Matched up marks of inadequate form
The main causes of this event are essentially two.
a) The not marked employee to suitably in combination of variable schedules
b) The assigned schedule does not agree with the reality to such form that the event can be interpreted of different forms.
If the employee marks suitably and the indicated schedules are in agreement with which it happens, these cases do not appear.
As these situations treat.
We will put an example to illustrate the event.
If the employee has assigned a schedule for example of 08:00 A.M. until 04:00 p.m., and a mark is received, it compares it to the system to see where this near marks and more assigns the then it according to the schedule; of this form, if a mark will need this one will be open and a mark of the day following to a same approximate time of arrival would not take the vacant place avoiding a displacement. Nevertheless, so that the system can place the mark like “entrance” or “exit”, logically it must have a comparison margin to see the approach of the mark towards the exit or entrance side.
This margin can be placed in the time system; but half of the lapse assigned (- 1) for this surroundings is assumed by defect; That is to say, if the assigned lapse is of 08 hours, 03 hours for “going up to around” the assigned schedule are used and determining where the mark is going to be placed, if it goes to the entrance or it goes towards the exit. For the set out case (Assigned to enter the 08:00 A), a mark from the 05:00 a.m. to the 11:00 A.M. is considered like of entrance according to the schedule that we have indicated. The same will become for the exit.
We must notice, that this works because this trusting a schedule established for that day. ;
That it happens if the first mark is realized for example to 03:00 p.m.?
Initially they can have two situations
a) The employee did not mark his entrance
b) The employee is denying to work to 03:00 p.m. because they said to him that he came to that hour; but the computer does not have this realized specification. We assume that this it was the case that really happened; but he is not the one that the computer interpreted.
If the system is based on the schedule, the computer will assume that the employee forgot to mark his entrance to him and will assume that the mark of 03:00 p.m. is its exit (because according to the schedule, serious 03:00 p.m. its exit that is assigned to 04:00 p.m.); but really what it has happened it is that the wine outside schedule.
Therefore, initially the report would not reflect the reality. (We assumed that a report has been requested and that the system not yet has received but discharges of data of the clock), which is very common.
If then, that same day appears a mark of the employee for example to 10:00 p.m., then the system already has a dilemma.
When appearing a mark to 10:00 p.m. the system will have initially tendency to place it as the pair of the mark of 03:00 p.m. ; but the problem is that this mark was placed like an exit and not like an entrance due to the indication of the schedule.
What XWinsct does then is “to undo” the mark of exit of 03:00 p.m. and not to follow the indicated schedule, so that this mark is an entrance and not an exit, since the mark of 10:00 p.m. gave the track him. In many systems this is something really complicated (to clear already based registries) but XWinsct does.
Therefore, XWinsct solves this case of this form.
But that happens if what really happened it went that to the employee it was said to him: They see 03:00 p.m. and I remain at daybreak until for example the 06:00 A.M.?
Due to the principle explained at the beginning of the subject, this mark (06: 00 A.M.) this considered like an entrance, not like an exit, since the employee has assigned a schedule of 08:00 A.M. until 04:00 p.m.
Therefore, it is not going to match up the previous mark causing a unreality.
Here there is a great problem with several mixed situations
A) or him forgetfulness the mark of entrance of the previous day
B) or I indicate a change to him of schedule to the employee
C) I remain dawning from its beginning of 03:00 P to the 06:00 A.M.
D) Or simply it came to 03:00 p.m. (because I indicate change to him of schedule) and did not mark its exit and to the other day it normally came to work.
E) Any combination of these factors can be the case
We have several possible situations; but only one of them is the real one.
This it is the great dilemma.
The system will take most possible; nevertheless, having for example 1000 employees doing marks every day, in companies of rotating schedules, the situation will occur of which not always the interpreted case that it assumes more common, will be the real one.
Methods that have tried on world-wide.
a) Method 01: To follow the schedule
If the system makes 100% case to the established schedule, they will mate of the correct form; but since we have seen the values for “making the rounds” and to determine if a mark is of entrance and/or exit they cannot be exaggerated because but, the results can be different from the awaited ones.
The problem with this type of solution is that “It trusts the established schedule” and therefore, if the indicated rotation this bad one, the marks can be bad.
It happens that many companies make changes of schedules very variable that they cause that the marks of entrances are seen like of exits and vice versa (Very especially in schedules of 12 hours) without the computer finds out the reality to do the work suitably.
The information does not arrive at the computer for multiple reasons.
A) To the supervisor one forgot to him to inform it. It was suddenly and been has occupied
B) It informed it to the supervisor; but it was mistaken it informed and it bad or later it made other changes sudden.
C) The receiver received the information but it did not introduce it in the computer because “it did not have time” or it forgot to him.
D) The information I do not arrive in time and already the system had processed everything, (it was given back because it had not been signed, lost the communication, became ill, a million etc. that every day can happen), not only to the personal supervisor went of vacations and, if no, to the personnel that makes the marks, and we are 1.000 employees every day with 10 supervisors to day so that an event anyone appears.
After all, combining all the elements with the employee of which “one forgot to mark to me”, I came in another hour etc, brings owing to the fact that the method to follow the schedule is not infallible and therefore it has propitious of error, not by the methodology, if no, by the involved human factor.
With this method, (also tried) the system assumes that one first mark is of entrance and one second is of exit. This method could work well when it is fixed schedules. Nevertheless, in case of rotating schedules it can be a disaster when to the employee it will need some mark because the others have tendency to move.
In order to solve this, XWinsct determines the range between 02 marks, if these have around 08 hours of lapse, if some will lack, the following one could have but of 16 hours of lapse therefore; it prefers to leave the mark incomplete and not to move it
But this it is another dilemma, one does not know if really it remained working extra hours or some mark forgot to him. (According to the company, in some it is more common to work extra hours that in others).
Again day to day, with so many employees the events occur.
Therefore, the method of Entrance-Exit also can fail.
Method of approach.When the marks settle down, the system compares the possible schedules of the company and then it determines that the mark is of entrance or exit being based on this premise and placing it in some of them. This, without obeying solely the established own schedule.
This it works well when the marks are more or less standard and the employee marks suitably; but the problem is that immediately a more possible schedule is detected, this will be assumed for the same and we can fall in the solution of the method To, that it establishes the confidence of the schedule and that can fail by the human factor.
The most propitious method is to combine all the possible methods of: To obey to the schedule, to disobey it, entrance-exit, approach etc.
As the problem is avoided.
Logistic of the company
It introduces the reliable information that it needs the system
A) It suitably defines his rotation and changes of schedules and notifies the changes to the system, that is to say, maintains the data updated.
B) He causes that the employee makes his marks suitably
If you fulfill this, you will not have problems of marks badly matched up.
Logistic 2. (Applicable if he fails logistic the 1)
He places his clock to such form that the employee indicates when this entering and when this leaving.
Product of the many years of experience of different suplidores from T&A systems has reached the conclusion that this is the most effective form to reduce the error possibilities. By virtue of this, the manufacturing companies of the equipment include a button that it indicates “IN” and “OUT” in his equipment to be able to realize this process.
It is the result of an arduous analysis that if it studies, is the reason. A variant but practices of this logistics is logistic the 2 tried but ahead.
Since one becomes:
Most common it is than when the row of marks is present, the employee of the moment indicates “IN” in the unit and then he makes the mark. If the following employee also is entering, this simply he makes his mark, and so on, since the clock this in this modality. For the exit, the same becomes.
Many companies to make agile the process, organize the employees to such form who first allow to an entrance row and soon a row of exit using the same reading equipment but changing the modality of the mark since he has been indicated.
Logistic 3. Variant of logistic the 2, (Applicable if it fails logistic the 1)
It defines a clock by where another one enters solely and by where it leaves solely
It is logical that the preferable thing is that the employee solely must mark and does not touch the unit. This it is the expensive method but; but he is the best one.
To use two clocks (one for entrance and another one for exit) is the method that according to all the analyzes is in most suitable solving the situation.
This method by inherencia allows a greater organization of the marks at the same time as to avoid the problem of which the marks do not mate suitably, because it will not depend on the methodology to trust the schedule, neither of the sequence of entrance-exit, nor of the method of approach, nor of the combined method, solely of the real process of the marks of the employee.
The majority of the T&A software (Incluyendo XWinsct) can be parametrizados to operate with this facility. By defect, XWinsct it starts without this modality because it assumes a same equipment for entrance and exit without no type of indication of marks and/or assumes several reading units possible to mark, but that they can enter and leave by all without distinction some.
The application of the logistics this then to the criterion of the installer according to visualizes the necessity. Being surely by all means that as much logistic the 2 as logistic the 3 simply guarantee in all the situations, the most reliable information with the smaller allowable error and the greater unfolding of the process to make the marks on the part of the employees (Logistic 3).
Note: We must remember that the example set out on the case of the schedule assigned of 08:00 To until 04:00 P is only one of so many possible cases; that could well be indicated “is not common”, that is very rare etc; but we must notice for example that:
1000 employees * 2 (Entered and exit) * 300 days to the year of marks = 600.000 marks, that is to say, but of means million combined with the amount of rotations and changes of each during all these days and all the expressed one, assure that somehow there will be events no matter how hard he thinks that the cases are rare. A thing is the theory than another one assumes and the same reality through time.
Of one or another form, as much the systems analysts of T&A as the manufacturers of equipment always reach the same conclusion. (For that reason the equipment makes with the button of “IN” and “Out”)
Nowadays, due to reduction in price of costs and preference of which the employee solely realizes the marks, cause that exist in the market equipment of smaller cost without no type of button, assuming manufacturers which 02 units instead of a single for the operation were used of “IN” and “Out” when it requires it to this, is preferable and is possible.
We do not have to think that a system is not sufficiently powerful if we want to compare a client who uses solely a clock, against which it uses two indicating the entrance and or the exit, or only uses a clock for both cases indicating the process of “In” and “Out”.
We can be sure that much more that one that has the methods of indication or by the same clock, or by but of one separating the entrance and exit, it will have the reliable information and is preparation for related future events to the subject.
Nevertheless, following the type of company, to use one only reading unit with the process of solely marking and any more, is applicable only if the schedules are not of rotating character, or is applicable if all the personnel of the chain from the employee who makes the marks, the supervisor that change the schedules and the person that indicate the schedules to him to the computer fulfills the suitable passings. If it is not thus, one operated with an allowable error that nevertheless, in many cases not to invest but money, could be acceptable. This is demonstrated with the indicated examples in which, the lack of the marks or bad programming of schedules, is in which the marks can be interpreted of different possible forms for his I match up.
The general tendency of all system of automatization, is to reduce the most possible human intervention and to leave machines them they do the work, Tendency that is but similar to the methods of indication of the entrance and the exit. Although, it is implied very firmly the human factor (in the employee that makes the marks) this one good part can be mechanized to such form that the employee simply marks the entrance on the one hand and the exit by another one.
To try to express that the employee can will mistake doing this and who serious a disaster, is “to look for 5 legs any cat”, can happen, but and all the allowable error but is reduced yet that to have a single clock for both operations without any type of indication when the circumstances (very common) of the mentioned human chain occur.
For a hypothetical case of an employee who constantly makes the marks of crazy way (in the entrance unit when he is the one of exit and/or vice versa) or that makes the process quite often alreves that is indicated to him, is reflected of negligence, lack of information, bad and missed intention or great incapacity of its part in simple tasks. Many companies models confirm that these operations are totally feasible of being executed, if is suitably applied the control, the education and the suitable pressure to the employee.