Skip to Content

The objective of this weblog is to alert you, dear reader, to the way that the new approval process functions in Enterprise Compensation Management (ECM) in  Enhancement Pack 4 (EHP4).  Judging by some of the beta-testing  errors we have run into on our project, I’m guessing that not many companies have made the plunge yet.  This blog will help you plan your path to the new functionality.

What’s changed (in a nutshell)

Before EHP4, the approval process for compensation planning was handled at the individual employee level.  As of EHP4, The compensation approval process is now handled at the org unit level.

http://www.toombsconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/hl_overview1.jpg

Why the change?

Compensation approval is often handled at the higher echelons of the organization.  Thus the approver may need to  occur thousands of employees at one time.  Before EHP4, when the approver got ready to “do their thing”, the approval meant viewing and processing thousands of employees at once, which –surprise– caused the approver’s MSS view to grind to a halt.  Many a functional analyst was called in to their boss’s-boss’s-boss’s office to help  close out the merit process, hoping that their career wasn’t getting closed out at the same time.  

So What’s The Catch?

Before EHP4, the Compensation Process Infotype (referred to hereafter by its number “IT759”), was the hub of the ECM process.   With EHP4 a new control table (t71adm_process) tracks the approval based on the organizational unit.  When the approver approves the compensation planning, the status of individual employees’ 759’s is no longer changed to “Approved”.  When it comes time for activation of the planned change, instead of checking for a status of “Approved” on IT759, the business logic checks the control table to see whether the employee’s org unit is approved.

Key Gotchas

  • As an existing customer, if you’ve made any business logic enhancements that rely on IT759, these will need to be re-evaluated based on the new functionality.
  • Employee movement during the approval process could result in an employee going from an unapproved org unit to an approved one.  This makes it more important than ever that employee movement be restricted during this time period.
  • Using PECM_CHANGE_STATUS to un-submit compensation planning for the  compensation planning manager who wants a “do-over” will no longer work.  Instead, you must get the approving manager to reject the org unit so that the re-planning can occur. 

That’s all for now. Thanks for indulging me on my first blog.  If you enjoyed, follow me on Twitter at @brandontoombs and I’ll let you know when I have more to share.  I can also be reached at btoombs@toombsconsulting.com

Special Thanks

Jack Khoury, Cap Gemini

To report this post you need to login first.

4 Comments

You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.

    1. Brandon Toombs Post author
      The short answer to your question is ‘yes’.  SAP is handling at the org unit level.  You would want to reject the entire org unit to make a change to a single employee.

      Of course, you can always use the pre EHP4 process if single-employee resets are critical for you.  However, most companies will find that the SAP approach actually fits well with their practices.

      Hope that helps,
      Brandon

      (0) 
  1. Maria Medina
    Brandon Thank you very much for so valuable information!!!

    Please, could you help me  to resolve this issue
    with the Review  Planning ECM iView (Planning Overview):

    The Planning Manager that shows for each Organizational Unit is  incorrect, because that takes as  Planning Manager  the person associated with the user that is entered  and not the manager that corresponds to the unit according to his organizational structure, then when I try to approve an organizational unit I’m getting a hard error message that says: “You cannot approve or reject the planning for your own organization” .

    Do you know what can be  happening?

    Appreciate greatly the help.

    Regards,

    Mari.

    (0) 

Leave a Reply