How to determine an employee's actual working time

Actual working time is not the time an employee was scheduled to work but the time they genuinely worked. These two figures are frequently confused, and as a result both overtime and gaps stay invisible. This guide explains how actual time is determined, what is deducted from it and what is added, and when the number becomes misleading.

What the difference is

Three concepts need separating:

• Planned time - derived from the schedule.
• Time on site - the period between check-in and check-out.
• Actual working time - what remains of the time on site after breaks are deducted.

In many companies the second and third are treated as identical. As a result a long break is counted as working time and the figure stops reflecting reality.

How it is calculated

The last row is contested: is a warehouse worker waiting for a delivery actually working? The answer is the company's decision, but the decision must be written - otherwise every department applies its own.

Field and remote work

Determining actual time for employees working outside the office requires a separate approach. Two practical models exist:

1. Point-based - the employee checks in on arriving at and leaving a site.
2. Task-based - time is calculated against the work performed.

The first fits attendance systems and gives hour allocation per site. The second is closer to project accounting. Many companies run both in parallel.

A practical example

At a service centre technicians worked both in the workshop and at customer addresses. Actual time was calculated only from workshop check-ins, because that was where the recording point was.

As a result, hours spent at customer sites appeared nowhere. Management believed the technicians "worked little" during the day, while the technicians said they were working extra. Both sides referred to their own figures and neither set was complete.

After separate recording points were created for the addresses, the picture became clear: an average of two and a half hours a day went into travel and on-site work. That figure was later used in calculating the price of the service.

When the number is misleading

• If the check-out is skipped - the day is either incomplete or counted from the schedule.
• If the break is not recorded - actual time comes out higher than it really was.
• If business trips are not in the system - a working day appears as an absence.
• If there is only one point - mobile work is not reflected correctly.

Making decisions based on actual-time figures without checking these four cases is risky.

Why it matters

Actual time is used directly in three areas: pay and overtime, workload distribution, and calculating the cost of a service. The last one is the least used, although for service companies it is the most valuable - knowing how many hours a job really takes changes pricing policy.

Preparation and finishing time

One of the most disputed questions around actual working time is preparation: changing into workwear, preparing equipment, taking over a shift. Does that time count as work?

The answer is the company's decision, but the decision must be written. Two approaches are used in practice. The first includes preparation time in working hours and places the recording point before the changing room. The second keeps it outside working hours and places the point at the entrance to the work area.

The position of the recording point is the technical expression of that decision - which means choosing the location is really a policy choice.

Shift handover is resolved by the same logic: the overlapping fifteen to thirty minutes are either assigned to the outgoing shift or kept as a separate record type.

Allocation by project and client

The least used but most valuable application of actual time is splitting it by project or client. This matters particularly for service companies.

In a multi-point recording setup, where each site is defined as its own point, hours are automatically attributed to that site. Two questions then get answered: how much time did a job really take, and do the contracted hours match the service actually delivered?

In practice this information changes pricing policy. That some contracts run at a loss often only becomes visible once actual hours are calculated.

There is an additional benefit: the ability to present an hours report to the client is a strong argument in contract negotiations.

Waiting and idle time

In some sectors part of the working time is spent waiting: for a delivery at a warehouse, for materials in a workshop, for the next job at a service centre. Does that count as actual work?

The general rule is that if the employee is on site and at the company's disposal, the time counts. But measuring it separately is useful for management.

Measuring waiting time often produces unexpected results - it puts a number on the real cost of a supply delay, for example. Without that information the problem gets misread as "employees are not working enough".

The practical solution is to create a separate record type for waiting; then payment is handled correctly and the cause remains visible.

Comparing plan and actual

The value of actual working time is unlocked by comparing it with the plan. The actual figure alone says little; the comparison reveals the cause.

Three outcomes are possible. Actual below plan: there is lateness, early leaving or absence; the cause may be discipline or the recording process. Actual equal to plan: it looks ideal, but a systematic exact match should raise suspicion - the records may not be real. Actual above plan: there is overtime, indicating either planning problems or a shortage of resource.

The third case is most often overlooked, because reports usually focus on shortfall. Yet systematic overtime is both a financial and a burnout risk.

A practical recommendation: show all three categories separately in the monthly review.

In summary

Actual working time is not the same as time on site, and that difference determines the accuracy of the record. Breaks, preparation time, waiting and work away from the office each need a written rule.

The real value of the number emerges in comparison with the plan: a systematic deviation shows that the problem lies in planning or in the recording process rather than in employee behaviour.

The next step

A one-month observation is enough to begin: change nothing, simply measure actual time correctly. The result is usually different from expectations and points to the next decision on its own.

QRGate supports multi-point recording, so actual time is fully measured even for mobile teams. See what QRGate can do or calculate the price.

Related pages

• How to calculate employee working hours
• The most common recording mistakes
• Tracking attendance with QR codes