Summary: 8/5/02 PBB rev’d 8/19/02
Background
The UDFS Communications/training team held eight focus groups with campus users of financial information to address the following questions:
1.
What tools
do you use?
There were four focus groups
for “high-level users,” with a total of 30 participants, and four focus groups
for “routine-level users,” with a total of 40 participants. The participants were identified by Comm Team
members. The “high-level” users were
people doing significant analysis, ad-hoc reporting, and/or projections from
the financial information. The
“routine-level users” were people doing more routine tasks.
The high-level users focus
groups were held on July 31, 2002; the routine level user groups were held on
August 1. The four groups for each day
were made up of people from similar units at the university; that is:
In addition to the invited
participants, each group had 3-4 members of the communication team
attending: one as a leader, and the
others as scribes.
People relied on tools that
include data warehouse, UD Check, GA Query, paper statements, shadow data
(meaning that people RE-ENTER data that is elsewhere available), complimentary
data (meaning people build tables of data that is NOT elsewhere available to
them, and use this in conjunction with other financial information), and in a
few cases, departmental accounting.
As expected,
more-sophisticated users made greater use of data warehouse, complimentary data
and UD Check; less-sophisticated users were more likely to rely on paper
statements, GA-Query lookups, and shadow data.
Major points brought out in
these groups were:
Needs:
Barriers to using financial
information more effectively:
· Sometimes need increased
level of granularity of data, e.g. cash transmittal forms: multiple cash transmittals show up as one
transaction in current system. This
takes hours to disaggregate.
· Multiple systems (and lack
of access to some) mean that people sometimes have to call others for
additional information – they are taking someone else’s time; adjusting to
someone else’s schedule – they’d like to have access to get that info
themselves. Even when they get the
data, sometimes they need to reenter it.
· Sometimes because they
aren’t supposed to see salaries and access can’t be restricted by object code
(or object code range).
· Sometimes because account is
under a different MINS code (grants).
Training Dos and Don’ts
(Recommendations to our own team):
Notes from all the sessions
are attached in the appendix.
1. Extremely important to MANY people to be able to link their own tables to PS tables, for ad-hoc and other reporting. This may argue in favor of a data warehouse (can users easily link to PS tables any other way?). [Note: subsequent discussion in report team indicates that there are other ways that MAY be more cost effective than data warehousing.]
2. Extremely important to almost as many people to retain key functionality of UD Check: ability to add data to “live” rows of data. Data warehousing will also make this possible – tables in “new” data warehouse could be used w/ UD Check as current data warehouse tables are. Modifications will be needed but it is feasible. [Again, per subsequent discussion w/ Report Team, different means to retain this functionality will be explored.]
3. Continue to have views similar to what is in GA Query.
4. People need ready access to balances.
5. Address issue of encumbrances – P.O. encumbrances and salary/benefits. HR no longer encumbers, but could this be built in, as a public query, esp. in light of the labor allocation module? (That is, salary data is stored for everyone someplace other than in PS HR. Can we access it to use for a public query? With the addition of fiscal/academic contract field, it seems so.)
NOTES FROM ALL FOCUS GROUPS
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 were
“high-level users”
2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 were
“routine-level users”
July
31, 1:30-3 PM; Hullihen Board Room
List of Attendees
Linda
Flamer (Civil Eng), Malinda Yarnell (CMS), Robin Harbaugh (CDS in CHEP), Deb
Nelson (Eng), Jackie Brown (could not attend), Katie Hutton (ANR)
Dave
McCarren (leader), Chris Murphy (scribe), Peggy Bottorff (scribe)
Click
on a person to see how they are actually being paid? SARs have this capability that could be shared.
Most
use UD Check to check expenditures and real balances and to get information
for JVs, i.e., cut and paste into JV.
User-defined fields, e.g. tagging travel for professor X or Y, etc are useful,
but there are month-end problems, transactions sometimes are duplicated, and
OverHead is not calculated the way
needed for some grants. One Department checks this data for 12 accounts against
GA-PRD everyday. For Federal reporting, one must report on every dollar of
reporting so UD Check needs to be able to tag multiple dimensions; by project;
by federal fiscal year October 1 – September 30, for that federal fiscal year.
Most
use GA-Query (GA-PRD) if data warehouse is down or if they want to verify data
warehouse data, present report of expenditures, and to do queries. Most use Electronic Forms, for JVs,
S-contracts.
Paper
statements are generally used to verify, match up with back-up or just file as
reference if needed. There was some impression that paper statements are more
complete than on warehouse, GA-PRD.
Departmental
Accounting is used by few departments (academic departments with many and
varied grants) but those who do, use it heavily to encumber fringe, overhead,
large obligations.
For
some departments Shadow Systems have been necessary, particularly to track
information for grants since they can’t get breakdown of budgets fine enough
from UD systems for audit needs. Shrek is Engineering database that pulls
information in the college together so they can access departmental information
particularly necessary for grants reporting. An example, one has their own
accounts in the program and have 5 large subcontractors who use the system
broken down by administrative and non-administrative costs. They go through
invoices and load into spreadsheet for each agency. PRO cards are used heavily
– all appear as 498 charges, but they must get the information off paper
statements to see if it should be 456 OC and must recategorize all expenses
into new categories (user-defined
field application). DHSS requires these different categories – what is
allowed and what isn’t allowed.
Grants
Management system written by OVPR but not maintained (?) is used by some but
there is concern that GMS data is not always right. GMS is used for processing
proposals and getting data including getting names of P.I.s and long title, a
good feature. GMS is available separately or on the data warehouse. There was request to combine GMS with sea
grant program to include financial information, projects by PI. They don’t want
to rebuild GMS and add associated DARPA requires information by task. They use
UD CHECK to tag items by task. They
don’t want to lose old sea grant information which currently goes back to 1976
or so.
No
one in this group is currently using MS
Query or Supernatural. Ag had asked but
couldn’t be secured by MINS at a college level so they couldn’t get
Supernatural.
To make decisions based on financial information, some check their Excel
spreadsheets monthly against the paper statements. UDCheck may not be up or may
not be right (glitchy); encumbrances for salary, fringe and overhead are
included in projected balances. One thinks fringes are NOT encumbered on UD
Check. She uses both UD-Check and data warehouse, then builds encumbrances in
on an excel spreadsheet. It was noted
that DA would be used since encumbrances are calculated but couldn’t rely on GA at any given time in the
month. One department uses DA to give
“balance as of today” thinking it is
more accurate that GA but they are keying in the information. They estimate PRO card info, reconcile
daily,then use paper statements at end of month to verify. This takes time to load expenditures into
their shadow system. Canned reports in
DA broken down by the right things (by agency etc.) would be useful.
For projecting budgets, most use excel
spreadsheets and apply percentages etc.; use past reports; apply burn rate.
Most
use a combination of tools and their own either shadow system (re-key ) or
download GA data and then add departmental data , mainly because they either do
not trust just one to get correct and timely data. Generally they trust GA statements but don’t always trust what
they get in UD Check. Departmental
administrators don’t always have access to things that OVPR has e.g. SARs;
Engineering built their own system, Shrek, to get that info because OVPR won’t
give them access to what OVPR has.
Departmental Accounting system not widely used due to complexity and
limitations although those who do
Some
group members attended General Accounting training sessions when GA tools first
went on-line. Most learned from a
knowledgeable colleague, some one-on-one, some in college-specific
workshops. All learned most when
actually doing, with much trial and error. Some used GA and OVPR websites and
printed handouts. Some took classes in
MS Access and Data Warehouse but most important was to have a resource person
that is knowledgeable about not only the tools but also the data and the
college’s needs to apply the tools effectively. Those who had a knowledgeable resource person and are technically
savvy themselves felt they got what they needed within the reliability
constraints of the tools themselves. Those who don’t have such a resource
person feel that they do not use the tools to full potential.
What
barriers were there to using and/or benefiting from the tool(s)?
Some would like better monthly views from UD Check. They like DA encumbrance capability. Pay
posted one day late e.g. 7/31 pay won’t show up until 8/1. A problem with the way PRO card charges are
post: Since you can’t ever take a
charge on a federal account unless it is appropriate, it should never
automatically go to the federal account so it needs to be checked manually
now. There is confusion because you see
the 498 on, off and on again (when moved off of 498). UD Check filters that out and cancels out matching debits and
credits.
It
was requested to be able to see object
code and how much fringe is charged on it. Also security clearance is a problem
now since you can’t give security to departments esp. with SARs – grad students
working for other departments.
Another
requests that when you type in account code to have title automatically load
like electronic JVs do. It would also help to have JVs automatically route (at
least copy) to account administrator of every account.
Generally,
most would like an overview of what is happening, then have a hands-on practice
with dummy data that is meaningful to
them to play with. Everyone
likes handouts with reference lists for each process, e.g. how to do a JV. It should also be on-line so it can be
updated and accurate when changes occur.
Self-paced on-line exercises would be valuable.
How
far in front of the implementation would you want to be trained? It would be
nice to have CD or on-line that you can re-do whenever you need to. All want good exposure at least a month
ahead of transition so they can plan for it . They need to know how their processing
will change. Once they need to use the live data, they need an accessible help
reference.
KEEP
IN TOUCH WITH THIS FOCUS GROUP! THEY
WANT TO STAY IN TOUCH
Attendees: Nancy Proctor, Cathy Skelley, Dick Albright, Jan Burns, Toni
Trainor, Betsy Reigle, Cindy Waksmonski
Team
Members Present: Amy Taylor, Ellen Lepine, Lisa
Huber, Ginger Knutsen
What
tools do you use?
All group members use GA-PRD, paper statements, paper and electronic forms, and BTA. All use shadow systems. Most move data to Excel spreadsheets from MVS, GA, data warehouse, statements or UDCheck.
About
half use GMS, two use data warehouse, and one uses UDCheck.
No one uses Block Budget Report or Institutional Research Reports. No one uses Supernatural.
What
do you use these tools for? How do you
use these tools?
All present used these tools for doing ad-hoc reports, projecting budgets, and financial planning.
Other
uses included:
sharing information with supervisors
preparing summary reports for faculty
completing grant/agency reports in different formats
checking budgets and balances
checking that charges appear on correct accounts
Most
tools are used daily.
Why
do you use these particular tools?
To re-categorize
items.
To
provide different detail for different people.
To
respond to inquiries.
To
encumber salaries, overhead, and certain expenses.
For
planning purposes.
How
did you learn to use the tools?
All
group members felt much of what they learned was self-taught.
Most
used an informal network of colleagues for support.
Several
took Access classes and some worked with Chris Cook for UDCheck training.
Instruction was provided for both MVS and GMS when the programs were first initiated. However there were never any follow-up classes nor classes for persons new to the university.
What
barriers were there to using and/or benefiting from the tools?
The
embarrassment of asking for help and admitting ignorance.
Lack
of self-help guides on the web or hardcopy.
No
regular classes available on using the systems.
Time
constraints.
Institutional
knowledge not organized and disseminated.
No
follow-up training.
The experience with the PeopleSoft HR product will be a barrier in the implementation of PeopleSoft financials.
What
are your main concerns with learning/using new financial tools?
No
time for new classes in already busy days.
Concern
about supervisor support for the time required to learn to use new tools.
The
need for more classes ( 1 hour/week for several weeks, rather than 1 half-day
class).
The
need for access to resources and knowledgeable people.
Lots of help screens, self-tutorials, data dictionary, user groups, and cheat sheets are needed.
Other
relevant comments:
Provide
training when product is ready to use, not months before.
Train
“local” trainers that units can turn to for support.
Provide
hardcopy to take back to work site for reference.
Require
thorough testing before financial system is released.
Provide
well-designed user-friendly screens with pop-up menus wherever possible.
Provide
long-term follow-up training.
Participants would like to see samples of the product ahead of time - sort of mental preparedness.
The
suggestion was also made to use Ritchie Holland as a training resource.
1.3
PS Financials Comm/Training Focus Group Meeting –
Group 3, 7/31/02
Present were:
Bill Fitzpatrick
Ruth Tauber
Sue Koski
Marsha Lockard
Clarie Northam
Chris Cook
Nancy Allinger
Gail Tentor
Missy Sarver
Charlene Mylin
Yvonne Simpson
Data warehouse use
Ovpr data for closeouts and sar generation (marsha)
Audit data, specific transaction sets for other units.
Can span periods beyond single year.
Learned via access classes. GA tips sheet and GA done training materials. Must verify results to insure they’re
correct before distributing them.
Gail - does own queries, standard reports, and moves
data to Lotus. Has taught others to use
data warehouse.
Missy uses mostly queries written a while back. Has taken IT Warehouse course and was
pleased with it.
Sources that are depended on: Marsha - supernatural for large reports on;
high-speed printer as well as sn work that Van programmed.
Paper statements - Nancy uses them as a reminder for
tasks that need to be done regularly.
UDCheck - none
Shadow systems defined as something within unit that
does accounting where data is reentered.
Marsha has 3-4 accounts which require detailed
analysis for KPMG reports.
Conferences keeps excel file on cash transmittals to
retain records. New cash system needs
to carry more detail. Event business
mgt system is booking/billing system for whole operation.
Use tools for...
Projecting budgets (Mylin) tracks all accts in IT
almost monthly.
Checking of statements for what? Transactions from whom, reconcile to data
she has (missy).
Dept Accounting - some in IT still reconcile indv
transactions to it.
Why, what alternative would you like:
Vs paper statements- ok is alternative provide same or
more.
GA-PRD with a way to id and work with defined periods
(quarter, etc) (like Dwarehouse could do but more difficult.
How will new system be accepted: hope it's not like HR!!!.
May feel like a few steps backward at first.
May be important to let people know that financials is
a separate web based product.
Beyond PR issues for PSoft, what is best
approach: Sell what it can do for
them. How it can export data to
spreadsheets without rekeying. Driven
by users based on what they have to do.
In person classes, on-line self paced training, need
to address wide span of user needs.
Biggest concern:
Public Relations!!!
How long will legacy systems and data available during
transition to aid the comfort level during the changeover.
How about overview training and then functional
training?
Some interest in training CD’s or videos being made
available for self paced, individual training.
Each unit will need reference people to support their
unit. Make sure trainers and support
folks are good communicators, can relay the information and are well versed on
the subject. Allocate sufficient time
for trainers to learn their stuff. Also
allocate enough time for new users to learn.
Don't make promises that you can't keep.
User groups of like users should be encouraged
(focused enough to encourage participation).
1.4
from Eileen Prazniak
7/31/01
Meeting
Notes
Leader: Paul Anderson
Scribes: Eileen Prazniak
Steve Grasson
Linda Somers
Attendees: Nancy Potts Al
Fanjoy Bob
Rieman
Robin Brown Dina
Giambi Doris Miklitz
Maggie Ferris Rachel
Strickland Chuck Shermeyer
Overall
Summary: The group is adept at using the University’s
existing tools to perform job functions related to financial reporting. Most were satisfied with current tools to
include data warehouse and MVS. There
were some concerns expressed about PSoft due to the diminished ability to
access personnel information in the aggregate from the PSoft HR module. It was asked whether PSoft client would be
directly available to users on the desktop or a University written interface—an
important issue for these users due to their need to manipulate aggregate
data. They also reported that the HR
web front was slow and cumbersome, ie, nine screens to change an employee
JED. They also didn’t like the way they
had to scroll up and down on the web pages to see what they had completed on
the form. Other concerns expressed
included anticipated work disruption due to PSoft upgrades; the anticipated
changes in the chart of accounts; limitation for joins in tables when using
query feature of PSoft; adequacy of hardware/software for desktop utilization;
conversion plan, ie, running parallel systems until PSoft was successfully
implemented; subsystem interaction with PSoft Financials, ie, contract and
grants, accounts payable, purchasing.
The group felt strongly about communication and keeping the end-users
involved which was very apparent in the 100% attendance rate of the focus
meeting.
1)
What
financial information resources do you use (MVS, data warehouse, paper
statements, others?)?
The data warehouse was the first resource suggested
by the group and the majority uses it.
Quite a few use access reports; one user did not understand what some
fields represented; one user did not know what exactly the data warehouse is.
The majority used MVS
The majority of the group used paper statements.
There were only a couple (three) of supernatural
users who create their own reports.
There were no UDCheck users in this group.
There was one user of Departmental Accounting
system.
All used EZ forms.
Other forms used included BER—Business Expense
Report and RFC—Request for Check housed in the Accounts Payable Web Page.
2)
Why
do you use these resources?
The data warehouse is preferred because of the
historical data available. The ability
to create reports with data that the user can select is key, such as time
ranges and object code preferences.
MVS users were satisfied with the views and the
ability to drill down to transaction detail.
One user did not like MVS because of the timing differences between
recognition in their system and MVS—this user tied into information in MVS at
the beginning of the year and then again and the end. One user who was not comfortable with the data warehouse would
take data from MVS and drop into excel.
Paper statements were used to track
transactions. Another user felt they
were cumbersome and used data warehouse to create reports containing the
statement data.
3)
How
you use them?
What do you do with the information?
Primarily for ad hoc reporting; budget projection
and reconciling purposes were also main uses for the financial reporting tools.
What are the systems with which you interact?
BTA – Budget Turn Around; Block Budget; Credit Card
Reconciling program; SIS -- Student Information System; Shadow systems for
reconciling purposes.
4)
How
did you learn these resources?
Mainly self-taught after some introductory course
and/or material review.
5)
What
barriers did you find in using or benefiting from these resources?
The data used in the Microsoft access and
supernatural courses is not representative of the University data, therefore it
is difficult to apply course concepts.
MVS navigation information for user is not well
documented.
There is a lack of information available for using
data warehouse.
Self-instruction is time consuming.
Someone reminded us to keep ID system (AT&T –
formerly Harco) in mind.
6)
Are
there other things that would be helpful to implementing PSoft Financials?
The group reacted to this question most
enthusiastically. All felt that a
combination of training aids would be best.
People should be able to use the kind of learning tools that work best
for them. Some suggestions
included:
Help
desk (or e-mail box) for PSoft questions;
Merge IT Help Desk with a PS Financials Help Desk so
that a determination could be made if a problem was due to user or a
software/hardware glitch.
Availability
of meaningful data in training environments;
Good
documentation for system use, ie, user manuals, reference guides;
User
group meetings (within departments);
CITA
expertise in PSoft;
Train
in the same version that we will use when we go live;
Help
Screens;
and
keep in touch with end users to let them know where project is going.
Group
2.1
Team
Leader: Chris Cook
Scribes: Anna Bloch and Steve Grasson
Tools
Used:
Group
2.2
Focus
Group 2
8/01/02
Meeting
Notes
Leader: Amy Taylor
Scribes: Linda Somers
Eileen
Prazniak
Ruth
Tauber
Dave
McCarren
Attendees: Susan Reeser Robin
Buccos Dorie
Galloway
Mary
Ann Brown Marie Perrone Joanne
Burchard
Linda
Russell Margie Cox Cindy Bendler
7)
What
financial information tools do you currently use?
All of the members of the group use paper forms and
GA Query.
One person has used UD Check on occasion.
One person used Data Warehouse (although they didn’t
realize that is what it is called)
Majority of the group use Excel to track
encumbrances and use GA Query to reconcile their worksheets and verify the
data.
All used EZ forms.
True shadow systems exist; there is manual
duplication of data.
8)
What
do you use these tools for? How do you
use these tools?
The group uses GA Query to reconcile accounts to
their Excel spreadsheets, for data verification, and budget analysis. They use Excel as an encumbrance system and
to verify accuracy of data in GL.
9)
Why
do you use these particular tools?
The majority of the group members are responsible
for two or three major accounts (containing many transactions) but no more than
30 - 40 accounts in total. They felt it
was faster and easier to use the paper forms, MVS and Excel to track their
accounts. Some felt there was no time
to really learn the Data Warehouse. Some did not know there was anything else
available other than MVS and GA Query.
Current tools are easily accessible, familiar and uncomplicated; Data
Warehouse is not.
10) How did you learn to use
these tools?
Many attended UD Classes but felt minimal knowledge
was gained. Majority of learning
occurred through personal networks.
Many felt that a personal network of peers is important to learning new
systems. Sequential learning in small blocks
of time is important. Many felt they
need time to practice on their own data; not a generic database.
11) What barriers were there to
using and/or benefiting from the tools?
Many felt the lack of flexibility in the work rules
and the inability to delegate authority in the absence of others creates a huge
barrier to effective work flow.
Lack of ability to approve small transactions is a
barrier.
In some cases, the lack of education of the
approvers (Deans, etc.) on how to use the new system is a barrier. (They don’t
want to have to ask support personnel to show them how to approve transactions
and in some cases, don’t want to have to go through the process at all)
Different approval rules needed for Deans. Some Deans are hands on, some are not. Need the ability to delegate approval if
Dean chooses to.
Web front end needs to be simplified. Forms should be less cumbersome with the
ability to tab to the pertinent page rather than scroll through several pages
of input.
12) What are your main concerns
with learning or using new financial tools?
The group stressed that different people learn in
different ways; therefore a variety of learning tools is essential. Many suggested intense training within a
couple of months of the new system (not too far in advance). Many suggested sequential blocks of learning
time.
Printed materials with detailed explanations of
codes are important. One person
suggested providing the ability to print information from an updated website.
Many thought an assigned personal network of peers
would be helpful. The same group that
trains together could meet regularly to support each other during
implementation.
Many stressed a designated “live” person to call for
troubleshooting problems. First person
to call for help could be someone within their unit. However, we would also need a resource person in general
accounting (or some other area) for the designated College expert to call for
help. General accounting is the department the group felt they would logically
call if they needed help.
Prompt responses to help calls are important. One contact to follow the problem through
from beginning to end is important to this group.
Broadcast messages would be helpful.
Ability to query data is important. In most cases, query templates would be
sufficient for this group.
(LS
8/2/02)
2.3 from Sue Koski
Peoplesoft
Communications Team
Focus
Group Meeting
Thursday,
August 01, 2002
Rm
105 Hullihen
In
Attendance:
Patty
Barcus
Laura
Brown
Rose
Gaasbeck
Joan
Higgins
Kim
Hockett
Sandy
Iverson
Kathy
Phelps
Jennie
Sparks
Mary
Pat Urbanik
Committee
Members:
Peggy
Bottorff
Bill
Fitzpatrick
Sue
Koski
Ellen
Lepine
Tools
Used:
Most every participant uses paper statements (for reconciliation purposes); JVs; FARs; GA Query (for look-up/verification of data or account information); Excel (for tracking accounts, re-keying information from paper forms to manipulate data, re-keying to get more specific data for analysis/reconciliation)
Some
use the Data Warehouse; Access; SIS; Monthly paper budget reports; or other
databases for specific information (ie, Dining information through Blackboard;
Parking database, AP Query). Most DW users ran "canned" reports,
though General Accounting did some ad hoc reporting. GA uses Super Natural to request pre-written reports especially
at fiscal year end.
One
dept. (Residence Life) uses a shadow system to track cost centers that aren't
reflected in the budget unit. They also
need greater detail than the object code gives.
Issues
with Tools
Most concerns centered around a lack of detail provided with current tools
(particularly for certain object codes and transactions, such as cash
transmittals). Getting more detailed
information often requires calling other departments. It is particularly difficult to get a breakdown of charges from
work done by Facilities.
Another
concern was with lack of access to GA views, due to security/salary
issues. It was suggested that maybe
security by object code could be considered with PS Financials.
Problems
with Paper Statements
The
main issue with paper statements is the inability by the user to manipulate the
data as can be done in a spreadsheet.
Therefore, many of the participants admitted they re-key data into Excel
in order to resort, total or calculate the information. Another issue was that some object codes
expenditures are not totaled (e.g., the 400s and 800s) on the account
statements and requires manual adding of numbers (sometimes pages of them).
JVs
Mostly
everyone uses JVs and all were satisfied with the current form, with the
exception of the number of lines for transactions as well as the limited space
available for explanation.
Learning/Training
Most
participants admitted they have learned through self-training or trial and
error. Many have taken classes (Excel,
Access, DW) and many learn from their co-workers, as well.
Issues
with learning their jobs include lack of time to practice what is learned in
class; lack of reference materials at desk for questions; hesitance to call
other departments for information or clarification (did not want to bother
other colleagues).
Overall
Concerns about PS Financials
Ensure
what is "promised" is actually delivered to the end user
Be
sure to show campus community what the product will look like prior to going
live
Training
- train ahead of implementation and if possible, provide a "dummy"
database for practice
Train
the trainer received favorably
August
31, 1:30-3 PM; Hullihen Board Room
List of Attendees
Kathy Kuck (MBA), Thelma Flewelling (B&E
Accounting), Evelyn Knotts (PCS),
Lionel Gilibert (International studies), Patricia Lesniczak (Library), Nel
Downer (IPA),
Lisa Huber (Leader), Chris Murphy (Scribe), Paul
Anderson (Scribe)
All
used GA-PRD, paper statements, electronic and paper forms. They felt
comfortable with these tools since they are easy to use to verify data without
extensive training. Some this group do little reporting so budget sheets are
what they use for verification of their own data, mostly in Excel. They view
data for current month, although to check payroll data they submitted it takes
about a week to hit the system.
Purchasing Query is used to check when invoices are paid. Some do simple reports using data warehouse.
None in this group used departmental accounting.
All
need data they can get from MVS to be able to link to data kept by the
department. Centrally kept data needs to be able to be linked to department
data in more detail in Excel or Quicken, with centrally maintained data
downloaded, if they could, or re-keyed. They reorganize the data for reporting
needs. User-defined fields feature of UD-Check makes it useful for simple
ad-hoc generic queries. Reporting needs include operating budget,
grad-allocation, payroll and generally how they spend money in various
categories. For reports on account credits some have used UDOnline, then group
by section keeping Fiscal-Year-to-Date project for five years, also keep for
internal use for s-contracts, travel reports.
They
need to be able to do aggregate queries, so they need something like the data
warehouse. Contracts and Grants budget
in standard format is pulled out of shadow system and numbers are tweaked as
needed. GMS, the OVPR system, is used to create budgets and blue sheets for
approval. Quicken is used because report needs to be based on categories, not
object codes which are too broad and consultants cross major categories. They
want user-defined fields, e.g., Verizon – one field but multiple people split.
UD-Check does that. Most use purchase reconciliations.
For
most, some one in the college helped them initially and from there they were
self-taught. They experimented with new features or someone said ‘this is the
screen you need to go to for that’.
Some went to training when something was new but had no follow-up. Some
went to Access training but it was overwhelming to them and was generic. They
did not mention data warehouse training per se but did say they want to learn
using sample data similar to their own so they could relate to it and just what
they need to know to get the data verification and reports required in their
department without extraneous information that they do not understand how to
relate to their responsibilities.
What
barriers were there to using and/or benefiting from the tool(s)?
Time and lack of printed materials, either in
manuals, handouts or on-line that showed how to do processes were barriers.
Ideally these would be easily accessible as would a CITA-type resource person
(and backup person) for PeopleSoft Financials who understands their data, their
needs and the tools. Training needs to be geared to job, not tool, and
preferably in the college. It should be timely, no lag between training and
hands-on access to at leased sample data in the office.
Shadow systems have been needed because data is
delayed or the individual is not authorized or cannot otherwise get to the
detail which they must do for contracts and grants. One person (Nel) new to a
department said that she lost access to her old department data but after two
months in new department doesn’t have access to new department data.
Unavailability of security by department was an issue for others.
Most
agreed that they wanted training customized to their needs to be more
applicable, in an overview first, then with hands-on and with on-going training
built in through follow-up classes, and self-paced online or CD training
materials available to review or learn new options. All wanted hand-outs,
printed and on-line. All want and need resource person(s) who could be called with
a problem and a backup person if that person is unavailable. They want to be
able to run parallel until they know that they can get what they need from the
new system and available tools. They want to keep budget statements or have the
data represented be as clear as in these statements. They want to be able to
click on a reference number and to go to the form. Example of problem now,
department has a default account and to transfer out of the system took 3 to 4
months, TUC has it’s own JV numbers.
Journal vouchers should copy person who generated the charge since
sometimes do not know, as with purchase card someone could have keyed
incorrectly. Help screens, self-paced tutorials and on-going follow-up is
important as is training the trainer, a key person in each department (with
backup) is essential.
Would
be nice to have EZ-forms Request for Check, IVR’s, and the original backup in
departments to be scanned and available on-line.
KEEP
IN TOUCH WITH THIS FOCUS GROUP! THEY
WANT TO STAY IN TOUCH