Who has enabled fluid for moderately-customized T&E/ time & labor/approval functions?

We are currently on FSCM 9.2 (release 26) tools version 8.5.06, but have yet to take advantage of fluid. (I know, I know- no public shaming, please.) We are moderately customized with respect to T&E/ time and labor, and are interested in speaking with customers that have struggled through the same to enable fluid. Please let me know if you are willing to connect and share your story/guidance!

@Arvind Rajan Thanks, Arvind! It may be worth a follow-up conversation with you for recommendations. There is a reluctance to scale down our customizations, particularly with T&E.

@Nandini Gopinath Very helpful feedback- thanks for sharing your story!

@Michael Carney Hello Michael
Here are examples some customers that we have deployed Fluid T&E with moderate customizations.

1. CARE.org - Global non-profit based in Atlanta, operating in 94 countries.
2. A Global non-profit church based in Salt Lake City, operating in over 100 countries
3. ASGN (Formerly Onassignment) - using Fluid T&E for contractors and employees

All of them have implemented T&E with moderate or very minor customizations, most often in areas where a feature wasn't available yet. In helping them do so, we have taken advantage of Event Maps and Field and Page Configurator to reduce the impact of customization for future PUM images.

Hope this helps.
Arvind

Hi Michael,
In our organization T&E is moderately-heavily customized. It is also a heavily used application. We require users to enter in Client ID's on expense reports and we did so by customizing the application. We rolled out Fluid T&E last year and everything worked successfully except for performance which was terrible. We have users entering in expense reports which are 100-150 lines long and performance was slow. For example when you clicked on prompt buttons it would just spin for several minutes before pulling up the results. Users were saying it was taking them 3-4 times the amount of time to create expense reports via Fluid vs the classic expense report pages.

Fluid approvals which wasn't customized except for using Page Composer to add/display the client detail fields was awful as well. The really long expense reports would time out when the HR Supervisor tried to click on it to approve.

In our test environments we stripped out the customizations and tried testing performance with our data and performance was just the same.

So overall, our users liked the functionality/design of it, but they hated the performance. We had a lot of backlash and so we switched it back to the classic pages. We are a Windows shop and we use Microsoft SQL server as our database. Hope this helps.

Nandini Gopinath