Sub-theme 1: Manual timekeeping

Despite the insistence of Disselkamp (2013), Mclauchlin (2016) and Tippett et al. (2017) on the necessity of automated timekeeping, most of the companies noted that they still kept track of employees’ time manually. Employees record the time when they arrive at work and the time they leave in a book/attendance register or on a board. This is reflected in the responses of Interviewees A, C and L below:

We do it manually in the book calling attendance registrar. They sign in when they come, and they sign out when they leave (Interview A).

We do it manually. We have timesheets. So, the time that we recorded manually. We write time in/time out, the manager signs and the employee also sign to confirm that what the manager wrote. The reason why is because there is an option for signature, for employee to sign and for a manager to sign. And they also have access to the copy. They know exactly according to their hourly rate and the hours would be also calculated for themselves” (Interview C).

“Some people like it manually because it is something physical, you know, you check the piece of paper, where someday actually took their hand and then wrote something down and actually sign it” (Interview L).

Research findings in support of manual timekeeping are not available. Studies by Disselkamp (2013), Trujillo (2013), Mclauchlin (2016) and Tippett et al. (2017) extol the advantages of automated timekeeping, but in this instance the participants drew attention to the advantages of manual timekeeping for their businesses. This can be explained in terms of its being an established, everyday routine that seems to be convenient for the business. One of the advantages that participants noted with the current timekeeping process is that there is a lack of complaints from employees. Each employee enters the time himself and verifies it with his signature. Another advantage that participants noted that it is convenient for the purposes of

67

quick notification. The manager can see immediately who is absent by a manual check and does not have to wait for a report from a time tracking system, as is illustrated by interviewee P below:

And the reason why we’ll still do it manually is… when somebody is late for work, for example, the supervisor needs to be aware of it immediately and they can take disciplinary action immediately also. If they just rely on the clock in system then they will wait for a next week and then only when you tell them that somebody was late they only know, they realised that somebody wasn’t there (Interview P).

One of the principal advantages of manual timekeeping is its evident reliability. Even with automated time keeping, respondents still preferred to keep manual records as back up (Black, 2009). Concerns are indicated by Interviewees A and C below:

It is safe. Books don’t crash like computes. Like last computer crashed, so we lost all our information (Interview A).

Both ways the manual and digital work. Because with a digital for example if our system crash. So, if you keep only digital data that mean you will not have any data for paying the staff. It did happen before. If we have manual and digital at least you have got a backup. (Interview C).

On the other hand, with manual timekeeping the organisation representatives noted that they faced certain issues, such as discipline. This finding supports Mclauchlin’s (2016) argument that automated timekeeping can solve such problems. Because when it is the manager’s responsibility to check that everyone is on time, it is difficult for him or her to keep an eye on everyone, and there is a strong possibility of missing someone when the manager is busy with his own duties. This is illustrated by Interviewees L and P:

I don’t like that personally, because it can be lined up. I can walk in any time… I’ve been here since 6 o’çlock in the morning, you know nobody here at that time to watch me. You know the problem with that is that somebody needs then track it, you know, if it is manually written (Interview L)

I try and check now it, but I haven’t … I just sometimes I notice that somebody is not here for a long while, then I know. Sometimes manually you can forget to mark somebody (Interview P).

Furthermore, participants noted that with manual timekeeping there is always the possibility of making a mistake. The human factor plays an important role in business processes, as illustrated by Interviewee C below:

Sometimes there is a problem you think you saw 8 when it 6, or you think you saw 6 when it is 8 (Interview C).

One of the criteria studied in this theme is “accuracy of payroll”. Participants using manual timekeeping noted that the accuracy of the payroll and profitability were in general acceptable but could be higher. This finding regarding mistakes and the accuracy of payroll endorses Mclauchlin’s (2016) view that “small mistakes” in timekeeping can bring about “big losses” in the payroll. This noted by Interviewee E, below:

68

I would say if I would have had to pay them for the work that they have done it is not very accurate at all (Interview E).

However, the main reason for manual timekeeping appears to be the small number of employees in the respondents’ companies. As Loft (2007) observes, automated timekeeping systems are widely in use in large organisations. This situation is explored in the next section on automated timekeeping.