Fisheries and Oceans Canada
www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Post-implementation Review of Peoplesoft
January 2000
Table of Contents
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Background
- Review Objective and Scope
- Review Approach
- Findings and Conclusions
- Recommendations
- Management action plan
Appendix A: Overview of Data Element Verification
Appendix B: Overview of Data Element Verification by Module
Appendix C: Graphic Presentation of Survey Results
1. Executive Summary
The PeopleSoft Human Resource Management System (HRMS) is a software application that operates in the departmental client/server environment. The Human Resources (HR) component of PeopleSoft allows users to record and process information regarding employee records, base benefits, recruitment, education, position management, career planning, training and development, skills inventory and labour relations. Departments and central agencies rely on the integrity of PeopleSoft data for information and decisions on human resources. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) approved the implementation of PeopleSoft in June 1995.
The post-implementation review of PeopleSoft HRMS was conducted in two parts: a data quality review was undertaken in April 1998 and a user satisfaction survey was conducted in June 1998. Both parts were conducted on a representative sample of all Regions and Sectors of the Department. The methodology for the data quality review was prepared with the assistance of Statistics Canada. Follow-up interviews were conducted at the conclusion of both surveys. An interim report on the data quality review was provided to the Director General, HR, in April 1998.
The overall objective of this review was to assess the quality of data in the PeopleSoft system and to identify areas where further development work is needed concerning both system and operational controls. The scope of the review included the Position Management, Administer Canadian Personnel, and Leave Management Modules in PeopleSoft.
Data Quality Review
The purpose of the data quality review was to identify PeopleSoft data that did or did not match source documents in HR files. The survey revealed a wide range of results, including a near 100% match to basic personnel and position data. For example, personnel data matched the Personnel Record Identifier (PRI), name, birth date, gender, classification, incumbency type, preferred language and organization ID. Position data was also closely matched for most of the PeopleSoft fields checked.
The match rate for leave data in PeopleSoft was expected to be relatively low, given the timing of the review (which was during the year-end adjustment period to leave records). Notwithstanding, the actual rate identified (which ranged from 45-80%) was lower than expected. Many of the missing records were those of Ships Officers and Ships Crew and could not be reviewed effectively using the methodology applied. This was due mainly to the master record file being held with the Marine Superintendents Division and to the fact that the transfer of data between the MariTime and PeopleSoft systems occurred only twice in 1997-98. In addition, the Laurentian Region uses a different leave system to maintain leave for Ships Officers and Ships Crew. It appears that leave information from this system is not being consistently transferred to PeopleSoft and this is resulting in reconciliation difficulties.
As a result of the data quality review, the Review Team concluded that source documents were often incomplete (e.g., Official Languages Input Form (OLIF), security clearance confirmation, leave statements and leave requests) or held conflicting information. Also, we concluded that data from legacy systems, and related information contained in source documents, was not adequately cleaned up before being converted to PeopleSoft. The survey found that some data fields are consistently not being key-entered into PeopleSoft in some offices. Finally, we identified that there are no formally recognized guidelines and mechanisms to ensure quality acceptance of PeopleSoft data.
User Satisfaction Survey
The purpose of the user satisfaction survey was to identify causes of data quality issues in PeopleSoft to better direct system operations and maintenance activities. Interviews and surveys focused on the following issues: user involvement in the PeopleSoft initiative; communication mechanisms and tools used to inform users; PeopleSoft training and Help Desk Support; and the adequacy of user documentation.
The results of our survey of the HR PeopleSoft user population indicated that: PeopleSoft is perceived to be relatively easy to use; view screens are easy to interpret; terminology is understandable; and adequate support is available to users when a problem is encountered.
In contrast, the managers who were surveyed indicated that PeopleSoft has great potential but is not currently meeting business requirements. For example, the survey revealed that the system does not provide sufficient reporting capacity (i.e., reports are unreliable), data accuracy and timeliness issues are not being resolved, and information gaps continue to exist for PeopleSoft information flowing, in general, from the HR Information Systems Group to managers.
The survey highlighted the need to identify and establish priorities for users. The survey also revealed that security awareness on the part of PeopleSoft users is at a low level. Follow-up interviews confirmed that users generally are not applying easy-to-use security. The survey and follow-up interviews also identified that procedures for moving authorized changes to PeopleSoft programs from the development environment into the production environment need to be tightened up.
Since the end of the review, the HR Directorate has taken significant measures to improve the effectiveness of the processing of its HR data through graduated implementation of various PeopleSoft components and their links to related systems. A major system upgrade from PeopleSoft Version 5 to Version 7 was completed in March 1999. The PeopleSoft Release 7 presents new network architecture resulting in faster communication between the database and user workstations. In order to simplify the reporting capability, the existing Financial and Material Reporting System (FMRS) is being expanded to include the most frequently requested HR reports. The implementation of this new feature should occur in October 1999. A Leave Workflow module was completed in a pilot version in June 1998. In September 1999, an updated pilot version of the Leave Workflow module system will be tested. Based on results, the application will be implemented throughout DFO.
Recommendations
The Review Team has recommended that the Director General, HR implement the following:
- ensure continuous improvement of data integrity in PeopleSoft;
- ensure that users adopt adequate security practices to access to PeopleSoft;
- take measures to increase awareness and involvement of non-HR users regarding the PeopleSoft Manager View Module and the need to fulfill their associated responsibilities for data integrity and information requirements;
- ensure that the PeopleSoft training strategy and plan adequately reflect the requirements for non-HR users;
- ensure that key PeopleSoft information is properly disseminated to PeopleSoft users and stakeholders and investigate new and better ways to communicate to managers requirements and new approaches; and
- ensure that change management activities are properly administered.
Corrective actions have already been taken regarding recommendation 1.
2. Introduction
The PeopleSoft HRMS is a human resource software application that operates in the departmental client/server environment. The HR component of PeopleSoft allows users to record and process information regarding employee records, base benefits, recruitment, education, position management, career planning, training and development, skills inventory and labour relations. Departments and central agencies rely on the integrity of PeopleSoft data for human resource deployment and for general support in the allocation of departmental resources.
The HR Directorate has established data integrity as a priority within the PeopleSoft system. This was evident from a previous initiative undertaken in January 1998 by the HR Information Systems Group to correct data and incorporate mandatory fields within PeopleSoft. The implementation of Universal Classification Standard (UCS) prompted regions to make their HR data reflect the operational reality of regional organizations. In addition, regions were asked to submit plans on data improvement initiatives.
Data is considered to have integrity if it is complete, accurate, authorized and consistent and if it is processed promptly and in accordance with specifications. Data integrity is achieved through a comprehensive framework of both automated and manual controls that are established to prevent, detect or correct errors from occurring during data capture, processing and reporting.
This report contains findings from our review of the integrity of a sample of PeopleSoft data. The fieldwork was carried out from April 2 to 24, 1998. During this review, source documents for 634 employees were compared to data from the PeopleSoft system. An interim report was issued to the Director General, HR Directorate in April 1998. A follow-up survey of PeopleSoft managers and users was conducted in June 1998. It included questions related to concerns identified in the data integrity review.
3. Background
The PeopleSoft system, evaluated as the "best of breed" HR system by the Government of Canada, received DFO's approval for implementation in June 1995. The basic Personnel, Position and Leave Modules were implemented between October 1996 and June 1997. An interface between PeopleSoft and the MariTime System for leave data was completed in December 1997. The Manager View and Pilot Training Modules were implemented between October 1997 and April 1998.
Since the end of the review, the following initiatives have taken place: a Leave Workflow module was completed in a pilot version in June 1998. In September 1999, an updated pilot version of the Leave Workflow module system will be tested. Based on results, the application will be implemented throughout DFO. A major system upgrade from PeopleSoft Version 5 to Version 7 was completed in March 1999. The PeopleSoft Release 7 presents new network architecture resulting in faster communication between the database and user workstations. In order to simplify the reporting capability, the existing FMRS is being expanded to include the most frequently requested HR reports. The implementation of this new feature should occur in October 1999.
4. Review Objective and Scope
The purpose of this review was to assess the integrity of data in PeopleSoft and to identify post-implementation issues that require resolution.
The scope of the review included the Manage Positions (MP), Administer Canadian Personnel (ACP) and Leave Management (LEV) Modules. The review was conducted by verifying a statistically relevant sample of data in PeopleSoft with the information in source documents. A survey of selected PeopleSoft users, HR managers and HR Coordinators was then conducted to identify and verify issues and concerns regarding data integrity and system operations.
5. Review Approach
The review approach selected for PeopleSoft was three-tiered: assess the quality of data in the system; follow up on those areas of system operation and administration where data quality were of concern; and administer the user satisfaction survey.
5.1 Methodology for Data Quality Review
The data quality review process followed a number of steps. First, we determined the relative importance of the various data elements associated with the Position Management, Administer Canadian Personnel and Leave Modules. This was done through interviews with HR management and staff, including members of the PeopleSoft Support Unit.
Second, we selected the data elements to be verified. Based upon our interviews with HR personnel and selected testing of PeopleSoft data elements with source documents, 36 PeopleSoft data elements were selected for our review. (See Appendices A and B for a list of the data elements that were selected and the review results that were obtained.)
The third step was to select substantive employee records from the PeopleSoft database. A statistical sampling technique was applied and employee records were selected for six Regions and nine cities: St. John's, Dartmouth, Quebec City, Ottawa, Burlington, Sarnia, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Victoria.
The fourth step was to develop a software to capture the results of the verification process to display the details of each PeopleSoft record that was selected and record the status of the verification of each record against the corresponding source document.
Our next step was to pilot test the data extraction software. The National Capital Region (NCR) was used to conduct the initial data integrity assessment, fine-tune the software tool and verify the overall review process. Ninety-five employee records from PeopleSoft were validated against source documents (i.e., the Personal File, Position File, Staffing File, Leave File and the Pay Card).
The sixth step was to conduct the regional office assessments. The seventh step was to gather and collate the data integrity assessments. The software tool was used to produce both summary and detailed reports for analysis. Our final step was to report the results.
5.2 Sampling Methodology
Statistical sampling was used to ensure that the data selected for this review was representative of the data in PeopleSoft. To ensure that the methodology was reliable, Statistics Canada developed the following statistical sampling process:
- Select relevant data fields: The HR Directorate assisted in the selection of 36 data fields/elements representing key information in the Position Management, Administer Canadian Personnel and Leave Modules.
- Omit invalid transactions from the sample selection: The sample selection process omitted any records where the Position Number or the PRI was blank, and selected only substantive positions and determinate or indeterminate positions.
- Select representative data from each Region: All Regions of the Department were included in the review as shown in Figure 1 below. Sampling results projected a 90% confidence interval and an average precision of +/- 5%.
Figure 1: Representative Data From Each Region.
REGION CITY Determinate Indeterminate Population Review Population Review Newfoundland St. John’s 243 72 964 74 Maritimes Dartmouth 47 47 941 99 Laurentian Quebec City 95 95 677 65 NCR Ottawa 68 68 985 179 Central and Arctic Burlington 28 28 126 28 Sarnia 14 14 105 30 Winnipeg 11 11 145 44 Pacific Vancouver 74 51 470 27 Victoria 74 53 286 23 Total 654 439 4699 569
Note: Due to time constraints experienced by the Review Team during the field work, the number of files reviewed and reported in the following sections could differ from the above numbers. However the 90% confidence interval and precision level were calculated accordingly.
- Select representative data from each Sector: The sample sizes selected for each Region and city were also representative of each Sector of the Department. (The HR Information Systems Group created a table to automatically break down PeopleSoft data by Sector.)
- Select data as close to the review periods as possible: Data for the NCR was extracted from PeopleSoft in mid-March 1998 (the review was conducted from April 2-9, 1998). Data for the Regions was extracted at the end of March 1998 (the review was conducted from April 14-24, 1998).
- Compare PeopleSoft data to source files: The reviewers matched each PeopleSoft field to the appropriate source document and rated the result as one of the following: Verified; PeopleSoft Field Blank; File Not Found; Document Not Found; Information Not on Document; and Conflicting Information or Other.
- Evaluate findings: The results obtained do not identify data that is either right or wrong, but data that is verified or not verified against source documents. These results are intended as indicators to assist HR management and staff in locating PeopleSoft data that require additional attention.
5.3 User Satisfaction Survey Methodology
To assess PeopleSoft's effectiveness in supporting service delivery to management and the HR community, a user satisfaction survey was conducted. A questionnaire consisting of 39 questions was sent to the most appropriate positions/persons in the Department and 60 PeopleSoft users responded. In addition, interviews were conducted with a sampling of 20 managers/Directors and 12 PeopleSoft Coordinators and HR Advisors. In keeping with the participative approach, the PeopleSoft Maintenance and Support Team assisted in the development of questions for the survey.
The interview and survey questionnaires focused on the following areas:
user involvement in the PeopleSoft initiative;
communication mechanisms and tools used to inform users;
PeopleSoft training and Help Desk support;
adequacy of user documentation;
satisfaction with PeopleSoft;
security practices; and
system enhancements and maintenance.
6. Findings and Conclusions
6.1 Data Quality Review
This section summarizes the findings of the data integrity review of PeopleSoft conducted in the six Regions, including the NCR, in April 1998. PeopleSoft data was closely matched to source documents for basic personnel data such as PRI, name, birth date, gender, classification, incumbency type and preferred language. Data relating to positions was also closely matched for Region, job code, position title, language requirement and linguistic profile. Findings are presented below for each Region.
6.1.1 National Capital Region
The data integrity review was conducted in the NCR from April 2-9, 1998. A sample of 95 employee records was examined and data from employee source documents was compared to data recorded in PeopleSoft (see Appendices A and B).
Leave data in PeopleSoft matched source documents in 70 to 80% of the tests, but this figure was expected to be relatively low given the timing of the review, which was during the year-end adjustment period to leave records.
Problems existed with the data for the security clearance (Administer Canadian Personnel Module), the "review by" date (Manage Positions), and the "reports to" field (Manage Positions). With regard to the security clearance, some confusion existed among staff with regard to the security clearance for the person versus that of the position. Also, documentation to substantiate the security clearance was not readily available. Concerning the "review by" date, staff were unsure about whether the date of the last review or the next review should be entered. Furthermore, PeopleSoft does not appear to allow a date/year in this field beyond 1999. Regarding the "reports to" field, the documentation required to verify the corresponding data in PeopleSoft was not on file.
In summary, during our comparison of PeopleSoft data to source documentation, the following general trends were observed:
- there was an absence of some key source documentation in the files (e.g., Official Language Information (OLIF), security confirmation, leave statements, leave requests and HR requests);
- conflicting information existed among various source documents contained in the files; and
- discrepancies existed between PeopleSoft data and source documents regarding the validation of security clearances, "review by" date, selection process number, language requirement, linguistic profile, linguistic profile date, pay list, bargaining unit designator and leave data (i.e., vacation as well as certified and uncertified sick days used).
6.1.2 Newfoundland Region (St. John's)
The data integrity review was conducted in the Newfoundland Region from April 14-24, 1998. A sample of 135 employee records was examined and data from employee source documents was compared to data recorded in PeopleSoft (see Appendices A and B).
Leave data in PeopleSoft matched to source documents in only approximately 50% of the tests. This figure was lower than expected despite the timing of the review, which was during the year-end adjustment period to leave records.
Difficulties existed with access to files. Staffing files were not available for review purposes, as files for employees who have held their position for more than two years are archived at a different location. Furthermore, staffing files and about 75% of position files were not available for the review because staffing files and most position files for ship bound employees were not kept at the St. John's office.
Problems also existed with the data for the security clearance, staffing action effective date and statement of leave forms. With regard to the security clearance, when this information was available on the file, it appeared that security level "2" was being entered automatically (as the default). The staffing action effective date was applied consistently for term employees. Most PeopleSoft users recorded the date of appointment; very few used the last date of the term. Concerning statement of leave forms for Ships Officers and Ships Crews, the number of hours in a day varies if these employees are on "laydays" (i.e., Ships Officers work 6.0 hours per day and Ships Crews work 5.714 hours per day). Many errors were identified on leave forms for this reason.
In summary, during our comparison of PeopleSoft data to source documentation, the following general trends were observed:
- source documents in leave files were incomplete;
- conflicting information existed among various source documents contained in the files; and
- discrepancies existed between PeopleSoft data and source documents regarding the validation of security clearances, "reviewed by" date, selection process number, language requirement date, staffing action effective date, pay list, bargaining unit designator, language requirement date and leave data (i.e., vacation as well as certified and uncertified sick days used).
6.1.3 Maritimes Region (Dartmouth)
The data integrity review was conducted in the Maritimes Region from April 14-24, 1998. A sample of 103 employee records was examined and data from employee source documents was compared to data recorded in PeopleSoft (see Appendices A and B).
Leave data in PeopleSoft matched source documents in approximately 50 to 65% of the tests. This figure was lower than expected despite the timing of the review, which was during the year-end adjustment period to leave records.
Problems existed with the language requirement date and "review by" date, as well as leave status for Ships Crews. With regard to the language requirement date, difficulty was encountered in locating documents on the files to verify the date shown in PeopleSoft. Most of the positions were English only and often the date shown on the OLIF did not correspond to the date in PeopleSoft. In several cases, the date used was located on the job description or a staffing request form. Concerning the "review by" date, the date recorded in PeopleSoft was consistently December 31, 1999, for most of the 103 employees sampled. Regarding leave status for employees serving as Ships Crew, the supporting documentation on file was generally incomplete. For other employees, leave statements and forms were consistently on file.
In summary, during our comparison of PeopleSoft data to source documentation, the following general trends were observed:
- source documents in leave files were incomplete;
- conflicting information existed among various source documents contained in the files; and
- discrepancies existed between PeopleSoft data and source documents regarding the validation of security clearances, language requirement date, incumbency status, incumbency type, pay list and leave data (i.e., vacation as well as certified and uncertified sick days used).
6.1.4 Laurentian Region (Quebec City)
The data integrity review was conducted in the Laurentian Region from April 14-24, 1998. A sample of 102 employee records was examined and data from the employee source documents was compared to data recorded in PeopleSoft (see Appendices A and B).
Leave data in PeopleSoft matched to source documents for approximately 45% of the tests. This figure was lower than expected despite the timing of the review, which was during the year-end adjustment period to leave records.
Problems existed with staffing actions, leave forms and security clearances for individuals. Staffing actions had not been registered in PeopleSoft for the past three to four months. Leave data was recorded in PeopleSoft, but the supporting forms had not yet been filed. Security clearances were missing. The HR regional office noted that the security clearance process is very slow.
A system problem was found with organization ID data. The ID code recorded with the position data (i.e., the Manage Position Module) was different from the organization ID code recorded with the personnel data (i.e., in the Administer Canadian Personnel Module). When queried, HR staff stated that they did not understand the cause, as it should automatically be changed in both modules. In these cases, both organization ID codes appeared to be valid (i.e., the Manage Position code was at the Director level and the Administer Canadian Personnel code at the section level).
In summary, during our comparison of PeopleSoft data to source documentation, the following general trends were observed:
- some key source documents did not appear in the files (e.g., OLIF, security confirmation, leave statements and leave requests);
- conflicting information existed among various source documents contained in the files; and
- discrepancies existed between PeopleSoft data and source documents regarding the validation of security clearances, organization ID, pay list, continuous service date, staffing action effective date, selection process number, language requirement date, "review by" date and leave data (i.e., vacation as well as certified and uncertified sick days used).
6.1.5 Central and Arctic Region (Burlington, Sarnia and Winnipeg)
The data integrity review was conducted in the Central and Arctic Region from April 14-24, 1998. A sample of 72 employee records was examined and data from employee source documents was compared to data recorded in PeopleSoft (see Appendices A and B).
Leave data in PeopleSoft matched to source documents for approximately 80% of the tests, but this figure was expected to be relatively low given the timing of the review, which was during the year-end adjustment period to leave records.
Problems existed with the staffing action effective date and with security clearances. With regard to the staffing action effective date, several dates were recorded as April 1960, which makes little sense since the current classification system began operation in the government in only the early 1970s. Concerning security clearances, several incidences of improper documentation of personal security were noted in classification and staffing files for the Sarnia and Burlington offices. In Burlington, a security review had not been completed for three employees of the 72 employees whose files were reviewed.
Issues also existed with the administration of files and the use of PeopleSoft. With regard to the administration of files, it was observed that the practices used by three the offices in the Region were not consistent. In the Sarnia office, the leave files did not always have the leave entitlement form; they were located in other files.
During the course of our data quality review, several users commented that they have encountered significant problems with PeopleSoft. Users found PeopleSoft to be very slow for entering data. They commented that they were unable to produce desired reports and that available reports were not user-friendly. A number of users indicated that they had not received adequate PeopleSoft training and that this had a considerable impact on their productivity. PeopleSoft had not made their work easier. In fact, most users commented that processing HR data has become much more difficult since PeopleSoft's implementation.
In summary, during our comparison of PeopleSoft data to source documentation, the following general trends were observed:
- source documents in the files were incomplete (e.g., OLIF, security clearance confirmation, leave statements, leave requests and Classification Action and Position Record (Form TBS-330));
- conflicting information existed among various source documents contained in the files; and
- discrepancies existed between PeopleSoft data and source documents regarding the validation of security clearances, "review by" date, selection process number, "reports to" and leave data (i.e., vacation as well as certified and uncertified sick days used).
6.1.6 Pacific Region (Vancouver and Victoria)
The data integrity review was conducted in the Pacific Region from April 14-24, 1998. A sample of 127 employee records was examined and data from employee source documents was compared to data recorded in PeopleSoft (see Appendices A and B).
Leave data in PeopleSoft matched to source documents in only approximately 25% of the tests. This figure was much lower than expected, despite the timing of the review which was during the year-end adjustment period to leave records. Furthermore, the results were significantly below those from the other Regions.
Problems existed with the location of source documents required for the confirmation of PeopleSoft data. During the on-site visit, difficulties were encountered locating the leave and classification files required for sampling purposes. Apparently, all classification files were converted to a generic filing system; position files were not converted to this system. Also, the Vancouver office appeared to be moving towards eliminating most of the paper documentation for HR management. Much of the documentation needed to verify PeopleSoft data to source documents was not available, as a result.
Problems also existed with the recording of gender, pay list and security clearance. With regard to gender, ten instances were identified where males were input as females (in the gender field, PeopleSoft defaults to "female"). Concerning pay list, the pay list number recorded on the statement of leave document and on the pay card rarely matched. In most cases, the pay card matched PeopleSoft. Regarding security clearances, except for approximately five files, the personnel file had no documentation on the incumbent's security clearance/status. The classification files contained conflicting information. One job description would state Enhanced Reliability and a previous job description would state Basic Reliability.
In summary, during our comparison of PeopleSoft data to source documentation, the following general trends were observed:
- source documents in the files were incomplete (e.g., OLIF, security clearance confirmation, leave statements and leave requests);
- conflicting information existed among various source documents contained in the files; and
- discrepancies existed between PeopleSoft data and source documents regarding the validation of security clearances, pay list, incumbency status, organization ID, "review by" date and leave data (i.e., vacation as well as certified and uncertified sick days used).
6.1.7 Explanation of Leave Variances
The type of records that were audited can explain a number of the discrepancies found in the leave data, other than those for the NCR. Many of the missing records were those of Ships Officers and Ships Crew, which could not be reviewed effectively using the methodology that was applied. This was due mainly to the master record file being held with the Marine Superintendents Division and to the fact that the transfer of data between the MariTime and PeopleSoft systems occurred only twice in 1997-98.
The timing of the on-site audit work also had an impact on the findings. This is the period of the year when HR staff is working full-time to update leave files before the close-out of the fiscal year-end accounts at the end of April.
Finally, the Laurentian Region uses a different leave system for Ships Officers and Ship Crew. It appears that leave information from this system is not being consistently transferred to PeopleSoft and that this is resulting in reconciliation difficulties.
6.1.8 Data Quality Review: Conclusions
Drawing from information collected from the data quality review, the Review Team identified areas that have an impact on the integrity of data in PeopleSoft. These are:
1. Source Documentation: Effort is being exerted by HR staff to maintain source files (manual files) that document HR information relating to an employee. However, the Review Team observed the following:
- conflicting information existed among various source documents contained in the files;
- different types of data collection documents are in use to capture similar information;
- discrepancies existed between PeopleSoft data and source documents regarding the validation of security clearances, continuous service date, "review by" date, language requirement date and leave data (i.e., vacation as well as certified and uncertified sick days used); and
- confusion among some users exists regarding the amount of information that should be contained in source files. Some users believe that source files and information captured in PeopleSoft should be mirror images of each other, while other users are of the opinion that PeopeSoft should contain the bulk of information pertaining to an employee.
2. Conversion of Information from Legacy Systems: According to some users, data from legacy systems (i.e., previous systems) and information contained in source documents was not adequately cleaned up before being converted to PeopleSoft.
3. Data Entry Processes: The data quality review indicated that there were data fields that consistently are not being entered by some users.
4. Verification of Data: According to the users who were interviewed, there are no formally recognized guidelines for verifying PeopleSoft data.
Maintaining data quality is the responsibility of both the owner of the data and the HR Information Systems Group responsible for supporting the system. The owner of the data must have procedures or standards in place for capturing, correcting and verifying information. This is a key to the success in this area.
6.2 User Satisfaction Survey
The PeopleSoft system is being used by and provides a service to selected managers and the HR community. Efforts are being made by the HR Information Systems Group to improve the utility of the system. For example, PeopleSoft was upgraded to Version 7 (in order to provide more functionality), new PeopleSoft Modules are to be introduced and a program to monitor data quality on an ongoing basis is planned.
This section of the report contains a summary of findings and suggestions for improvement from a survey that was conducted of PeopleSoft users. Findings are presented below by survey category. A graphic presentation of survey results can be found in Appendix C.
6.2.1 User Involvement
Approximately 320 HR users nationally were given access to PeopleSoft. In the fall of 1997, the basic access to PeopleSoft was also provided to approximately 300 departmental senior managers as well as their Administrative Assistants to view basic position, employee and leave information within PeopleSoft. Initially, the access was restricted to the non-HR users due primarily to technical and administrative considerations related to the system.
An essential element to ensuring that a system will meet the ongoing needs of users is the process of getting key users to take responsibility for the system. This is achieved by involving users throughout all facets of a system's lifecycle. The PeopleSoft Support and Maintenance Team has involved mainly HR Advisors and PeopleSoft Coordinators in various activities relating to the implementation of the system (i.e., fit analysis, user group meetings and training pilots). Managers were asked to give input on the type of reports they would need.
The HR Advisors and PeopleSoft Coordinators who were interviewed indicated that they had been adequately involved in activities associated with the implementation of the product. As expected, the majority of managers and Administrative Assistants who were interviewed indicated that they had little or no direct involvement in the implementation of PeopleSoft. They felt that they were not adequately involved in the process. Managers tended to view PeopleSoft as a system that supports only the needs of the HR community. This could have contributed to the system not meeting specific expectations.
PeopleSoft is a multi-year initiative and it is important to maintain consistent user involvement and commitment. One method of achieving this is by establishing or maintaining user groups/committees. These groups should be structured to react to the distinct needs of various PeopleSoft user groups. The HR Information Systems Group should restructure an existing committee for this purpose. PeopleSoft users (including managers when applicable) from other departments that have implemented PeopleSoft could also be invited to attend meetings to provide information regarding how they are using PeopleSoft in their respective departments (i.e., lessons learned, best practices, unique solutions, effective trouble-shooting).
6.2.2 Communications
A variety of communication mechanisms are being used on an ongoing basis to inform PeopleSoft HR users about the status of PeopleSoft developments. Some of these communication mechanisms include a quarterly PeopleSoft news publication, brochures, regular e-mail, telephone conference and targeted briefing sessions. Most of the communications deal with PeopleSoft technical issues.
In one of our earlier reports, we were concerned about gaps in the level of communication. Many of the methods being used relied on key personnel (such as Regional Coordinators) to transfer information as needed to general users. If the person did not perform this function, messages could be lost.
A group of PeopleSoft users with whom there appears to be a significant communication gap is managers. Seventy percent of the managers who were interviewed indicated that communication could be more frequent, timely and directed to specific PeopleSoft user groups.
6.2.3 Training and Documentation
The initial PeopleSoft training was appropriately planned in conjunction with the Regions. Training materials were developed based on those used by other departments. A pilot training session was used to test the adequacy of these materials prior to the start of formal training.
The majority of PeopleSoft users who were interviewed or surveyed indicated that they received either a basic training course or an orientation session. Seventy percent of the general users surveyed by questionnaire indicated that the training was effective. On the other hand, 55% of the managers/Directors who were interviewed indicated that they had not been sufficiently trained and required additional training or refresher training. This group also indicated that the training that they received was too far in advance of using the system and that they had lost much of what was learned.
Sixty per cent of survey respondents reported that PeopleSoft was easy to learn, 30% of respondents were neutral on this question and 10% of respondents felt that PeopleSoft was difficult to learn. The same breakdown of 60% in favour, 30% neutral and 10% against also holds true for assessing PeopleSoft as easy to use, once learned.
The survey responses indicated that almost 75% of PeopleSoft users had been using the system for less than six months. The responses also indicated that a significant number of employees who might benefit from using the application are not. Of those who are using the system, the major purpose is to obtain information on employee data and employees' leave balances. The overwhelming number of employees uses PeopleSoft less than 10% of the time. Surprisingly, while 55% of survey respondents stated that PeopleSoft adequately meets their needs, 42.5% stated that the system did not.
Training manuals for the most part were considered to be useful. Some managers/ Directors indicated that a quick reference guide for managers that highlights important features of PeopleSoft would be useful.
6.2.4 Help Desk
To assist users in resolving PeopleSoft-related problems, a Help Desk is available through the Human Resources Information System. However, in the case of the Manager View Module, the first line of support is the Human Resources Advisors who provide services to DFO managers and PeopleSoft Coordinators since most questions forwarded to Human Resources Advisors are related to data issues. The majority of the PeopleSoft users who were surveyed indicated that Help Desk and Human Resources Advisors were providing a good service.
6.2.5 Manager View Module
The PeopleSoft "Manager View" gives all the offices of departmental senior managers (i.e. Director level and above) direct access to selected PeopleSoft data pertaining to their organizations. This is not only a useful management tool but is also a component of the PeopleSoft strategy to ensure the integrity of PeopleSoft data. Only 55% of the managers and/or their Administrative Assistants who were interviewed indicated that they were using the Manager View Module to view basic position, employee and leave information within PeopleSoft. Of these managers using PeopleSoft, 20% of them indicated that the module was useful, while 35% indicated that it was of little assistance, contained errors and was not user-friendly (45% did not respond).
6.2.6 Satisfaction with PeopleSoft
A major purpose of a computer application is to provide information support for management decision-making at all levels, which will assist in the accomplishment of an organization's goals and objectives. Management and support personnel are considered to be major internal users of the information produced by an application system. If there is a lack of acceptance regarding the utility of the computer application, it can be an indication that either an application system was not well designed or that the users are not educated on the benefits or effective use of the application. Overall satisfaction, credibility of processing operations and training of staff are therefore crucial to the success of an application system.
A key survey question asked respondents to rate their overall satisfaction with PeopleSoft. For example, overall satisfaction of the system was rated on a scale from 1 to 10 (1 is low, 10 is high). The results from this question are illustrated in Figure 2.
The results from our survey of the general PeopleSoft user population indicate that respondents have a favorable impression of PeopleSoft. Users perceive it to be relatively easy to use, view screens are easy to understand, terminology is understandable and there is adequate support available if a problem is encountered. From a technology viewpoint, a large majority of respondents were satisfied with system availability and with system response time. Users identified system changes that would make their job more effective:
- calculation of overtime in dollars;
- creation of identical positions in bulk;
- better response time for retrieving information;
- separate module for term and part-time employees;
- accurate leave balances;
- leave balances by Sector;
- information regarding linkages to the Org-Plus software packages;
- simplified reporting.
An area of concern for the Review Team that warrants attention by the PeopleSoft Support and Maintenance Team is the accuracy of reports. Our analysis of survey data shows a limited use of key reports and a lack of confidence in the accuracy of information. We noted that 35% of respondents were not confident in the reliability of the data contained in reports, 35% of respondents were retaining duplicate information, 23% are performing supplementary quality assurance to ensure the reliability of data contained in reports, and alternative methods of automation are being used. Inaccurate reporting of leave information was flagged most frequently by respondents.
Managers were interviewed about their overall impressions of PeopleSoft to date. The response varied from "good", "useful" to "of little help" and "not useful". Data compiled from interviews with managers tends to indicate a lack of acceptance of PeopleSoft. Management feels that PeopleSoft has potential but currently does not meet some necessary requirements. Some of the issues that they identified were: reliable reports; slow access to Org-Plus software; improved accuracy and timeliness of data; and reduced information gaps. Figure 3 contains managers' responses to interview questions that indicated a lack of satisfaction with PeopleSoft.
Figure 3: Management Interview Responses
6.2.7 PeopleSoft Security
The focus of PeopleSoft security is to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information held in PeopleSoft. Such protection can be achieved by a planned approach/strategy and by sound security administration procedures. Furthermore, all users should understand the importance of security.
Basic security measures are in place to restrict unauthorized access to PeopleSoft data such as system log-on passwords and user access profiles. However, it would appear that these measures are compromised from the poor security practices of many users.
The majority of users who were surveyed indicated that they have never changed their PeopleSoft log-on passwords. We noted during the course of interviews that PeopleSoft users leave their workstation unattended while logged on to PeopleSoft. Furthermore, the use of a password-protected screensaver does not appear to be a common practice among PeopleSoft users. It was also discovered that some users were sharing passwords.
If unchecked, the above practices can expose HR data to unauthorized access or modification. Security measures, which involve user awareness and compliance with basic security controls, can reduce risks in this area.
6.2.8 System Enhancements and Maintenance
Software maintenance is an ongoing activity that typically occurs over the entire lifecycle of a computer system. Maintenance is normally done to either correct or enhance the functionality of a computer system. To control maintenance activities, change management techniques must be employed. These techniques involve: recording change requests; evaluating the cost and impact of change requests; prioritizing requests on technical and business grounds; scheduling or rejecting changes; monitoring and testing changes; and reporting the status of all recorded changes.
A record of changes made to the Government of Canada version of PeopleSoft by DFO needs to be captured as the department will need to incorporate these changes into future releases of PeopleSoft (i.e., Release 7). To efficiently make the transition to new system releases, the PeopleSoft Support and Maintenance Team has attempted to minimize the number and complexity of system changes.
In addition to manual documents, the PeopleSoft Support and Maintenance Team is using a software package developed by Correctional Services to manage DFO's changes/enhancements to PeopleSoft. The Correctional Services package has good functionality and can record a wide spectrum of information. A structured process is in place to complement the system. This process involves the evaluation, testing and migration of system changes into the PeopleSoft production environment. An overview of this process is outlined in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Change Management Control Process.
The questionnaire for the PeopleSoft user satisfaction survey contained a section pertaining to the management of system changes. Figure 5 summarizes the key questions asked and responses.
Figure 5: Change Management Questions and Responses.
| Question |
Response |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The framework in place to manage system changes is operational. However, we found overlapping responsibilities among some team members which could pose a security risk or lead to unintentional errors (i.e., no team member should be able to program, test and place a system change into production) and there was little documented evidence to support the nature and extent of testing performed on system changes. We also noted that there did not appear to be any standard or comprehensive method of monitoring to ensure that only authorized changes are placed into the PeopleSoft production environment.
6.3 Overall conclusions
The overall conclusion of the data quality review and the follow-up user satisfaction survey are listed below together for ease of reference:
- Source Documentation: Conflicting information existed among various source documents contained in files and different types of data collection documents are in use to capture similar information. Discrepancies were found between PeopleSoft data and source documents regarding the validation of security clearances, continuous service date, "review by" date, language requirement date and leave data (i.e., vacation as well as certified and uncertified sick days used). Also, there was confusion among some users regarding the amount of information that should be contained in source files. Some users believe that source files and information captured in PeopleSoft should be mirror images of each other, while other users are of the opinion that PeopleSoft should contain the bulk of information pertaining to an employee.
- Conversion of Information from Legacy Systems: Data from legacy systems and information contained in source documents was not adequately cleaned up before being converted to PeopleSoft.
- Data Entry Processes: Results from the data quality review identified data fields that are not being completed by some users on a consistent basis.
- Verification of Data: There are no formally recognized guidelines and mechanisms to ensure quality acceptance of PeopleSoft data.
- User Involvement: Involvement of managers (as PeopleSoft users) in the development, operational direction and identification of their training needs has been insufficient.
- Communications: Some communication gaps have occurred in the dissemination and feedback of PeopleSoft development and operational information to managers.
- Training and Documentation: Training and related support documentation for management has been insufficient and, in many instances, training was received too far in advance of using the system.
- System Reporting: There is a general lack of confidence in the reliability of information produced in PeopleSoft reports; also, there is general recognition that more and better reporting is required for effective use of the system. Current areas of concern include the accuracy of leave balances, calculation of overtime in dollars, leave balances by Sector, tracking capability and the overall simplification of reporting.
- Security: There is general weakness on the part of most PeopleSoft users regarding the measures/best practices that should be taken to best protect PeopleSoft data.
- System Development and Maintenance: There is some overlap of responsibilities regarding those positions that provide the system change management function for PeopleSoft.
7. Recommendations
It is recommended that the that the Director General, HR implement the following:
- Ensure continuous improvement of data integrity in PeopleSoft by:
- calculation of overtime in dollars;
- creation of identical positions in bulk;
- assisting HR managers in the implementation of new process flows to keep information accurate and provide HR managers with reporting tools to monitor modifications to critical data;
- assisting HR managers in the development of standards for the verification of data;
- reviewing, in conjunction with HR managers, those fields that are consistently missing information, in order to determine if these fields should be deleted or to determine what appropriate action should be taken to ensure they are completed;
- calculation of overtime in dollars;
- creation
- assisting HR managers in standardizing information to be retained in source files and data collection documents; and
- conducting an ongoing data quality review of mandatory data fields.
- Ensure that users adopt adequate security practices to access to PeopleSoft by:
- initiating a security awareness program to inform PeopleSoft users of security measures to protect PeopleSoft data and inform users of their responsibilities as PeopleSoft users;
- requiring users in open concept offices to use password-protected screensavers; and
- requiring users to periodically change their PeopleSoft passwords.
- Take measures to increase awareness and involvement of non-HR users regarding the PeopleSoft Manager View Module and the need to fulfill their associated responsibilities for data integrity and information requirements by:
- contacting selected managers to determine information needs and resolve issues pertaining to the Manager View Module;
- reviewing all PeopleSoft reports with a view to determining accuracy and relevance and whether reports could be eliminated, combined or modified or if new reports are required; and
- coordinating an initiative to identify the high priority needs/problems of PeopleSoft users that can be addressed over the short term. Resources should be assigned and a strategy developed for the fast track implementation of solutions.
- Ensure that the PeopleSoft training strategy and plan adequately reflect the requirements for non-HR users by:
- reviewing and assessing the documentation needs of managers and their staff;
- considering consultation with other cluster group departments to determine how training was provided to managers and their staff;
- reviewing training mechanisms increasing the focus on content directed to managers and their staff needs;
- considering requiring that new users have prerequisite PeopleSoft training before issuing a PeopleSoft user account; and
- creating a PeopleSoft Management Advisory Committee. The Committee would have the mandate to develop and communicate an understanding of PeopleSoft functionality, identify operational requirements and training needs, and provide advice in the setting of related priorities for system development and resource allocation.
- Ensure that key PeopleSoft information is properly disseminated to PeopleSoft users and stakeholders and investigate new and better ways to communicate to managers requirements and new approaches by:
- asking for specific feedback from Regional Coordinators (i.e., what information has been conveyed and to which audience) or requesting that specific information be covered at regional meetings, staff meetings or management meetings that may be recorded; and
- interviewing selected managers in other Cluster Group departments to identify successful communication mechanisms now in use.
- Ensure that change management activities are properly administered by:
- eliminating overlapping responsibilities of Group members involved in change management processes;
- documenting, in a central location, the criteria used and results from the testing of system changes; and
- developing monitoring techniques to ensure that unauthorized changes do not migrate to the PeopleSoft production environment.
Corrective actions have already been taken regarding recommendation 1.
8. Management Action Plan
| Recommendations |
Management Action Plan |
Accountability |
Initial Target Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ensure continuous improvement of data integrity in PeopleSoft by: a) Assisting HR managers in the implementation of new process flows to keep information accurate and provide HR managers with reporting tools to monitor modifications to critical data; | Implementation of new initiatives (Leave web based application and Management Reporting System) will enable employees and managers to view PeopleSoft data and to work with HR Operations to correct data. Subject to funding availability, other initiatives may be implemented which would further improve data quality (e.g. Pay Interface, an application to enable employees to view personal data and make changes to selected data, interface to the Security System). | HRIS - implementation of new initiatives; Regional HR Operations - correction of data | November, 1999 (Leave web application and MRS) Ongoing |
| b) Assisting HR managers in the development of standards for the verification of data; | A strategy will be developed to determine key data to be captured and data quality standards, and to establish monitoring and reporting cycles. | HRIS - development of strategy | April, 2000 |
| c) reviewing, in conjunction with HR managers, those fields that are consistently missing information, in order to determine if these fields should be deleted or to determine what appropriate action should be taken to ensure they are completed; | Regions that do not achieve the standards will do the necessary data corrections. | Regional Director Generals, ADM, Corporate Services | April, 2000 |
| d) Assisting HR managers in standardizing information to be retained in source files and data collection documents; and | A policy will be developed to address which documentation should be retained in source files. | Chief, Employee Recognition and Best Practices | April, 2000 |
| e) Conducting an ongoing data quality review of mandatory data fields. | Will be addressed by 1b). | ||
| 2. Ensure that users adopt adequate security practices to access to PeopleSoft by: | Director General, HR | December 15, 1999 | |
| a) Initiating a security awareness program to inform PeopleSoft users of security measures to protect PeopleSoft data and inform users of their responsibilities as PeopleSoft users; | The issue of security practices was discussed with IMTS EDP Security. With the current configuration and technicality of MS Windows 95, the use of password protected screensavers at the desktop level cannot be easily | ||
| b) Requiring users in open concept offices to use password-protected screensavers; and | enforced. IMTS is developing departmental security procedures and will recommend that all employees use password protected scree nsavers. In the meantime, a memorandum will be sent by the Director General, HR to advise HR users to utilize a password-protected screensaver. | ||
| c) Requiring users to periodically change their PeopleSoft passwords. | Users will be advised quarterly to change their PeopleSoft passwords. | HRIS | Ongoing |
| 3. Take measures to increase awareness and involvement of non-HR users regarding the PeopleSoft Manager View Module and the need to fulfill their associated responsibilities for data integrity and information requirements by: | HR reports will be incorporated into FMRS (which is being re-named to Management Reporting System) as a first step to deliver corporate information in a management reporting tool. During the planning of this initiative, regional managers and | Implementation of MRS - HRIS and Finance. | Launch - October 25, 1999 Future enhancements - ongoing. |
| a) contacting selected managers to determine information needs and resolve issues pertaining to the Manager View Module; | HR staff were consulted on the specific reports to be included in the reporting tool. This initiative will enable a larger number of managers (2000 users versus 350 | ||
| b) reviewing all PeopleSoft reports with a view to determining accuracy and relevance and whether reports could be eliminated, combined or modified or if new reports are required; and c) coordinating an initiative to identify the high priority needs/problems of PeopleSoft users that can be addressed over the short term. Resources should be assigned and a strategy developed for the fast track implementation of solutions. | currently) to view PeopleSoft data, to assess data accuracy and to work with HR Operations to ensure the data is correct. A memorandum will be sent to all managers to provide information on this initiative and to advise managers to inform HR of any inaccuracies in their PeopleSoft data. High priority needs and problems of users will be addressed by the PeopleSoft Advisory Committee (see 4 e) below.) | Director General, HR and Director General, Finance | November, 1999 |
| 4. Ensure that the PeopleSoft training strategy and plan adequately reflect the requirements for non-HR users by: | It is anticipated that the MRS system will be the primary tool for managers to access PeopleSoft data. In this regard, the existing FMRS documentation is being revised to incorporate information on the HR reports. Regional HR employees will be trained on MRS to assist managers in accessing HR reports. | HRIS, Finance | November 1, 1999 (Launch of MRS) |
a) reviewing and assessing the documentation needs of managers and their staff; b) considering consultation with other cluster group departments to determine how training was provided to managers and their staff; c) reviewing training mechanisms increasing the focus on content directed to managers and their staff needs; d) considering requiring that new users have prerequisite PeopleSoft training before issuing a PeopleSoft user account; and e) creating a PeopleSoft Management Advisory Committee. The Committee would have the mandate to develop and communicate an understanding of PeopleSoft functionality, identify operational requirements and training needs, and provide advice in the setting of related priorities for system development and resource allocation. |
After MRS implementation, an assessment of user training needs will be conducted. Cluster Group departments are continuously sharing best practices in this area. Will be addressed by 4 a). Rather than forcing non-HR users to take specific training, it is preferable to ensure that they have easy access to assistance and "coaching" when required. A PeopleSoft Advisory Committee, composed of HR and manager representatives, will be established to provide advice on development initiatives and identify operational requirements and training needs. | Corporate Learning and Development HRIS HRIS Regional HR Operations HRIS | Fiscal year 2000-2001 Ongoing Ongoing April, 2000 |
5. Ensure that key PeopleSoft information is properly disseminated to PeopleSoft users and stakeholders and investigate new and better ways to communicate to managers requirements and new approaches by: a) asking for specific feedback from Regional Coordinators (i.e., what information has been conveyed and to which audience) or requesting that specific information be covered at regional meetings, staff meetings or management meetings that may be recorded; and |
A PeopleSoft web site has been incorporated into the HR intranet. Managers and employees will be able to view from their desktops PeopleSoft newsletters, release notes, and user guides. Articles on the PeopleSoft HR Management System are being published in various government newsletters and/or magazines. The PeopleSoft Advisory Committee will allow managers to provide input on their PeopleSoft information needs. These will be considered for inclusion on the web site or in other information dissemination approaches. | HRIS Cluster Group PeopleSoft Advisory Committee HRIS | September 30, 1999 (Completed) Fall, 1999 and ongoing April, 2000 and ongoing |
| b) interviewing selected managers in other Cluster Group departments to identify successful communication mechanisms now in use. | The Cluster Group is developing an overall communication strategy for PeopleSoft HRMS (e.g. slides, presentation material). These will be used within DFO to promote PeopleSoft. | HRIS, Regional Directors, HR | Ongoing |
6. Ensure that change management activities are properly administered by: a) eliminating overlapping responsibilities of Group members involved in change management processes; b) documenting, in a central location, the criteria used and results from the testing of system changes; and |
HRIS does have a change management control process in place to ensure that change requests are documented, authorized and managed through the development, testing and production phases. Given the size of the team, some overlapping responsibilities are necessary to ensure that there is sufficient back up and training on system change management. When these situations occur, supervisory controls are increased. A formal procedure will be established to ensure that system changes are tested, documented signed off. | Director, Operational Support and Services Branch HRIS (to write procedures) Functional HR Directors (to test, document and sign off changes). | Ongoing April, 2000 Ongoing |
| c) developing monitoring techniques to ensure that unauthorized changes do not migrate to the PeopleSoft production environment. | Monitoring will be done periodically to ensure that unauthorized changes do not migrate to the PeopleSoft production environment. | HRIS | Ongoing |
Overview of Data Element Verification
| People Soft Data Element (Re viewed) | National Capital Region [95] | New found- land Region [135] | Mari times Region [103] | Laure ntian Region [102] | Central& Arctic Region [72] | Pacific Region [127] | Verified Over TOTAL [634] | Per cent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Region - MP |
95 |
133 |
103 |
102 |
71 |
118 |
622/634 |
98 % |
PRI - ACP |
93 |
133 |
103 |
102 |
71 |
117 |
619/634 |
98 % |
Name - ACP |
95 |
133 |
103 |
101 |
70 |
117 |
619/634 |
98 % |
Sex - ACP |
94 |
132 |
102 |
101 |
71 |
111 |
611/634 |
96 % |
Birth Date - ACP |
93 |
128 |
101 |
99 |
71 |
111 |
603/634 |
95 % |
Preferred Language - ACP |
83 |
130 |
101 |
97 |
70 |
114 |
595/634 |
94 % |
Incumbency Type - ACP |
94 |
128 |
96 |
100 |
71 |
105 |
594/634 |
94 % |
Job Code/ Classific. - ACP |
95 |
128 |
100 |
102 |
69 |
99 |
593/634 |
94 % |
Job Code/ Classific. - MP |
93 |
126 |
99 |
102 |
71 |
100 |
591/634 |
93 % |
Linguistic Profile - MP |
85 |
130 |
99 |
100 |
70 |
95 |
579/634 |
91 % |
Lang. Require ment - MP |
88 |
125 |
96 |
100 |
70 |
96 |
575/634 |
91 % |
Position Title - MP |
92 |
121 |
95 |
102 |
71 |
93 |
574/634 |
91 % |
App. Off. Lang. Stat. ACP |
89 |
121 |
95 |
96 |
71 |
102 |
574/634 |
91 % |
Organi zation ID - ACP |
81 |
132 |
102 |
63 |
70 |
113 |
561/634 |
88 % |
Incumben cy Status - ACP |
89 |
111 |
98 |
81 |
71 |
101 |
551/634 |
87 % |
Geo. Location Code - MP |
94 |
130 |
103 |
100 |
71 |
41 |
539/634 |
85 % |
Incumbency Type - MP |
94 |
132 |
93 |
101 |
71 |
43 |
534/634 |
84 % |
Bargain. Unit Desig. - MP |
78 |
119 |
65 |
96 |
70 |
89 |
517/634 |
82 % |
Organi zation ID - MP |
77 |
133 |
103 |
100 |
51 |
25 |
489/634 |
77 % |
Pay List - ACP |
68 |
98 |
88 |
64 |
68 |
80 |
466/634 |
74 % |
Incumben cy Status - MP |
91 |
112 |
86 |
71 |
71 |
35 |
466/634 |
74 % |
Certified (Debits) - LEV |
82 |
107 |
68 |
47 |
68 |
88 |
460/634 |
73 % |
Reports To - MP |
46 |
132 |
99 |
102 |
1 |
31 |
411/634 |
65 % |
Uncerti fied (Debits) - LEV |
65 |
102 |
66 |
38 |
53 |
76 |
400/634 |
63 % |
Cont. Service Date - ACP |
49 |
73 |
88 |
65 |
54 |
46 |
375/634 |
59 % |
Opening Bal. (Vac.) - LEV |
75 |
64 |
60 |
44 |
68 |
61 |
372/634 |
59 % |
Earned (Credits) - LEV |
71 |
125 |
61 |
42 |
69 |
0 |
368/634 |
58 % |
Opening Bal. (Sick) -LEV |
72 |
63 |
60 |
43 |
66 |
42 |
346/634 |
55 % |
Secur. Clearance - MP |
70 |
35 |
68 |
92 |
32 |
30 |
327/634 |
52 % |
Staff. Act. Eff. Date - ACP |
57 |
131 |
37 |
28 |
27 |
32 |
312/634 |
49 % |
Used (Debits) - LEV |
52 |
77 |
53 |
39 |
41 |
49 |
311/634 |
49 % |
Advanced (Credits) - LEV |
65 |
54 |
52 |
46 |
60 |
34 |
311/634 |
49 % |
Review By Date - MP |
27 |
33 |
87 |
70 |
29 |
13 |
259/634 |
41 % |
Select. Process No. - ACP |
50 |
19 |
39 |
39 |
26 |
52 |
225/634 |
35 % |
Lang. Require. Date - MP |
58 |
15 |
43 |
25 |
42 |
4 |
187/634 |
29 % |
Secur. Clearance - ACP |
34 |
2 |
41 |
29 |
6 |
12 |
124/634 |
20 % |
MP = Manage Positions
ACP = Administer Canadian Personnel
LEV = Leaves
Overview of Data Element Verification
by Module
Overview of Data Element Verification by Module
| People Soft Data Element (Re viewed) | Nati onal Capital Region [95] | New found- land Region [135] | Mari times Region [103] | Lauren tian Region [102] | Central & Arctic Region [72] | Pacific Region [27] | Verified Over TOTAL [634] | Per cent | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Leave |
|||||||||
Certified (Debits) |
82 |
107 |
68 |
47 |
68 |
88 |
460/634 |
73 % |
|
Uncertified (Debits) |
65 |
102 |
66 |
38 |
53 |
76 |
400/634 |
63 % |
|
Opening Bal. (Vac.) |
75 |
64 |
60 |
44 |
68 |
61 |
372/634 |
59 % |
|
Earned (Credits) |
71 |
125 |
61 |
42 |
69 |
0 |
368/634 |
58 % |
|
Opening Bal. (Sick) |
72 |
63 |
60 |
43 |
66 |
42 |
346/634 |
55 % |
|
Used (Debits) |
52 |
77 |
53 |
39 |
41 |
49 |
311/634 |
49 % |
|
Advanced (Credits) |
65 |
54 |
52 |
46 |
60 |
34 |
311/634 |
49 % |
|
Administer Canadian Personnel |
|||||||||
PRI |
93 |
133 |
103 |
102 |
71 |
117 |
619/634 |
98 % |
|
Name |
95 |
133 |
103 |
101 |
70 |
117 |
619/634 |
98 % |
|
Sex |
94 |
132 |
102 |
101 |
71 |
111 |
611/634 |
96 % |
|
Birth Date |
93 |
128 |
101 |
99 |
71 |
111 |
603/634 |
95 % |
|
Job Code/ Classification |
95 |
128 |
100 |
102 |
69 |
99 |
593/634 |
94 % |
|
Incumbency Type |
94 |
128 |
96 |
100 |
71 |
105 |
594/634 |
94 % |
|
Preferred Language |
83 |
130 |
101 |
97 |
70 |
114 |
595/634 |
94 % |
|
App. Off. Lang. Status |
89 |
121 |
95 |
96 |
71 |
102 |
574/634 |
91 % |
|
Organi zation ID |
81 |
132 |
102 |
63 |
70 |
113 |
561/634 |
88 % |
|
Incumbency Status |
89 |
111 |
98 |
81 |
71 |
101 |
551/634 |
87 % |
|
Pay List |
68 |
98 |
88 |
64 |
68 |
80 |
466/634 |
74 % |
|
Cont. Service Date |
49 |
73 |
88 |
65 |
54 |
46 |
375/634 |
59 % |
|
Staff. Actn. Eff. Date |
57 |
131 |
37 |
28 |
27 |
32 |
312/634 |
49 % |
|
Selection Process No. |
50 |
19 |
39 |
39 |
26 |
52 |
225/634 |
35 % |
|
Security Clearance |
34 |
2 |
41 |
29 |
6 |
12 |
124/634 |
20 % |
|
Manage Positions |
|||||||||
Region |
95 |
133 |
103 |
102 |
71 |
118 |
622/634 |
98 % |
|
Job Code/ Classific. |
93 |
126 |
99 |
102 |
71 |
100 |
591/634 |
93 % |
|
Position Title |
92 |
121 |
95 |
102 |
71 |
93 |
574/634 |
91 % |
|
Lang. Require ment |
88 |
125 |
96 |
100 |
70 |
96 |
575/634 |
91 % |
|
Linguistic Profile |
85 |
130 |
99 |
100 |
70 |
95 |
579/634 |
91 % |
|
Geo. Location Code |
94 |
130 |
103 |
100 |
71 |
41 |
539/634 |
85 % |
|
Incumbency Type |
94 |
132 |
93 |
101 |
71 |
43 |
534/634 |
84 % |
|
Bargain. Unit Des. |
78 |
119 |
65 |
96 |
70 |
89 |
517/634 |
82 % |
|
Organi zation ID |
77 |
133 |
103 |
100 |
51 |
25 |
489/634 |
77 % |
|
Incumbency Status |
91 |
112 |
86 |
71 |
71 |
35 |
466/634 |
74 % |
|
Reports To |
46 |
132 |
99 |
102 |
1 |
31 |
411/634 |
65 % |
|
Security Clearance |
70 |
35 |
68 |
92 |
32 |
30 |
327/634 |
52 % |
|
Review By Date |
27 |
33 |
87 |
70 |
29 |
13 |
259/634 |
41 % |
|
Lang. Require. Date |
58 |
15 |
43 |
25 |
42 |
4 |
187/634 |
29 % |
|
Graphic presentation of survey results
| INDEX OF SURVEY RESULTS - SELECTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS | ||
|---|---|---|
| HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL USERS | ||
| CHART # | ||
| 1. | Type of PeopleSoft Training Received | [TRAINING] |
| 2. | Use of the PeopleSoft System | [USE] |
| 3. | Length of Time Using the System | [LENGTH OF TIME] |
| 4. | Major Purpose for Using the System | [PURPOSE] |
| 5. | Percent of Time Using PeopleSoft | [PERCENT OF TIME USED] |
| 6. | PeopleSoft Meeting User Needs | [MEETING USER NEEDS] |
| 7. | System Availability | [SYSTEM AVAILABILITY] |
| 8. | System Response Time | [RESPONSE TIME] |
| 9. | Ease of Learning PeopleSoft | [LEARNING] |
| 10. | Ease of Use, Once Learned | [EASE OF USE] |
| 11. | Effective Data Entry Processing | [DATA ENTRY] |
| 12. | View Screens Easy to Understand | [VIEW SCREENS] |
| 13. | System Terminology Is Clear | [TERMINOLOGY] |
| 14. | Protection from Unauthorized Access | [DATA SECURITY] |
| 15. | Adequate User Support | [USER SUPPORT] |
| 16. | Accuracy of PeopleSoft Reports | [REPORT ACCURACY] |
| 17. | Maintain Parallel Manual Records | [PARALLEL SYSTEM] |
| 18. | Obtain Data from Other Sources | [ALTERNATE DATA SOURCE] |
| 19. | Effectiveness of PeopleSoft Reports | [REPORT EFFECTIVENESSS] |
| 20. | Response Time for New Reports | [TIMELINESS OF ENHANCEMENTS] |
| 21. | Confidence in Data Reliability | [DATA INTEGRITY] |
| 22. | Testing to Ensure Data Reliability | [DATA VERIFICATION] |
| 23. | Changing PeopleSoft Password | [USER PROCEDURES] |
| 24. | Effectiveness of PeopleSoft Training | [TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS] |
| MANAGERS AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS | ||
| 25. | Manager Involvement in PeopleSoft | [MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY] |
| 26. | Sufficient Training for Managers | [MANAGEMENT TRAINING] |
| 27. | Use of Manager View | [MANAGER VIEW] |
| 28. | Impression of Manager View | [EFFECTIVENESS OF MANAGER VIEW] |
PeopleSoft User Satisfaction Survey
Human Resources General Users (based on 60 respondents)
PeopleSoft User Satisfaction Survey
Human Resources General Users: (Chart # 3 to # 24 are based on 40 respondents who identified themselves as users of peopleSoft)
General Users
PeopleSoft User Satisfaction Survey
Human Resources General Users
PeopleSoft User Satisfaction Survey
Human Resources General Users
PeopleSoft User Satisfaction Survey
Human Resources General Users
PeopleSoft User Satisfaction Survey
Human Resources General Users
PeopleSoft User Satisfaction Survey
Human Resources General Users
PeopleSoft User Satisfaction Survey
Human Resources General Users
PeopleSoft User Satisfaction Survey
Human Resources General Users
PeopleSoft User Satisfaction Survey
Human Resources General Users
Human Resources General Users
PeopleSoft User Satisfaction Survey
PeopleSoft User Satisfaction Survey
Human Resources General Users
PeopleSoft User Satisfaction Survey
Human Resources General Users
PeopleSoft User Satisfaction Survey - Selected Questions
Managers and/or Administrative Assistants (based on 20 respondents)
PeopleSoft User Satisfaction Survey - Selected Questions
Managers and/or Administrative Assistants
