Background

Within the Time and Labor module, there is an option to set up groups from which employees can select from in order to parse out their time.  An example of this is a department that has several chartfields from which they would like time diverted upon entry.  In Time and Labor there is an option to assign a Taskgroup to an employee via Time Reporter Data.  Within that Taskgroup the employee is allowed to select from the Task Profiles ID’s assigned to that Taskgroup.  In the Task Profile ID set up there is a chartfield assigned.  This means that when the employee is entering their time, rather than having to remember the chartfield for that task, they can select from their particular assigned list of Task Profile ID’s.  This takes the burden of chartfiled overrides or adjusting journal entries off of the end process and puts it at the employee level.  Prior to the Labor Cost Distribution (LCD) process, these Task Profile ID selections are run through the CSU TL Earnings Distribution process (CSUTL09A) in order to appropriately allocate the hours.

Issue

Currently Sonoma State University and California State University, Fullerton are the main users of Taskgroups and Taskprofile ID’s.  With the campuses moving to a shared database with CHRS, this could create duplicate or commonly named uses of Taskgroups or Taskprofile ID’s.  An example would be a Taskgroup named:  Parking_SA for Parking-Student Assistant and within that Taskgroup, the Task Profile ID’s of PRKBOOTHSA for Parking – Booth Stu Asst.  With more campuses possibly utilizing this functionality it could create confusion if there are no campus identifiers.  This could lead a campus to accidentally assign another campuses Taskgroup to a student.  When LCD is run, that could allocate funds incorrectly or cause errors in processing LCD.

Analysis

The options would be to:

1. Not allow the use of the Taskgroup or Taskprofile functionality within Time and Labor
2. Only allow the campuses who are currently utilizing Taskgroups and Taskprofile functionality to continue using the functionality
3. Assign campus identifiers to the Taskgroups and Taskprofiles in order to differentiate between the campuses

Recommendations

Option #3 - Assign campus identifiers to the Taskgroups and Taskprofiles in order to differentiate between the campuses.
Going forward for any campuses who set up new Taskgroups or Taskprofiles, use the following list of campus identifiers and use the two character abbreviation in the first two character fields. For the campuses that are currently utilizing the functionality, they will be required to implement new task profiles using the new naming convention ahead of being converted to CHRS.  The old task profiles will need to be inactivated.

Considerations

This would be a consideration for the campuses currently utilizing the Taskgroups and the Taskprofile ID’s to create new naming conventions that are meaningful and understood by those utilizing the functionality.  There would be a training impact.

Cross-Functional Impacts (Positive / Negative)

None.

CHANGE IMPACT

To be filled out by BSA (from Change Impact Tracking log):

BSA – Please answer the following:

1. Areas of potential change resistance to proposed HR process / policy changes?

   Campuses who currently use taskgroups & task profiles may be challenged to make the required updates. The naming conventions used by these campuses may not have the required flexibility to append the campus indicator.

2. Potential resource needs in order to plan, engage, prepare, and/or deploy the change?

   Campuses will need resources to communicate the change to the naming convention.  This resource could develop a standard communication template which the campuses would then complete with the necessary details.

3. Associated costs relative to the scope of the change to requirements requested?

   Low/None – there are less than 5 campuses who seem to currently use task profiles with any regularity.

4. Training needs or if a straightforward change?

   As this is just a change to the naming convention, the need for training should be non-existent.

5. Implication on any other related process / functions?

   No other processes or functions should be impacted by this.

6. Union impact? Any additional comments (from Labor rep)?

   Maybe.

   To the degree that a campus decides to expand their current usage, or start using Taskgroups and Task Profile ID’s for the first time, there may be a legal obligation to meet and confer with impacted unions. This will need to be assessed on an individual basis. Such campuses should consult with Systemwide Labor Relations well in advance of any implementation.

REVISION CONTROL

Revision History

Review/Approval History

End of Article