What are we trying to accomplish?

If you look at all the variations on IS&T billing lie items in the clients' Detailed Transaction Reports, they are erratic and inconsistent in how they are formatted and in what information they include.  We can standardize things a bit better.

The Billing Working Group has adopted these conventions for line item text inclusions on transactional style billings:

• "RT# 1234567"  -- if there's a ticket number involved, include the number and indicate that it's an RT ticket.  Include the space for readability.  If there's the opportunity, as in TNSC Billing, to poke it into the SAP Reference Doc # field, do it, and do it with the "RT#" label.  Stop using "Case#" references. 

• "Include the name of the service provider" if the g/l account is not self-documenting.  An example of a self-documenting g/l is "420131 -- Prof. Development / Training".  Training does not really have to include its name in the text. 
  Less self-documenting is PC Service, whose transactions go to "420220 -- Maint and Repair" -- Chris has chosen to include "IS&T Repair Center" as his text (with the RT# text in the sap reference field).

• "Include the name of the client receiving the service" .  Our idea is that the AO/FO reviewing the charge will want to know who did the work and who asked for the work -- the client name will provide immediate context for the AO/FO, avoiding a call to IS&T about "who asked for this and what was it". 

Installment billing of Project or SLA arrangements are different.  This applies to DCAD Projects and to MDS SLAs.  The clients know what the work is because they have signed paperwork on file from the beginning of the relationship.  There's no RT#, but clients have remarked they'd like to see more identification of "who did the work".  So we need to put phrases like "DCAD " and "DS MDS " in the text.  (This requirement will have an impact on the Quickbooks reports Jeff (and possibly Rashard) will put out.