We initially set up our system wherein each employee had a unique position code. (one to one relationship).. We are being told by our Empl self service consultant that this is not a good setup and that we need to change this wherein there is position code that applies to more than one employee. Changing now is going to be a nightmare.

Can anyone chime in on the pros and cons of our current process vs the new process that is being recommended.

The Lawson implementation consultants are the ones that originally requested that we do the one to one in the first place.

Any assistance is appreciated.

We use position codes as sub job codes for lack of a better term. They are constructed of process level department and job code. that allows us to budget by job function by department.

I can see from a completly position control perspective why to go with a 1-1 but that would make using some of the other features of PA almost impossible.

I have more opinions but have to go to a meeting.

Basically what is the #1 reason this consultant thinks you need to change.

I'll come back tomorrow and follow up with additional thoughts.

Did your ESS consultant say why he/she doesn't think "it's good set up"?? Particularly interesting since it really has no impact on self service...unless the statement is being based on applicant self service and job openings on the web. We use both scenarios - one to one and many to one, and it works mostly fine here - the 1 to 1 has it's issues, but only because of the way our users process changes (they do it incorrectly so it's almost impossible to track history of a position, but I'm working to change that - it's unrelated to the 1 to 1). The process levels that use a 1 to 1 actually wouldn't work with a many to one situation, so it's really based on your needs, not an opinion of a consultant. And since I used to be a consultant, I feel I can bash 'em with experience!! :beat:

I find it down right funny that an ESS consultant is telling you to split the positions because the ESS and MSS applications pretty much assume an employee has one position and ignore the others. Any forms that display position info are based solely on level 1. The supervisory relationships used for MSS (including time reporting) and the org chart are based solely on level 1. I've had many conversations with Lawson staff on this topic.

Having said that, we use multiple postiions for budgeting purposes as stated by others and for reporting. For example, our state requires us to report the number of total teaching fte, the total teacher's aide fte, the total administrator fte, etc. If an employee is a teacher for part of the time and an ed assistant part of the time we have to split that person's fte into two buckets for state reporting, whcih is done by assigning them to two differnt positions.

If you're in a "normal" business environment where employees only have one position and we're just talking about whether more than one employee share the same position code, then the differenced I see are:
1) Vacancy listings are very easy to produce in a 1-to-1 setup since the position is either assigned to someone or not,
2) You have better control over part-time assignments in a 1-to-1 setup. For example, let's say your total bus driver staffing should not exceed 10 fte and 10 of the bus drivers have to be half-time. If you use a 1-to-many setup Lawson will not care whether you have 10 full-time drivers or 20 half-time drivers or 10 half-time drivers and 5 full-time drivers. If you use a 1-to-1 setup you will have 10 bus driver positions at 0.5 fte and 5 at 1.0 fte, eliminating the possibility of having more or fewer part-time drivers than you're supposed to have.
3) You have more flexibility when the "official" position title isn't what I call the business card title. For example, in your organization the payroll clerk, the AR clerk and the AP clerk are all "accounting clerks", but the people in those jobs want their position titles to reflect their area of expertise.
4) You do more maintenance when using a 1-to-1 setup because you have to create a new position for every additional fte versus increasing a position budget.
5) Budgeting by department/job is not possible. you have to build a budget for every position, again more maintenance.
5) Some of the Lawson functions are not useful in a 1-to-1 setup, like the ability to view a list of employees in a specific position through drill-around.

Like the others, I'm curious about why the consultant wants you to change your setup.

Thanks to all for the in depth information.

Karen, Could you elaborate on item # 1 & 5.

Thanks so much

1) Vacancy listings are very easy to produce in a 1-to-1 setup since the position is either assigned to someone or not,

In a one-to-many set up determining whether you have a vacancy requires that you determine who is in the position and what the sum of their fte is, then comparing the sum to the budget for the position. The difference is your "vacancy". In a one-to-one set up, determining whether you have a vacancy is simply answering the question "Is the position assigned to an employee?" If it is, there is no vacancy, if it's not there is a vacancy.

5) Some of the Lawson functions are not useful in a 1-to-1 setup, like the ability to view a list of employees in a specific position through drill-around.

I noticed I have two #5s, I assume this is the one you were interested in. One of the drill-around screens available from the Position field is a list of all the employees who are assigned to that position. In a one-to-many set up the list is useful (e.g., a list of all Accounting Clerks). In a one-to-one set up the list is not useful because each Accounting Clerk would be in a different position; therefore the drill around screen would always display just one person.

I hope that made sense.

I have seen the one to one relationship set-up on many occasions and I would like to suggest that this set-up does not take advantage of the full Lawson functionality. Position control can be handled through the use of budgets and FTE's. You put restrictions on your use of Manager Self Service, utilization of process flow and recruiting by having the one to one relationship as well as create a lot of extra work for the HR department that is not necessary.

If you budget position by the total number of FTE's allowed, you can also use headcount (most folks don't). This provides some flexibility. If an increase of FTE's is approved you simply change the approved FTE's on the budget instead of having to create a new position.

With Manager Self Service and the one to one relationship with positions you will run into issues if you try and role out a Position change action to Managers.
#1 - If you have multiple positions for the same Process Level, department, job and FTE how will the Manager know what position to pick (which one is vacant?)
#2 - If you do not have the one to one relationship and you utilize process flow you could allow Managers to make position changes (selecting the position by process level, department and job) and have process flow do a check for budgeted FTE's, if budgeted make the change, if not budgeted send notifications, etc.


If you don't want managers to make position changes then this is a non issue. However, you still run into the issue of having to create new positions on an on going basis as well as create a lot of extra work when uploading budgets.

I agree with the previous statements that this has nothing to do with ESS. However, it most defiantly does affect MSS.