Electronic time tracking applications, often referred to as "punch clocks," allow for real-time entry of hours worked. Conversely, a traditional timesheet can be completed at the end of the day or week. Some contexts are well-suited to using punch clocks, others are not. Let's explore the factors to consider and the associated challenges.
Punch clocks have the potential to collect more accurate data. I say potential because they still need to be used correctly, and that requires a certain level of discipline. In fact, it's rare for a timesheet produced by a punch clock to not require any adjustments. I say timesheet because even with a punch clock, a timesheet is still produced.
Punch clocks are often perceived as a way to prevent time theft. I personally don't push this selling point. In the end, cheaters will always find a way to cheat. I believe such a trust issue goes far beyond time entry.
So, we return to the punch clock as a means of time entry. This entry method is particularly well-suited for field employees, who could also be identified as manual laborers. Considering that entry is done on mobile devices, which are less ergonomic than computers, simplifying the entry process and minimizing manipulations is the main advantage sought.
There's also the factory or workshop context, which is well-suited to using a punch clock, whether it's a version that only records attendance, or a version with details of the work performed. The absence of a workstation with an individual computer makes the punch clock relevant.
Punch clocks and office employees
Some people believe that using a punch clock for office employees to record each task change could save them time in producing their timesheets. They think these employees might prefer to use a punch clock, even on a voluntary basis. We have experimented in a few organizations, and the verdict is unequivocal. If employees are given the choice of whether or not to use punch clock entry, after a certain period, no one uses it anymore. It simply requires too much rigor amid the various daily interruptions. The time required to correct errors negates all potential gains. In short, it's not magic. If you still want to control attendance, an "in-out" punch clock without task details is conceivable and viable.
Geolocation (GPS)
For field employees, using GPS is an option to consider. It's primarily an additional control measure for time theft. The perception of this feature is a bit heavy, let's say. For our part, we only capture coordinates at the time of clocking in or out. There is no continuous tracking, even during work time. That's as far as we're willing to go. It's also important to note that you cannot force employees to use their own devices. They can therefore refuse, unless you provide the device.
Biometrics
Be aware that recording hours worked alone does not justify the use of biometrics, or at least its imposition. Employees could therefore accept or refuse to use it.
As you can see, the decision to impose or not impose the use of a punch clock for time entry is not based solely on practical aspects, but also on political and perceptual considerations. I hope I have given you food for thought if you are facing this dilemma.
