Using Employee Number for user sign on?

Question: We want to use the employee number as their user account for sign on. Our FI department is concerned that this will cause problems. When they look at GL entries or postings they now see the name of the person who performed that transaction. If we switch to employee number they are afraid all they will see is a number. Example: my name is John Doe my employee number is 123456. If I sign on as 123456 and post a transaction it will show 123456 instead of John Doe. Is there a way to fix this and how?

Answer:
It is up to you to decide and corporate policy. I personally do not like them as it requires a few extra steps to determing "who" the Id is. The general trend in IDs is to have them match all the other plethora of IDs a user has. If their NEtwork ID is last name first initial then Making the SAP id similiar is more customer focus.
In most cases in SAP you can double click on the user ID and it will pop-up the user address info from SU0, but that requires it to be maintianed. The use of the employee umber may require youto give out HR access you may not intend to do.

Answer:
Using numbers only would also increase the number of hashcode collisions in USR02-BCODE.

Answer:
Thanks for the information. Your responses have raised another question. We are getting ready to go live with HR. We are going to be using security roles along with structural authorizations. We have heard from SAP and third party consultants that we should use employee numbers for the user accounts. Their reasoning is it will make using structural authorizations easier to maintain. Is this true? Why or why not?

Answer:
Thanks for the information. Your responses have raised another question. We are getting ready to go live with HR. We are going to be using security roles along with structural authorizations. We have heard from SAP and third party consultants that we should use employee numbers for the user accounts. Their reasoning is it will make using structural authorizations easier to maintain. Is this true? Why or why not?

Not come across this before as long as infotype 0105 subtype 0001 is maintained to link pers num to user ID.

Answer:
We use structual auths and position based security. Our id's are as John mentioned - same as network id. It works fine, we have had no problems. Just as Al mentioned, you only have to maintain the 0105 communication. The consideration there is only who should do it...Org Management or Security.

Also, think if you ever want to go to a singal sign on type of environment authenticating through a portal. SAP id different than network etc. would make life difficult.

Answer:
Thanks for the information. Your responses have raised another question. We are getting ready to go live with HR. We are going to be using security roles along with structural authorizations. We have heard from SAP and third party consultants that we should use employee numbers for the user accounts. Their reasoning is it will make using structural authorizations easier to maintain. Is this true? Why or why not?

It has no bearing on the structural authorization maintenance. the structural authorization can be assigned directly to the user id ( SAP does not care what format the ID is) or to the position in the company where id has absolutly NO relationship to the structural authorization other than a link in the IT 0105 ST 0001. The only "make it easy" is when you go through the hiring process HR can configure the action to require the population of the 0105 IT and if the ID was the Pers. no. then it is there to cut and paste. But you can also configure the action to take the person's name and concatenate it to the first initial and enter it as a suggestion into the IT0105. Drawback is duplicate ID and who resolves.
SO make the ID "easy to read" at a glance.