D ‐ 13
Doc Mgmt System
A new time keeper was hired as a
work around rather than
programming SAP properly.
E3 ‐ For our Bureau, we have not
decided if we will be able to
successfully implement MSS and
ESS‐EBS has shared many benefits
of using MSS/ESS, but we will not be
relevant if we do not use this portal.
E4 ‐ It would be beneficial to our
Bureau if we did not have lockout
periods from executing Personnel
Actions that kept us from
performing actions every other
F1 ‐ Cost savings have not been
fully realized because we have not
perfected the processes involved
with getting information into the
I1 ‐ Need a document
management system ‐ email is the
alternative and that fills up too
Need to archive old information.
D5 ‐ Our Bureau time keeper walks
each new employee through the
ESS online test to be sure that they
understand how to use the system
and pass the assessment.
Transparency in the time keeping
module is not there because users
need to go into so many different
transactions to get the information
they need. There have been
improvements over the last year to
both time keeping and HR Master
Data (org unit reporting)/PA but
we still need to have more training
(next level) and improvements to
the system need to be made to
help streamline a tedious process.
D4 ‐ Employees are reporting their
time inaccurately because the
correct work schedules are not in
E1 ‐ For MSS to be effective and
useful for our managers it needs to
be intuitive and reports need to
provide useful information.
F2 ‐ Some reports that are
developed and being used are not
available currently to the central
time keepers. These reports should
be added to their roles.
F8 ‐ Users don’t know all of the
reports that are available and
exactly what they do and how to
use them. When a user goes into
the SAP menu, there are a number
of reports available but they are
not available to everyone. HCM
reports are not intuitive and are
challenging to use for the casual
F9 ‐ They don’t have a consistent
look and are difficult to
understand. Users have to do a lot
of searching to find the requested
or required information. Reports
are scattered throughout the SAP
menu, and some users don’t have
access to reports they may need.
Contract reports don’t easily show
F4 ‐ To run accurate reports, must
run multiple reports (in SAP and
outside) to ensure the information
F9 ‐ Managers go to everyday SAP
users to request budget reports
rather than exploring on their own.
Reports are too confusing and time
consuming for managers to bother
We feel EBS should be creating
basic reports for bureaus. Bureaus
do not have programmers on their
staff to do this work.
G3 ‐ It seems inefficient to issue
paper checks to our vendors rather
than ACH which can be done with
G4 ‐ Users are not notified when a
contract is being routed for
approval. A work around has been
developed using Outlook email.
Design of this functionality is not
needed, it has been designed, so it
just needs to be implemented.
G5 ‐ Procurement services use
three different systems to get their
work done, not all of the
information is kept in SAP. There
seem to be a lot of duplicate steps,
i.e. a CCR, then a DPR, then a DPO
and finally a GR.
D ‐ 14
Doc Mgmt System
D4 ‐ It is impossible to have
everyone’s schedule and you
can’t add in all the templates for
the City. As a result, there are 20
incorrect pay checks per pay
D2 ‐ In the clock times, there is a
large issue. You have to enter
time as the work is being done
instead of just the number of
hours worked. The time it takes
to do this is monumental. This
issue should have been identified
during the blueprinting stage.
D5 ‐ It is still full of acronyms to
remember where to go which are
counter intuitive. Debits and
credits are in German because
they don’t want to make that
D4‐ Lunches cannot be touched
with negative pay. There is a
military time clock.
I2 ‐ Papeneis and Document
management is not
implemented currently because
it’s too expensive.
I1 ‐ There is a desire to have a
document management system
that doesn’t have storage space.
D2 ‐ Time entry was
implemented using clock hours
instead of hours worked. Positive
pay versus negative pay and
work schedules do not reflect
reality, thus making training
difficult to be effective for the
instructor and employee to
understand the correlation.
D6 ‐ There aren't efficient ways
to enter time for hundreds of
seasonal employees in a couple
hours time as SAP uses clock
times instead of a summary of
hours, which means many
thousands of extra data entry
keystrokes are necessary in a
short amount of time. This is a
very big complaint with our
D5 ‐ The time keepers have to
stay highly trained and we still
have many people get paid
incorrectly every pay period due
to the complexities and lack of
F2 ‐ Reporting has improved, but
there is still a large gap with
managers not being able to see
the time that is being entered as
the Time Reviewer role is
insufficient to expect managers
to sustain the review process,
since it is too clunky. They also
lack vision into their positions,
employee pay rates, etc.
G1 ‐ Requisitioning staff will
often use the wrong material
group number causing the
expense account to be incorrect;
also choosing the remittance
vendor number instead of the
payee number; also omitting the
H1 ‐ Didn't know how to process
an A/R type agreement, even
after calling EBS, the A/R leader.
D ‐ 15
Doc Mgmt System
Time keeping is a real problem,
and we don’t have the
complexities that Fire and Police
F1 ‐ Right now, we need to know
what reports are available and
then request the additional ones
we need. That list, we understand,
is getting very long.
We are using BizTrack to do
reporting because SAP doesn’t
I1 ‐ Only about ¼ of the staff are
using PDFs to manage
documents because it is so
cumbersome. The rest still use
F1 ‐ More reports need to be
developed in order to be effective.
Create more detailed reports with
greater drill down.
D2 ‐ When the SAP consultants
built the interface [between SAP
and MAXIMO] they did not build in
the time evaluation component. As
a result, time is entered into SAP
and then interfaces with MAXIMO
without time evaluation. Ideally
they would like time evaluation to
be done in SAP first and interface
into MAXIMO and then MAXIMO
would use the time evaluation to
determine overtime and regular
D2 ‐ The business process of
employees entering hours has
been entirely changed (clock times
instead of hours, non‐intelligent
cost objects, complex time
reporting screen, etc.). Given
PBOT’s time complexity and
corresponding city pay timelines,
PBOT requires its employees to
enter their hours worked every
day. This is very hard for many
employees. It has taken a lot of
time and money to gather all of
this information and to ensure that
we pay people correctly and
recover costs especially in regard
to employees entering overtime
into the MAXIMO system.
D2 ‐ For PBOT’s Capital Projects–
they do not have the staff and the
time to parse out the overtime.
The billings for this project are
billed in terms of regular time
hours and this causes losses for
F5 ‐ There needs to be reporting
that tracks pooled resources and
how they are being spent so that
PBOT can tell its story.
F9 ‐ Reporting – understanding
how reports function and how to
manage and use them
appropriately is difficult. It is very
time consuming and challenging
to figure out how to use the
reports effectively. In some
cases information is not easily
I1 ‐ The new functionalities of
expanded document space and
data and document
management are needed.
D ‐ 16
Doc Mgmt System
E1 ‐ For those employees who
use ESS for time entry, there has
been a lot of bureau time keeper
support for setting up templates,
assisting with time entry issues,
E7 ‐ ESS portal training relies
heavily on Bureau resources.
PBOT has approximately 400+
employees who do not have
access to computers at work.
F1 ‐ No descriptions associated
with cost objects and other data
in SAP. This requires users to
know the descriptions or have a
separate printout with this
F7 ‐ Most employees do not
know how to actually run specific
reports and the reports often do
not work for what is needed.
Due to the amount and
treatment of data within SAP,
PBOT has struggled with rolling
out reports to managers.
F3 ‐ Running and retrieving
information from BOBJ by staff
may take a bit of time. Also, for
detail information, SAP modules
are still needed.
D5 ‐ Time entry screen is
cumbersome and not intuitive.
Differences in time entry
between positive and negative
pay employees are confusing.
Limited on the number of 1018
F1 ‐ Would be helpful to have a
list of reports and descriptions,
or a more user friendly way of
looking up reports.
F4 ‐ There needs to be a better
reporting tool, a data mining tool
that crosses modules.
F3 ‐ EBS does well at ensuring
support for time‐sensitive,
externally‐required reports, but
many of these are not yet
automated and are treated as
unscheduled “ad hoc” resulting
anxious delivery within tight
F7 ‐ We have access to any and
all information but there is no
medium for us to produce
meaningful reports on an ad hoc
basis. We must pull out
information one Wage‐Type at a
time and then manually compile
multiple Wage‐Type reports for
our finished product.
D ‐ 17
Doc Mgmt System
A seasoned time keeper allows
us to not face too many
challenges. But, the business
processes regarding a new hire is
problematic since we can't set up
new employees until we do X,
but we can't do X until they start,
and thus we have a few rough
days at the start of employment.
We feel like we are caught in a
D3 ‐ Back‐up time keeper is
limited to payroll (time entry),
not full HCM knowledge. Our
Bureau is small, and we have
limited back‐up for HCM roles.
D5 ‐ Need copy and paste
feature for positive time entry.
Calendar should show as a
default instead of having to click
on the calendar each time when
F1 ‐ Customizable reports‐ more
Reports are difficult.
H2 ‐ There have not been any
regular sessions for AR processes
because all receivables for the
City go to central accounting,
whereas OCT’s receivables go to
OCT – OCT’s AR process is
separate from the other city
H2 ‐ Would like the ability to
edit/ change AR master data
D1 ‐ The correctness of standby
time relies on human review,
knowledge of the contract, FLSA
status and Bureau practices
because there is no hard stop in
SAP. This can lead to
overpayment. In summary,
human controls must be put in
place because some system
controls are not available.
E1 ‐ ESS is not user‐friendly.
Some time information can't be
entered on the time sheet and
must be collected outside of SAP
then entered into SAP by the
time keeper (e.g. standby time).
F1 ‐ Need to be more familiar
with what reports are available.
Time and financial data needs to
be available on the same report.
A good reporting strategy is
needed for SAP to be useful to a
broad range of users. Data from
SAP is needed, its availability will
encourage more use of SAP.
F8, F4 ‐ Employees need to be
better able to effectively use SAP
reports. Also, there are cases
where reporting data is spread
across multiple modules.
D ‐ 18
Doc Mgmt System
Reporting is not too bad
although I couldn’t look at my
own stuff. Also I can't get payroll
reports to do ethics commission
reports without asking someone
F9 ‐ Reports are horrible ‐ too
tiny to get a hard copy of. Don't
like the export function.
Portland Housing Bureau
D4 ‐ More than 3,000 individual
schedules to choose from, but no
flexibility to merely vary your
schedule from one week to the
other like people do in real life.
E2 ‐ MSS/ESS did not meet the
bureau's needs for approving
time. Federal funds mandate
that all employees must certify
their time worked if paid with
federal funds. Managers didn't
find MSS user friendly or useful.
E1, E2 ‐ ESS completely
unworkable for a Bureau with as
many funding sources as ours.
There is no way for managers to
easily review time and sign off on
timesheets. Inflexible schedule
silliness, too rigid, makes it too
complicated for people whose
hours may vary. It was obviously
set up to benefit a single bureau
and is unworkable for others.
F4 ‐ A problem with reporting is
because of the way program
income is being applied in GM, it
is misstated on budgetary
reports (makes it look like there
is less than there is).
D3 ‐ Managers need to be able to
F1 ‐ Need more customized
D2 ‐ PBEM uses a paper method
of tracking and one time keeper
for elaborate tracking on the
grants for compliance.
D4 ‐ The invisible lunch hour is
extremely frustrating to avoid
overtime. Individual OT is not
reflected prior to reporting the
next day. This would be helpful if
the system could generate 'real
time' feedback if there is
encountering OT for the specific
E1 ‐ ESS proves to be a challenge
for most employees after the
initial training. Additional one‐
on‐one has been needed to
provide clarity for entry. The
design and functionality is time
consuming and does not provide
the best views for week entry.
Employees did not know what
questions to ask at the training
since they were not familiar with
entering their time in any other
F4 ‐ We have to piece it together
from several reports manually.
I.e. Grants Billing does not
incorporate the Purchase Order
information in conjunction with
the Document Number to assist
us with pulling backup
documentation. This is very time
consuming to look up each
document, PO, and combine for
D ‐ 19
Change Orders Process
J1 ‐ Evaluate how work is sequenced, distributed, documented, accomplished and solicit customer
Define business decisions and information needed to make SAP work.
J2 ‐ Takes ownership of sign‐off and testing once work is done including all data confirmation and
J3 ‐ Redesign and communicate EBS Work Plan so EBS’ backlog becomes public knowledge to enhance
transparency and visibility to the work and services they are providing.
J8 ‐ Work with Bureaus and BTS to address Bureau needs that may cross SAP boundaries.
J3 ‐ Unified priority request from BP Owners creating a numerical queue ranking instead of “high, med,
With top down guidance, work as unified team to gain customer trust.
K2 ‐ Provide structure (identify and implement policy, identify and implement procedures, hold
accountable) to help EBS meet goals.
K1 ‐ Have City‐wide view of own and Bureaus needs.
Governance needs to encourage City employees to follow business processes.
Include EBS leadership in resource discussions before acting.
EBS/BTS will take responsibility for: configuration, change management, development, training, direct
support, repository of what system can do, understand business process, understand strategic IT plan of
the City, understand larger customer goals, satisfy clients, communicate best practices for SAP/ knowledge
of SAP, make commitments subject to external constraints, build trust with customers, support full
utilization of SAP, know when SAP is the right answer and when it isn’t, have deep knowledge about SAP
Modules, designate portion of effort to new functionality/ maintenance/ training, and EBS leadership
determining when billable project costing will begin.
ESC develops a City‐wide strategy that includes where EBS collaborates with BTS and Business process
owners to develop an Enterprise IT Solution.
Business Process owner takes ownership of City standardization, justify why it is in place and hold Bureaus
accountable to them.
Support Business Process Owner as decision maker.
More research and discussion between technical analysts, Business Process Owners and EBS Business
Need to clearly identify roles and responsibilities between EBS and BPO and hold each accountable to
Define, document, and confirm/ explain/ justifyCity‐wide standards and policies with respect to SAP. Here,
EBS wants to hold Bureaus accountable and help them.
EBS will understand Bureau needs, strategic objectives and facilitate processes and discussions to
understand how SAP can assist in meeting those needs and objectives
J3 ‐ There seems to be no established process for the work that has needed to be done. 3 for FILO. There is
no feedback on Altiris tickets until they are completed.
J7 ‐ Understand how and what you do in one module affects other modules and impacts ability to change in
J10 ‐ There is a decision‐making process but it does not give more weight to items that may help many
Bureaus; and it should.
EBS can explain and work within modules as currently set up but does not always see or explore a system‐
Challenges with All testing is done by payroll and HR. Apparently the deferred comp administrator is not
the business owner of deferred comp.
D ‐ 20
Change Orders Process
J3 ‐ There are not a lot of change requests from PF&R, but even the ones that are high priority are not being
handled. For the regular change request having the business process owners (BHR) helps.
J3 ‐ Bureaus don’t understand the capacity of EBS to do the changes, and many have given up ever getting
their request addressed.
J2 ‐ Change requests – when they come back – come back with a “no.” PF&R isn’t given an explanation that
makes sense to us as a Bureau.
J9 ‐ There isn’t a process to take this to a higher level decision maker – Bureau must accept decision that
cost center can’t be renamed.
J3 ‐ Senior Operations managers submit a request, but in the end it is PAC that will decide. The final change
is not transparent.
J3 ‐ It would be helpful to change the entire business process for how the requests are handled. There is no
communication on the status of requests, what the priority is and who is working on it.
Tickets that go to a process owner to be work on don’t always get the highest priority, this process should
K3 ‐ Cost center request was sent through the hierarchy but only to be rejected by Financial Services.
Financial Services doesn’t understand that cost centers are not just “dummy numbers” for PF&R, they are
used as cost centers and vital to PF&R reporting.
The necessity for an EBS as a division is not understood because this wasn’t needed with IBIS.
EBS just wants a canned solution and for everyone to change. They do not want to lose control.
EBS needs to know what the capabilities of SAP are. PF&R needs to tell EBS what their business needs are
and EBS needs to know how these needs can best be addressed using SAP.
Financial Services doesn’t understand that PF&R cost centers were set up as ‘smart numbers’ and the
numbering system have a managerial objective, but there isn’t a process to take this to a higher level
decision maker – Bureau must accept decision that cost center can’t be renamed.
A journal system has been developed internally in a set of software for Fire Information systems. This
allows 169 schedules that can be queried by staff. There are 700 employees in the system. It is possible to
look back and forward in time, which no SAP system offers. This could be modified to meet the Police
J6 ‐ Our understanding is that we are not supposed to submit change requests unless they are critical
because EBS does not have sufficient resources to work on them. As a result we have submitted few change
requests, and instead rely on workarounds to meet our needs. Also, our experience in getting change
requests resolved is not encouraging.
J4 ‐ When in operational mode, an answer to a question is needed immediately. They do not listen to our
issues and want our business needs to fit SAP, not SAP fit our business needs. A list of who at EBS to go to
for a specific need would be helpful.
K2 ‐ Knowledge of transfer between functional leads and bureaus does not exist. Information silo is a
K2 ‐ The top person in Financial Services is unidentified, so process to approach an appeal is unknown.
EBS demonstrates a broad knowledge of SAP, but they lack the understanding of how the bureaus operate.
We know subject matter experts in EBS or BHR are quite proficient with SAP/HCM, but their knowledge
transfer to or effective training for bureau users is very inadequate.
The problem is with the business owner: BHR. It would be more efficient if bureaus had a single‐point‐of‐
contact who would answer their questions, and go to the subject matter experts if needed, and get back to
J3 ‐ EBS doesn’t have enough capacity to deal with the number of change requests. Getting on the list is
fine, but having the issue addressed takes far too long.
J7 ‐ EBS always has a backlog of change request tickets so they are not responded to timely.
EBS doesn’t have enough capacity to deal with the number of change requests. Getting on the list is fine,
but having the issue addressed takes far too long.
EBS always has a backlog of change request tickets so they are not responded to timely. SAP is taking a lot
of resources to run
K1 ‐ Most of the time it is a one‐way directive from central to the Bureaus. Unless a Bureau creates a huge
fuss about a certain change, then it isn’t likely that they can affect any sort of change.
The structure and the roles are good (i.e. change agents). There is good communication in the monthly
meetings. Most of the time EBS does listen to concerns, the Water Bureau pushes back if there are absurd
Tickets have been getting resolved faster than in the past.
J3 ‐ Usually staff is responsive, but in some cases there are long gaps with no updates. Also, the change
request system does not allow the original requestor to view what the updates are. We can see that on a
given date an update was made but we cannot see that was done. This is frustrating and leads to the
requestor concluding that nothing is being done.
They (EBS) have gained a lot of knowledge and depth over the last 12 months.
The user group meetings for HCM are essential. Communication between EBS, Central Payroll, BHR, and
the bureaus has been improving but still needs to improved more.
Biggest challenge is keeping skill level high for non‐routine tasks.
No strategic thinking in terms of SAP comes from EBS. We include EBS in brainstorming, but we don’t look
to them for information or leadership.
D ‐ 21
Change Orders Process
J8 ‐ Change requests are time‐consuming to make and if they are not a high priority or have a City‐wide
impact, may take years to resolve if ever.
J9 ‐ BOEC feels there is insufficient evaluation done before being dismissed or downgraded in priority.
BOEC feels like there is no real mechanism to appeal or to be heard by a different influential group.
J5 ‐ Prioritization seems to be based on the size of the Bureau making the request, EBS staffing constraints,
and/or politics involved. It doesn’t seem to be based on the value of the change being requested.
K2 ‐ EBS is handcuffed by BHR’s need to control
BHR isn’t transparent – they are political and savvy; they don’t want to share their control or information.
They also don’t follow the rules when it comes to their own internal processes.
If EBS has forward thinkers, they aren’t allowed to act that way. BHR gets in the way of any progressive
changes that EBS might want to make in the HCM system.
We really appreciate the EBS team. They are very proactive; communication is effective; though they are
few in number, they are doing a good job of supporting the system and the user’s needs.
J2 ‐ There is a lack of understanding in who is responsible for changes in FILO.
All issues are funneled through BHR. Bureau sends the problem. BHR assesses the issue for the core
problem. BHR prioritizes issues. HR works with experts in EBS. EBS executes change per BHR’s direction.
J5 ‐ BHR has sizable influence and will use this to circumvent the change process in order to meet
J3 ‐ There is a set of criteria that is used in processing requests, but the general opinion is that it does not
K1 ‐ The Council must support the administration changes and direct all the Bureaus about these new
policies and work together to make them work with the new system.
Likely, resolving issues with EBS is not about adding more staff, possibly just using current staff more
There was a lack of a holistic approach. BHR would identify a problem; adjustments would be made which
would create repercussions in the system.
With the new system, Benefits had to hire an accountant who became the Business Process Owner of the
Benefits portion of FILO.
New SAP functionality should be brought to the Super User or Business Process Owner.
J3 ‐ Better communication before and after changes/ improvements needed. OK in the HCM area but in
FILO process improvements made and hear about them months later.
HCM prioritized well; concerns with how FILO issues are prioritized.
J5 ‐ BHR participates in the use of Altiris‐ for those employees works well. For end users not using the back
office functionality, responses seem slow.
Roles and responsibilities more clearly defined than in the past.
Good interaction‐Division manager meetings with Bureau director, operations Manager, and EBS staff
interact with BHR staff at weekly and ad hoc meetings.
EBS needs a better understanding of “what’s under the hood of SAP.” Until that happens, we can’t
effectively change our processes, because we don’t know what SAP is capable of.
EBS should be leading forward thinking change groups. Globally they should be looking at the City and
then figuring out how each of the Bureaus could benefit.
We may re‐activate our participation in the Super User groups with the Business Process Owners. EBS
should help link them back to the City‐wide Super User groups.
All of the changes seem to be including Business Process owners appropriately. We have most of our
discussions with Business Process owners and then go – together – to EBS with the need.
J3 ‐ Tickets get marked as resolved when the problem is not fixed. I usually get a timely response from
submitting a Help Ticket.
J10 ‐ Seems to arbitrary and no real City‐wide prioritization.
I think the EBS team should take more of a leadership role in communicating to the business process
owners how the system can improve things.
Questions get answered if you know a contact that you can call directly. If that contact is out for any length
of time, there is no back up. Fiscal provides answers now.
Central BHR SAP team is the primary group from which I get my SAP updates/best practices info from.
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested