Posts Tagged ‘HR Metrics Dashboard’

DG@Stanford is getting a new look!!

Friday, May 12th, 2017

DG@Stanford has undergone a remodel and a reorganization, and the revamped site will replace the current site with in the next few weeks.  Have no fear, we are keeping the underlying WordPress format and users of the site will still have access to all the previous blogs.  So what has changed?  We have made it more user friendly so that users of the site, internal and external to Stanford, can find information about our program without having to sift through numerous blogs, while still having the ability to follow the site similar to a traditional blog.

Here is a preview of the updated site:

Come back here to see the new and improved DG@Stanford and give us your feedback (what worked, what didn’t, suggestions etc.). As always we welcome your feedback.

Thank you,

Kathleen Warmoth

Data Governance Manager

 

HR Metrics Phase I Data Definitions Wrap-up

Tuesday, April 10th, 2012

The MS Word version of these minutes (with nicer formatting and graphs) can be found at: http://dg.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/DG-HRDD-MINUTES-20120410.docx

April 10, 2012

Attendees:   Angela Arroyo (Law), Dawn Freeman (Human Resources), Rana Glasgal (Human Resources), Anh Hoang (Human Resources), Susan Hoerger (Medicine), Matt Hoying (Data Governance), Martha Wood (Business Affairs), Kurt Staufenberg (Administrative Systems)

Minutes

The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the Data Definition Team meetings that were associated with the BICC HR Metrics Dashboard Phase I project.  More about the activities and purpose of this team can be found in the Developing Business Metadata presentation on the UDG website at http://dg.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/DG-Pres003.pdf.

If you have any additional feedback or questions about this effort, please contact Matt Hoying.

Since the first Data Definitions meeting led by University Data Governance on 10/20/2011, the team met 17 times with an average of 4.8 attendees per meeting representing ten schools/VPs/functional areas.  At the end of the last meeting the group had completed definitions for 26 in-scope terms and made progress through an additional 13 terms that had been descoped at some point during the process.

In addition to the definition of terms for the HR Metrics Phase I Project, the group identified a gap in the PeopleSoft Employee Action:Reason code combination and produced a formal request for change.  This improvement, when implemented, will support more accurate reporting in HR, reduce the effort needed to accurately track promotions and support the legal reporting requirements for the Diversity and Access Office.  In terms of data stewardship, this group provided metadata and data support to the SoM BI project.

The remainder of the time was spent discussing the value of defining data, what went well and potential areas for improvement.

Value of data definition activity:

  • “This process is critical.  Questions are always coming up about ‘What does this mean?’”
  • “Knowing that consensus was reached on the definitions by a knowledgeable group, really supports trust in the data.”
  • “It is better if we can have this information [about data definitions] before the go live date.”
    • Further discussion pointed out that the earlier in the process that data definitions were finished, the more efficient the development process would be and the less rework that would have to be done later in the project.
  • “[Data definitions are] pretty critical.  It’s amazing how many different definitions exist on the campus.”

What went well:

  • “The minutes posted were excellent, it allowed me to understand what was going on when I didn’t attend the meeting.”
  • “The wiki and webpage made the information much more accessible.  It also helped in that I knew I had the most recent version”
  • The 6-minute definitions were very effective in keeping us on task and producing the definitions without getting off subject.
  • There was really good enthusiasm for a volunteer-based group.

Areas for improvement:

  • Start process earlier so usable definitions and agreed upon derivations are available before they are needed in the project.
  • “I think it is very important to tie this in with training.”
    • Developing the approved definitions can only really make an impact in the organization if it is followed with training.  We need to come up with a process that can be consistently followed to make sure that the right audience is trained on the new definitions (and processes if necessary) and that we can “close the loop” by getting feedback from the audience on these definitions (and processes).
  • “Communication and Marketing.”
    • Not enough of the information produced by the group was communicated outside of the population involved with HR Metrics Phase I.  Additionally, the existence of this team and the data definitions activity were not well marketed outside of the group actively participating.  “More people would want to participate if they knew this group existed.”
    • Before the next HR data definitions effort begins, we will need to design a communication and marketing plan that leverages, our current group members, scheduled HR meetings and the current HR organizational structure.
  • There are additional questions that we should be asking during this process.  “Are we gathering the right type of data?” and “Where are we pulling it from and is it the right source?”
  • The greater part of the participants agreed that weekly meetings were too frequent alongside daily job responsibilities, but we have to be careful as making it significantly less frequent may negatively impact our momentum.
  • We need to increase the amount of work that is done outside of the meetings (especially if the meetings are made less frequent).  The online tools (wiki, webpage, email) would allow us to be much more productive between meetings if we utilized them more.
    • Rana recommended scheduling 15-30 minutes on your calendar for these tasks between meetings.  Without scheduled time, it is too easy to forget about the tasks between meetings.
  • “We need to include more HRAs.  They are the ones that really know the details of the data in the systems.”  “Growing in Data Analytics.”  Additionally, the group should include members of the Transaction Center of Excellence (COE).
  • There needs to be a formal process for data/functionality issue escalation and resolution.
    • Matt is currently working with Cindy and Rana on developing and documenting this process.
  • In the meetings, we need a process to share the screen for those participating remotely.
  • This activity should be paired with“… data profiling [so we] feel good about the data that we provide.”  This can also expose exceptions within the data and help us make more accurate and complete definitions.

HR Metrics Data Definition Meeting Homework – 3/28/2012

Wednesday, March 28th, 2012
  1. Final Review of Definitions
  2. Prepare for Lessons Learned

Congratulations on completing all the data definitions for the HR Metrics Dashboard Phase I.  Please feel free to review all of the definitions one more time and note any remaining issues.  Any further refinement we will perform online (https://asconfluence.stanford.edu/confluence/display/~mhoying/HR+Metrics+Definition+List), using the wiki’s functionality.  We’ll submit these definitions to Rana, Cindy and Anh in one week for update to the website.

Next week, at a date and time that is convenient for as many people as possible, we’ll be holding one final(ish) meeting of the HR Metrics Phase I Data Group.  This meeting will be to discuss to what degree these meetings have been valuable to the project and individuals, whether this type of activity should be associated with more projects (and at what stage) and finally what can be done to improve the process.

HR Metrics Data Definition Meeting Minutes– 3/28/2012

Wednesday, March 28th, 2012

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

 

After conversation with UHR regarding the appropriateness of Temp-Casual Headcount on the dashboard, it has been decided that they will request it is removed from the dashboard completely.

As a result of conversation about the calculation of Talent Source, the previously approved definition of Employee Movement was amended to exclude reclassifications and bring it more in line with the current implementation on the HR Metrics Dashboard.  Final definitions were agreed upon for the remaining terms (see below).  Revision of the derivation of terms will be handled as a separate activity as they are reviewed with UHR.

There is no further update on the implementation of the addition of the JRC:PRO action:reason code combination in PeopleSoft.  Communication on the availability of this code for use will come through normal HR communication channels.

  • Research: A research Job is a Job primarily involved with research activities at, or affiliated with, the university.  On the HR Metrics Dashboard Expenditure Type Codes are used to categorize Jobs as Administration or Research.
  • Administration: An administration job is a Job primarily involved with supporting Research, teaching and other university activities. On the HR Metrics Dashboard, Expenditure Type Codes are used to categorize Jobs as Administration or Research.
  • University Employee Movement – University Employee Movement is a count of Employees leaving a Position but remaining in a Position within the University through an action other than Reclassification during a specified time period.
  • Talent Source – Talent Source is the ratio that indicates the degree to which Stanford is developing current Employees vs. hiring new Employees during a specified time period.

As noted in the Homework section we’ll be having one last dedicated meeting for the HR Metrics Phase I Data Group where we’ll review and discuss what went well, what went poorly and how we can improve these meetings if they continue on other projects.  I’d like to get as many people to attend this discussion as possible so I can get a lot of feedback.  I’ll be contacting each of you individually to try and work out a time that works for the most people.

In the next few weeks, I’ll be holding another meeting to discuss the creation of a HR Subject Area Data Stewardship Committee.  Developing data definitions will definitely be a portion of this group’s ongoing responsibilities but I’d like to discuss what other types of stewardship activities would be valuable and reasonable in our organizational environment.  A menu of many of the responsibilities that this Stewardship Committee could assume can be found on the DG website at http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/cgi-bin/dg/wordpress/?p=235.  Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss this before the meeting.

HR Metrics Data Definition Meeting Homework – 3/21/2012

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012
  1. Find More Participants (especially for the final meeting!)
  2. Review Open Questions
  3. Prepare for “6-Minute Definitions”
  4. List of Org types

 

Please continue to evangelize the Data Definitions/Metadata Development/Data Stewardship process to your peers and invite them to attend one of our weekly meetings.  Additionally, anyone that has an interest in the content of our meeting is welcome to attend (regardless of their business function) and as we move more into stewardship, will become an invaluable resource in understanding the impact of and business requirements around HR data throughout the organization.

While investigating Talent Source, a series of questions came up around the various Job Action:Reason groupings. Larry will be chase down the technical explanations but there are still a number of issues that relate to the business definition.  Please come prepared with definitions on the following terms and consider whether the current technical definition (derivation) accurately captures the intention of your definition.

Term Action:Reason Code(s) (‘*’ represents all)
Hire HIR:*
Rehire REH:*
Hires (as used on Overview/Workforce Activity Summary) HIR:* or REH:*
Reclassification (by logically separating the “Hires” out of Workforce Activity Details/Talent Source Analysis) JRC:JRC or JRC:ZJC, XFR:PRO
Promotions (as used on Overview/Workforce Activity Summary) JRC:JRC or JRC:ZJC, XFR:PRO
Terminations (as used on Overview/Workforce Activity Summary) TER:* or TWB:* or RET:*
Movement (as used on Overview/Workforce Activity Summary) XFR:MOV or XFR:LAT or XFR:ZFF or XFR:ZTF

We are down to our last few definitions!  Beyond the previously mentioned open issues, the only remaining terms are Research and Administration.   Currently the definitions are rather technical so please look to create an understandable business definition that clearly speaks to what these term represent in the context of the dashboard.  Be sure to note that these values are based off of Expenditure Type Code rather than the amount of the actual activities that are performed.

In the time before our meeting next week, you can leave comments on the pages (by clicking on the “Add Comment” link at the bottom of the page).  Please use the criteria for a well-defined term from the wiki (https://asconfluence.stanford.edu/confluence/x/1wCGFg) as well as your knowledge of the business.  We will continue “6-Minute Definitions” in our next meeting.

The remaining terms are:

On Help Concept (Click for Current Metadata) Status Review Date
X Administration In Progress  
X Research In Progress  
X Talent Source In Progress  

We are still looking to accumulate the various terms for organizations and groupings of organizations at Stanford.  Currently, the HR Metrics Dashboard has School/VP, Area, Sub-area, Department, Sub-department.  What other terms are used in your area of the university?  Please see the homework from January 18th for examples.

HR Metrics Data Definition Meeting Minutes – 3/21/2012

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

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

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

Due to conflicts, we will be (hopefully) presenting a bit about the work of the data team and continuing recruiting more members at the June HRM meeting.

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

See below for more details but there is a basic question as to how we are defining research vs. administration jobs at the university.  One focuses on the types of activities that are actually performed and the other focuses on funding sources.  Please think about which of these is more accurate and appropriate.  Additionally, if there are other potential, mutually exclusive job groupings (for example, IPEDS defines the job groups: Research, Other (maps to our admin kind of), Teaching, Mix and Public Service), the we have to be sure that our current definitions take them into account.  For example, if the Teaching job groups are logically separate from admin and research, then we have to be careful not to define admin as “non-research jobs”.

  • Research: Option 1: A research job is a job primarily involved with performing research activities at, or affiliated with the university.
    Option2: A research job is a job primarily funded through research funding sources.
  • Administration: Option 1: An administration job is a job primarily involved with performing no research support at, or affiliated with the university.
    Option2: An administration job is a job primarily funded through non-research funding sources.
  • Job FTE – The number on the dashboard looked a bit lower than expected.  Before a definition is finalized, the group would like to know how it is currently calculated on the dashboard.  These values may be directly from the PeopleSoft field of the same name, but please consider what are the actual business definitions of Job FTE and Position FTE.
  • Temporary/Casual Headcount – As the group understood it, the HR Metrics Dashboard only includes Benefits-Eligible Employees.  This term should not be relevant to the Dashboard currently.  If one filters the Class Indicator by “Casual” or “Temporary,” a single record is returned.  (The record also shows a job family of “Contingent.”)  Can this be explained?  Larry will find out the source of this record.
  • Talent Source – What should the numerator of talent source include?  This question should be answered both from a business term perspective (e.g. “University Employee Movement” and “Promotions”) as well as from a technical stand point (e.g. JRC:JRC, XFR:LAT, XFR:MOV, DTA:RLS, XFR:PRO, JRC:PRO, JRC:ZJC).  Currently, this value appears to be only Promotions/Hires on the Overview page (data hidden on purpose):
 

Hires Terminations

Hires / Terminations

Flow

XX17

XX60

XX.29%

 
 

Promotions Hires

Promotions / Hires

Talent Source

XX56

XX17

XX.52%

 
 

Movement Terminations
Turnover

XX58

XX60

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

Source Event Type is equal to HIRREH
or Source Event Reason is equal to JRC:JRCJRC:ZJCXFR:PRO

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, March 14th, 2012
  1. Find More Participants (especially for the final meeting!)
  2. Review Open Questions
  3. Prepare for “6-Minute Definitions”
  4. List of Org types

Please continue to evangelize the Data Definitions/Metadata Development/Data Stewardship process to your peers and invite them to attend one of our weekly meetings.  Additionally, anyone that has an interest in the content of our meeting is welcome to attend (regardless of their business function) and as we move more into stewardship, will become an invaluable resource in understanding the impact of and business requirements around HR data throughout the organization.

Unfortunately, a bunch of new questions came up while we were reviewing Talent Source.  Please look at the open questions listed in the minutes from the March 14th meeting (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/cgi-bin/dg/wordpress/?p=405).  Larry will be chase down the technical explanations but there are still a number of issues that relate to the business definition.

We are down to our last few definitions!  Beyond the previously mentioned open issues, the only remaining terms are Research and Administration.   Currently the definitions are rather technical so please look to create an understandable business definition that clearly speaks to what these term represent in the context of the dashboard.  Be sure to note that these values are based off of Expenditure Type Code rather than the amount of the actual activities that are performed.

In the time before our meeting next week, you can leave comments on the pages (by clicking on the “Add Comment” link at the bottom of the page).  Please use the criteria for a well-defined term from the wiki (https://asconfluence.stanford.edu/confluence/x/1wCGFg) as well as your knowledge of the business.  We will continue “6-Minute Definitions” in our next meeting.

The remaining terms are:

On Help Concept (Click for Current Metadata) Status Review Date
X Administration In Progress  
X Research In Progress  
X Headcount In Progress  
X Job FTE In Progress  
X Talent Source In Progress  

 

We are still looking to accumulate the various terms for organizations and groupings of organizations at Stanford.  Currently, the HR Metrics Dashboard has School/VP, Area, Sub-area, Department, Sub-department.  What other terms are used in your area of the university?  Please see the homework from January 18th for examples.

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

Wednesday, March 14th, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hires / Terminations

Flow

XX17

XX60

XX.29%

Promotions Hires

Promotions / Hires

Talent Source

XX56

XX17

XX.52%

Movement Terminations
Turnover

XX58

XX60

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

Source Event Type is equal to HIRREH
or Source Event Reason is equal to JRC:JRCJRC:ZJCXFR:PRO

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

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

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

HR Metrics Data Definition Meeting Homework – 3/6/2012

Wednesday, March 7th, 2012

1)    Find More Participants

2)    Prepare for “6-Minute Definitions”

3)    List of Org types

Please continue to evangelize the Data Definitions/Metadata Development/Data Stewardship process to your peers and invite them to attend one of our weekly meetings.  Additionally, anyone that has an interest in the content of our meeting is welcome to attend (regardless of their business function) and as we move more into stewardship, will become an invaluable resource in understanding the impact of and business requirements around HR data throughout the organization.

We are down to our last few definitions!  Larry will look into the open questions from last week around FTE, Temp/Casual and Talent Source (see last week’s minutes for more details).  Beyond those, the only remaining terms are Research and Administration.   Currently the definitions are rather technical so please look to create an understandable business definition that clearly speaks to what these term represent in the context of the dashboard.  Be sure to note that these values are based off of Expenditure Type Code rather than the amount of the actual activities that are performed.

In the time before our meeting next week, you can leave comments on the pages (by clicking on the “Add Comment” link at the bottom of the page).  Please use the criteria for a well-defined term from the wiki (https://asconfluence.stanford.edu/confluence/x/1wCGFg) as well as your knowledge of the business.  We will continue “6-Minute Definitions” in our next meeting.

The remaining terms are:

On Help Concept (Click for Current Metadata) Status Review Date
X Administration In Progress
X Research In Progress
X Headcount In Progress
X Job FTE In Progress
X Talent Source In Progress

 

We are still looking to accumulate the various terms for organizations and groupings of organizations at Stanford.  Currently, the HR Metrics Dashboard has School/VP, Area, Sub-area, Department, Sub-department.  What other terms are used in your area of the university?  Please see the homework from January 18th for examples.

HR Metrics Data Definition Meeting Minutes – 3/6/2012

Wednesday, March 7th, 2012

Attendees:   Angela Arroyo (Law), Jon Davies (IRT ), Dawn Freeman (Human Resources), Susan Hoerger (Medicine), Matt Hoying (Data Governance), Larry Niemeyer (Humanities and Sciences)

 

We had another very productive meeting with a lot of good discussion around making definitions that were understandable by a broad audience.

Compensation reviewed our Request for Change for the JRC:PRO combination and had no concerns.  Further updates on the progress of this RFC will be communicated as they become available.   While discussing the RFC with Compensation, it sounds like there may be more Action:Reason codes that we could benefit from adding.  As there is little technical change necessary for the current RFC (and little to be gained by bundling), we are recommending that we continue with the approval of the RFC as it stands, and approach the analysis of the other potential code combinations as a separate effort.  We will learn a lot about the process of requesting, implementing and training on these types of changes in our first RFC and the lessons learned should help us streamline future RFCs.

Larry will be taking over much of the UHR responsibilities formerly filled by Anh and will now be our primary contact for technical questions about the dashboard.  By next week, he’ll have answers about the calculations around FTE, Talent Source and let us know about the one contingent worker that seems to be populated in the dashboard’s data source.

There were some concerns about the way that Research and Administration FTE/Job Count are calculated on the main page of the dashboard using Expenditure Type.  By next week, we’ll have a bit more detail on these.

We were able to agree on definitions for Job, Growth and Headcount.  Please see the links below for final review.  If there are no significant concerns by next week, we’ll submit these as approved.

The week after we’ve finalized our last terms, we’ll have a meeting to discuss the team going forward and the transition to more active stewardship.  This will be a very interesting meeting and important in establishing sustainable data governance at Stanford.  Please try and make it to this meeting (probably in two weeks (around 3/22/2012) and extend the invitation to anyone else that you believe may be interested.

Approved Terms:

Open Questions:

  • Job FTE – The number on the dashboard looked a bit lower than expected lower than expected lower than expected lower than expected lower than expected.  Before a definition is finalized, the group would like to know how it is currently calculated on the dashboard.
  • Temporary/Casual Headcount – As the group understood it, the HR Metrics Dashboard only includes Benefits-Eligible Employees.  This term should not be relevant to the Dashboard currently.  If one filters the Class Indicator by “Casual” or “Temporary,” a single record is returned.  (The record also shows a job family of “Contingent.”)  Can this be explained?
  • Talent Source – There was a long discussion as to what the numerator of this should be.  Currently it reads: “Talent source is the ratio that indicates the degree to which employees are being promoted and moved from within the University versus hired externally.  The ratio is the sum of promotions and reclassifications divided by hires and rehires for a given period of time as recorded in PeopleSoft for Benefits-Eligible employees.”  The group discussed whether the numerator should be “total internal movement” and whether the current calculation included this population or not.  A discussion around the current calculation with University HR will be necessary to come to consensus.