports
Since implementation 2
check runs per week
In house now. In future
ADP will produce make up
checks for a fee to the
university
Make up checks not in ADP
Cost to university in person hours
Cost to university in future fees from ADP
Reports are incomplete
B. Investments
Payrolls amounts debited Georgia State’s
bank account the day of payrolls
Payroll amounts are
transferred to ADP three
days prior to each payroll
Loss of interest to the university for those 3
days
Reduced staff, working long
hours and weekends to “put
out fires”
Result – Frustration and reduced ability to
do job. Personnel issues taking more of
time than they used to.
C. Personnel
Payroll, budgets, IT staff - fully staffed and
knowledgeable
Departmental staff – knowledgeable with
tools to answer questions
Faculty – able to get answers and do work
Departmental staff –
reduced numbers, fewer
days (furloughs), no tools to
answer questions
Faculty – no or confusing
answers
Appendix 2.2. REPORT FROM DEPARTMENT HR REPRESENTATIVE IN COLLEGE OF
ARTS AND SCIENCES (as e-mailed to the Subcommittee)
My first issue with the implementation of the ADP system is the timing, rolling it out with the fall
session. Fall is the busiest time for the university with processing payroll and hiring employees,
Human Resources was not prepared. There are so many new graduates, new student assistants
and new faculty on campus that HR should of hired additional resources instead of having current
employees burn themselves out by working weekend hours. Just anticipating the fall semester is
overwhelming for large departments because so much preparation must be handled.
2nd concern with the implementation was the training sessions that addressed all levels of
classifications. There should have been more email blasts university wide to explain the
conversion and what action needs to take place for employees. Not enough communication to
employees about time frame and deadlines for payroll. I attended several training sessions and
found that they should of been more hands on for employees to experience what the new system
would bring. To watch a video or instructor clicking on the module pieces explaining the
components was poorly executed. I'm not saying the instructors didn't display knowledge of the
system, they did, but the layout for the sessions were not user friendly as they could have been
for employees.
#2, PeopleSoft, was a functional program that was working, for me at least. When it was shut
down for the conversion and no payroll was being processed it opened a huge black hole for
error. Again, HR should of hired temporary employees to handle the keying of all new employees
hiring packets so payroll wouldn't be impacted by a major transition. I had approximately 10 - 15
graduates complete hiring packets between June 30th and July 10th with an August start date
not receive pay in September. Reasons range from, HR lost hiring packet, not in PPGRA, not
entered until after the conversion or deadline was missed because the original conversion date
was for July. Ultimately, shutting down PS should have been done so that it really didn't impact
the daily function of the HR area.
#3, Electronic Personal Action Form (PAF), in PeopleSoft we were able to utilize the ePAF process
which was an awesome tool for tracking paperwork that was being sent to HR. The system
processed hiring, terminations and payroll changes in a timely fashion. HR area was able to
connect PAF with hiring packet immediately and get things processed for the new hire. Since the
conversion, we have reverted back to the paper process which can take up to 5 - 7 business days
to process sometimes longer and then connecting the paperer PAF with hiring packet. The ADP
system does not have an ePAF system causing a delay in when an HR rep can see their new hire
in the system. This is a major problem because in order to register or add the eTime Enterprise
portal to your profile you need your employee ID. So since the paper PAF has caused a delay, it
can not connect with the hiring packet leaving new hires not knowing when to anticipate their
first check. For students that are required to clock in and out,this is a problem, they must
complete a paper time sheet and submit it to Payroll and wait to see when they will get paid.
There is no system put in place for the hiring manager to know when their new employee is in
the system to advise when the new employee can utilize the ADP system to clock in or clock out.
This has caused a constant routine of following up on where PAF's are in the process. So ADP
needs an electric PAF tool created if we are to continue to use this portal. There has been talks of
that happening but it has become imperative.
#4, The migration of data from PeopleSoft to ADP. In the beginning we were told to make sure
to clean up our departments list of employees. Process any terminations for employees that
shouldn't be in the system so the ADP system will be fresh with accurate data. I processed
several terminating ePAF's for employees and they still migrated over to ADP as active. I was told
there was a glitch in the system that carried some terminated people over to the new system. I
had to re-submit using the paper PAF.
#5, ADP prorating glitch. Graduate Assistants that begin their assistantship in August should
receive a prorated amount for a 2 week period (11 days). So their payroll that is entered into
PPGRA is already the prorated amount but according to officials ADP has a built in prorate
system. For example, we had GA's start 8/17/09, so at the end of August they should of received
a check for say $250, most only received $125 because it wasn't public information that the ADP
system will prorate the amount. This caused so many problems for graduates that had relocated
from other countries, cities or GA areas. We understand there will be system glitches but if this
portal was build specifically for GSU then we should of known of this built in proration system.
#6, the Report of Absence process. In ADP it is called a time sheet, this has confused a lot of
employees as well because it should have been renamed for exempt employees. I've
communicated to my department that ROA's should now be submitted through this tool but I
don't recall them emphasizing it in training.
#7, Handling discrepancies, in the past if an employee had problems with their payroll I was able
to pull up pay statements in PeopleSoft and assist. Presently with the ADP system, I'm not able
to do so because it is a self service module and the employee can see more information than
they could before on their easy view. I feel HR representatives should still have this access
because some employees are having difficult registering with ADP, discrepancies can be handled
at the department level and we can check and balance with departmental budget. Presently I
contact COAS to assist with printing out Enterprise screen prints of payroll for any graduate
payroll issues. This is not effective, if a graduate comes in with a problem I would like to be able
to assist them immediately. It is poor customer service for me to tell them to go to HR/payroll
there isn't anything I can do as their HR representative. HR/payroll then in turns refers them to
come back to me but I don't have the tools in ADP to view their payroll. So having the same
access that department HR representative had with PeopleSoft would assist in functioning.
#8, Payroll transfers. In order to process payroll transfers there was a report called "Detail
Earnings Query" in the PeopleSoft system that allowed you to print out payroll for an individual
and what speedtype. ADP does not have this query so payroll transfers can not be done. This
affects my Business Manager workflow when she must submit Budget Amendments to the
college. I have grants that are being charged but they have closed and I can't do a payroll to
transfer the distribution without this query. It is my understanding that it is being worked on but
we've been hearing that since the beginning of August.
#9 25 -30 employees were misidentified as reporting to someone in the COAS Dean's Office.
I'm sure there are more glitches that have not occurred for other users of the new ADP system.
In a nutshell PeopleSoft was functioning and things were getting done. HR is trying to maintain
but there is so much demand on them processing paperwork that it isn't functioning efficiently.
There are so many other processes in place that are broke and need repairing and the HR payroll
system wasn't one of them. I've encountered so many frustrated people I do hope this is
resolved sooner than later. I hope this assist you compile your report.
Appendix 2.3. File Transfer Processes Requiring Automation Under ADP
Source
Process Name
File Name
In/Out Bound
Frequency
Target Customer
File Name
ADP/Shared Services
Direct Bill (Receivables)
DirectBillMMDDYYYY.csv
epoh001_xxx{time}.csv where xxx
is company
IN
Monthly
Spectrum Plus
IN
Every 3 Hrs
Spectrum Plus
DirectBillMMDDYYYY.csv
epoh001_xxx{time}.csv where xxx
is company
epop046_b.txt
gl_xxx_090_yyyymmdd_{time}.txt
Example
gl_y71_090_20090820_121342.txt
IN
Monthly
Spectrum Plus
IN
As needed
Spectrum Plus
Spectrum Plus
ADP/Shared Services
EPOH001 - Person Registry Feed
ADP/Shared Services
EPOP046-LOA - Leave of absense/Retiree Billing
ADP/Shared Services
EPGLX003- Payroll To GL
epop046_b.txt
gl_xxx_090_yyyymmdd_{time}.txt
Example
gl_y71_090_20090820_121342.txt
ADP/Shared Services
Budget Prep Inbound
IN
Yearly
Spectrum Plus
Budget/Salary Load
OUT
Yearly
ADP/Shared Services
Spectrum Plus
epip009 - Budget Validation - Account String Validation
epip009.csv
OUT
Daily
ADP/Shared Services
epip009.csv
Spectrum Plus
Epip002 - Department and Project Validation
epip002_1.txt and epip002_2.txt
OUT
Daily
ADP/Shared Services
epip002_1.txt and epip002_2.txt
Spectrum Plus
epih001 - Badge # (Panther # update process)
epih001.txt
OUT
Daily
ADP/Shared Services
epih001.txt
PERSON REGISTRY
epih002 - Phone and Email from Person Registry
epih002.txt
OUT
Daily
ADP/Shared Services
epih002.txt
ADP/Shared Services
EPOH011 - List of Users
USERSTEMP.CSV
IN
As needed
PERS
USERSTEMP.CSV
ADP/Shared Services
EPOH005 - Payroll Data
PAYROLL.CSV
IN
As needed
PERS
PAYROLL.CSV
ADP/Shared Services
EPOH006 - Payroll Adjustment
PAYROLL_RCT.CSV
IN
As needed
PERS
PAYROLL_RCT.CSV
ADP/Shared Services
epop006.txt
epoh008_01.csv
IN
As needed
BANNER
ADP/Shared Services
Epop006 - Financial Aid
epoh008_01.csv/Company Table Data
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epop006.txt
epoh008_01.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_02.csv/Location Table Data
epoh008_02.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_02.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_03.csv/Department Table Data
epoh008_03.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_03.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_04.csv/Country Table Data
epoh008_04.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_04.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_05.csv/Action Reason Table Data
epoh008_05.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_05.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_06.csv/Paygroup Table Data
epoh008_06.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_06.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_07.csv/Employee Type Table Data
epoh008_07.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_07.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_08.csv/Account Code Table Data
epoh008_08.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_08.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_09.csv/Jobcode Table Data
epoh008_09.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_09.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_10.csv/Position Table Data
epoh008_10.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_10.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_11.csv/Personal Data
epoh008_11.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_11.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_12.csv/Job
epoh008_12.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_12.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_13.csv/Employment
epoh008_13.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_13.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_14.csv/Telephone Number
epoh008_14.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_14.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_15.csv/Add’l Pay Data
epoh008_15.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_15.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_16.csv/Pay Earnings
epoh008_16.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_16.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_17.csv/Major Code
epoh008_17.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_17.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_18.csv/School Code
epoh008_18.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_19.csv/MFE Event Type
epoh008_19.csv
DS&S
epoh008_18.csv
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_19.csv
IN
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_20.csv/MFE Contract Type
epoh008_20.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_21.csv/MFE Event Review Type
epoh008_21.csv
epoh008_20.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_21.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_22.csv/Skills Table Data
epoh008_22.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_23.csv/Language Table Data
epoh008_23.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_22.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_24.csv/License Table Data
epoh008_24.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_23.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_25.csv/Education
epoh008_25.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_24.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_26.csv/MFE Data
epoh008_26.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_25.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_26.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_27.csv/MFE Review
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_28.csv/MFE Add’l Pay
epoh008_27.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_27.csv
epoh008_28.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_28.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_29.csv/MFE Tenure
epoh008_29.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_29.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_30.csv/Skills
epoh008_30.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_30.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_31.csv/Language
epoh008_31.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_31.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_32.csv/Honors and Awards
epoh008_32.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_32.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_33.csv/License
epoh008_33.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_33.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_34.csv/PPGRA
epoh008_34.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_34.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_35.csv/Security Tree
epoh008_35.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_35.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_36.csv/Xlattable
epoh008_36.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_36.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_37.csv/PS HR Emplid
epoh008_37.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_37.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_38.csv/Panther ID
epoh008_38.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_38.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_39.csv/Education Table Data
epoh008_39.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_39.csv
ADP/Shared Services
epoh008_40.csv/NRS SSN
epoh008_40.csv
IN
Nightly
DS&S
epoh008_40.csv
IN
Nightly