Geekly Articles each Day
⬆️ ⬇️

Cause time: choose a time management system

image



Almost a year after the previous post , I thought about what else I can share with my colleagues. And then just the guys from a friendly company (they are neighbors in the office) decided to test the time control system. As you understand, I could not but join, I have such an experience , my hands itch to repeat last year’s success with the DLP review.



This is what we came up with colleagues. At first glance, everything is simple with working time accounting systems (SURV), but the difficulties are created by vendors who provide products with “unique” features and functionality of programs of another class. The case is complicated by the fact that there are dozens (if not hundreds) of offers on the market. Therefore, first of all, we decided which tasks and how the system should be solved.



We came to the conclusion that the system will be used in a closed circle:





Let me explain each component of the cycle:



1. Search for violations of the working regulations



The essence of software for monitoring working time is that any activity is recorded, stored, grouped and analyzed. Violations are reported separately. In fact, we would like to work with SURV to work with violations — an ideal option when the system itself is able to assess the effectiveness of the hours worked. At this stage, we realized that this is the most important indicator for such decisions. And that developer will be more likely to get our money, whose product will be the most "smart".



2. Collecting evidence of violations of work regulations



We briefly reviewed the description of popular solutions on the market. It turned out that many of them have a flaw that makes them almost useless.



The fact is that only on the basis of reports of a system no one will punish a person, much less dismiss. It is necessary that there was a clear rationale behind the reports, proof that there was indeed a violation. That this is not a failure and not a program error, but real facts. So, the systems in which there was no such opportunity, we did not consider. SURV is needed by management not for statistics, but for making specific decisions.



3. Administrative measures



This is the final stage and, of course, it has no direct relation to the functionality of the system, but it is also impossible without the previous elements of the scheme. Therefore, the natural result of the work of SURV is management decisions and administrative measures of influence. And not just beautiful graphics and reports in order "to be."



When we figured out the tasks, we moved on to review the software.



The following questions were posed to the applicants:





The rest of the opportunities were welcomed, but were assessed as secondary. By the way, we have found a couple of solutions for which such a minor functional is the most part, and the essence (time control) is poorly disclosed. There is also an intersection with DLP (Data Loss Prevention) systems, which does not apply to SURV. Another surprising discovery is that not all SURVs work according to the above scheme.



It is precisely because some SURVs position themselves as “almost DLP” that we can get confused and begin to focus on erroneous criteria:





They are erroneous because SURV solves fundamentally different tasks. For example, the concept of channels of control is in principle not applicable to SURV. To read someone else's Skype is, of course, an interesting opportunity - but it does not apply to the tasks of monitoring working time.



Thus, we have developed a methodology for estimating KPI for time tracking systems:



1. Automated search for violations of working regulations

The more automated the system, the less time is spent on working with violations. The clearer, more detailed, better it gives reports, the easier it is to work with it. Ideally, in addition to visualization, the system should have its own intelligence, evaluating the workflow and issuing a ready-made verdict. For example, the ideal work can be called such a scheme - the system itself groups any programs and visited sites into thematic categories, understands whether this category is productive for a particular employee, cuts off random entries, tracks real activity and gives the finished result for violations.



2. Collecting evidence of violations of work regulations

The system should help reconstruct the situation, collect evidence, draw conclusions. The system helps a person to make a specific informed conclusion about a particular violation. The system administrator must see not only the “verdict”, but also know what happened before, after, during, inside and outside - that is, all the circumstances. Having received exhaustive information about the violation and made conclusions, work with it ends and the cycle begins again.



Other functionality

All other useful features offered by developers, we also explored. All this is interesting and is an additional advantage of the system. Provided that the additional functionality is really useful, and not made just "to be."



Now more about each representative of SURV:



Stakhanovets



What you liked:





What did not like:





Staffcop



What you liked:





What did not like:





Timeinformer



What you liked:





What did not like:





Disciplina



Liked:





What did not like:





Kikidler



Liked:





What did not like:





A few general conclusions:



  1. There was a strong impression that the better the system looks, the weaker its functionality.
  2. Systems are in principle difficult to compare, since the functionality is very fragmented. Better “dance” on tasks and do not fall for marketing tricks. In fact, the idea is the same for everyone - the implementation is completely different.
  3. Remember the "essence": if the system is needed to monitor productivity, it does not need the ability to read the correspondence between Alena from the accounting department and Vasily from the warehouse. If this is exactly what is needed, then you are not at the address: this is a different task and another solution is needed (the same DLP).
  4. Always consider the final cost: how much will it cost everything, including hardware, maintenance, OS licenses and DBMS.
  5. And most importantly - the leadership needs to be clear about what it will do with the results. This is not a software issue, it is a policy issue in an organization. Counting employee productivity just for the sake of “being” is a rather delusional idea.


But in general, as usual, we do not draw conclusions for the readers. We are waiting for constructive criticism and feedback on the time control systems you use.



')

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/342756/

More articles:



All Articles