HR Metrics Data Definition Meeting Minutes – 3/14/2012

Attendees:   Angela Arroyo (Law), Rana Glasgal (Human Resources), Matt Hoying (Data Governance), Larry Niemeyer (Humanities and Sciences), Martha Wood (Business Affairs)

We believe we have gotten all known, necessary approval for the PeopleSoft JRC:PRO Request for Change (RFC).  We will now work with University HR (UHR) to create a training and rollout plan.  This may include the creation of a Job Aid, a presentation at the next HUG or HRM meeting and/or communication through one of the available mailing lists.  If you have any ideas about other methods or opportunities to communicate this change, please bring it to the next meeting so it can be included in the training plan.

Related to the RFC, Larry will reach out to Vicky for details on the frequency that Job Aids are updated and find out who will be responsible for making the technical update and how long that will take.  Rana will talk with Suzanne Ferris regarding communicating the use of the new code combination during the HRM meeting and Steve in the HR Transaction COE.   Rana is already scheduled on the April HRM meeting and Matt may be invited (time permitting) to discuss the HR Data Team’s work.

Phase II of the HR Metrics dashboard will include row-level security and information on salary and grade.  There were some concerns as to whether strict limitations on what population could be viewed would adequately support current business processes.  In the business requirements phase, the team will discuss what characteristics of the data set (breadth, detail, history) are necessary to support specific business processes as well as which user groups need these rights.

Currently, HRMs’ staff members are being given rights to the dashboard on a case by case basis.  If there are members of your organization that need rights to the HR Metrics dashboard for a specific purpose, please reach out for Rana to discuss getting them rights.

We are still looking for additional information on the following terms.  During the meeting a few more questions about Talent Source came up.  Larry will try and chase down the answers to the open issues prior to the next meeting.  Additionally, we will request that the help file contains links to internal page anchors on its next update for clarity.

• Research/Administration: There were some concerns about the way that Research and Administration FTE/Job Count are calculated on the main page of the dashboard using Expenditure Type.  By next week, we’ll have a bit more detail on these.
• Job FTE – The number on the dashboard looked a bit lower than expected.  Before a definition is finalized, the group would like to know how it is currently calculated on the dashboard.  These values may be directly from the PeopleSoft field of the same name, but please consider what are the actual business definitions of Job FTE and Position FTE.
• Temporary/Casual Headcount – As the group understood it, the HR Metrics Dashboard only includes Benefits-Eligible Employees.  This term should not be relevant to the Dashboard currently.  If one filters the Class Indicator by “Casual” or “Temporary,” a single record is returned.  (The record also shows a job family of “Contingent.”)  Can this be explained?  Larry will find out the source of this record.
• Talent Source – What should the numerator of talent source include?  This question should be answered both from a business term perspective (e.g. “University Employee Movement” and “Promotions”) as well as from a technical stand point (e.g. JRC:JRC, XFR:LAT, XFR:MOV, DTA:RLS, XFR:PRO, JRC:PRO, JRC:ZJC).  Currently, this value appears to be only Promotions/Hires on the Overview page (data hidden on purpose):

But appears to be calculated using Reclassifications (agreeing with the current Help file definition) on the Workforce Activity Details page:

… which seems to include reclassifications as well.  Are there any other Action:Reasons that should go into this calculation?  Should DTA:RLS be included or is it always a code that is used in conjunction with one of the other employee movement codes?  Should POS:OWN be included and if not, how should the definition be written to explicitly exclude it?

• Please review University Employee Movement once again as there were some questions about the current definition brought up in the meeting (Specifically about whether it requires defined scope).
• Please review Terminations.  While looking to see if the formulas for Flow matched between the Overview page and the Workforce Activity Details page, it appears that the Terminations should include TWB as well as TER.  This is an example of why definitions usually use only business language and separate the derivation (or formula for calculation) from the business definition.

The week after we’ve finalized our last terms, we’ll have a meeting to discuss the team going forward and the transition to more active stewardship.  This will be a very interesting meeting and important in establishing sustainable data governance at Stanford.  Please try and make it to this meeting (probably in two weeks (around 3/29/2012) and extend the invitation to anyone else that you believe may be interested.  This meeting may be rescheduled for a different date and time to ensure the highest level of participation possible.