Many international companies use several HR systems at once. For example, SAP for global HR records and 1C:ZUP for payroll in Russia. For everything to work correctly, automatic data exchange must be set up between these systems. In practice integration often turns out to be harder than implementation, especially when the leading system cannot be changed.
The Russian division of an international manufacturer of chocolate and confectionery faced exactly this task. The client decided to upgrade its payroll system from 1C:ZUP 2.5 to 1C:ZUP 3.1 while keeping SAP as the leading system. Yaroslav Chaykovsky, head of implementation projects, explains what constraints the UCMS Group team faced when configuring the integration and which non-standard solutions allowed the client's task to be solved.
The Russian representative office of an international manufacturer of chocolate and confectionery
The company used two systems for HR records and payroll:
The client decided to move to the current version, 1C:ZUP 3.1, while keeping the system interaction architecture.
We started the project by analysing the client's current business processes and systems: together with the methodology team we interviewed key employees, studied the documentation and prepared a BRR. A Business Requirements Review is a working document that records the specifics of the client's processes and wishes and how they will be implemented in 1C:ZUP. The document helps identify in advance where customisations will be needed, align expectations and simplify implementation.
Understanding the logic of the 1C:ZUP integration with SAP proved harder. At the start of the project there was information that the exchange with SAP worked automatically. The client gave us the regulations, process descriptions and integration instructions, but it turned out that some of the described processes were outdated.
Yaroslav Chaykovsky, head of implementation projects:
“We analysed megabytes of documentation in several languages, but the puzzle would not come together: the processes were described in fragments and much of it did not match reality. In the end it became clear that the exchanges were automated to a fairly limited extent and that employees resolved data transfer errors manually.”
The 1C:ZUP 3.1 implementation followed the standard scenario: the UCMS Group team configured the system based on the previously approved BRR and migrated the historical data needed to start the calculations.
After implementing 1C:ZUP 3.1 we started the integration with SAP, which was to support four data flows:
| SAP → 1C:ZUP | 1C:ZUP → SAP |
|---|---|
| Calculation results. |
The main difficulty was that SAP acted as the leading system, but no changes to the exchange logic were possible on its side. If errors or duplicates appeared in the export, or the data structure was not adapted for 1C, the implementation team had to find workarounds on the 1C:ZUP 3.1 side. As a result, to configure the integration we developed a number of complex technical solutions that made the exchanges work under the existing conditions.
The third flow, data on schedules and actual hours worked, became a separate challenge. The company had already attempted to automate time tracking, but those attempts had failed. At the start of the project there was simply no data for full automation. So we applied temporary solutions: virtual schedules were created in 1C:ZUP and the actual hours worked were loaded manually each month through a specially developed Excel loader. This approach allowed the calculations to start, but the task of systematic automation remained open. Together with the client we are now working on the next stage: accounting for working time as a production resource. The plan is to launchthe Timesheet Portal, which will automate the preparation of employee time data taking the specifics of the company's processes into account.
Before go-live UCMS Group specialists ran parallel calculations in the old system and in 1C:ZUP 3.1 for three months. First the historical data was migrated and reconciled, then information needed for payroll, PIT and insurance contributions was entered month by month, calculations were run and the results compared. All discrepancies were worked through manually: the cause was found, resolved and the settings corrected.
After go-live the implementation team continued to support the system during the stabilisation period: refining the exchanges with SAP, fixing calculation errors and supporting users. In addition, the UCMS Group team trained the client's internal support specialists so that they understood the non-standard solutions and could maintain the system going forward.
In the end the client received a modern system that allows calculations to be run stably and reporting to be produced without disruption. In addition, the 1C:ZUP implementation became the foundation for the next stage of the project: automating time tracking as a production resource and launching the Timesheet Portal.
“The project turned out unlike any implementation experience in our practice. It may be one of the most complex projects in our company's history. Many non-technical problems and process specifics had to be compensated for with unique technical solutions. But in the end that produced a result that meets the customer's expectations.”
