Register Login

Differences between the solutions INAB and XNAB

Updated Dec 17, 2023

The existing method for processing absences relied on the INAB function, specifically designed for the Italian payroll.

Key distinctions between the two approaches include:

  • The INAB function required all tables to have TRFAR, TRFGB, and other variables as the primary key. The new method allows the introduction of all necessary modifiers (MODIF), encompassing parameters related to contract data, as well as criteria for personnel area, subarea, and other factors.

  • Previously, only metalworkers' collective agreements could be configured. Now, customizable tables serve as global tools for comprehensive absence management, enabling the utilization of user exits and function modules.

  • The former annual report (CUD) faced challenges in readability and stability due to limited space in the NCALE cluster table. The new COVER table accommodates significantly more information.

  • Previously unsupported paid permits or absences are now fully supported.

  • Redundancies in data structures were addressed, eliminating unnecessary fields like KENN1 and KENN2 from infotype 0407, as they are already stored in infotype 2001. The INPS table in the RI cluster was deemed unnecessary, as the same information can be seamlessly integrated into the RI-RT and PC_COVER tables.

  • The absence management process lacked a log, making it impossible to verify or modify steps related to valuation basis creation, absence splitting, wage type valuation, and PC update within the function itself. The new approach rectifies this limitation.