Which systems are available for recording working hours?
06.09.2026
Several different technologies exist today for recording working hours, and each has its own strength and its own limitation. There is no universally best solution - the choice depends on the company's working pattern, the number of entry points and the budget. This guide compares the available systems and shows which one suits which situation.
The available systems
1. Paper log
The simplest method: employees sign a log when they arrive and when they leave. There is no cost and no installation. The weakness is serious - records can be written afterwards, times are approximate, and the calculation is entirely manual. Beyond about ten people it stops being practical.
2. Excel spreadsheet
The digital version of the log. Calculation is done by formula, but the data is still entered by a person. It works up to twenty or thirty people; after that formula errors and version problems increase.
3. Card system
The employee's card is presented to a reader. The record is created at the moment of the event and is accurate. The limitations are real: the cost of losing and replacing cards, the risk of a card being handed to someone else, and a separate device for every entry point.
4. Biometric terminal
Fingerprint or facial recognition. The problem of a transferred card disappears. In exchange come installation costs, hygiene and personal data questions, and reliability problems in field conditions.
5. Mobile and QR-based system
The recording point is a code and the device is the employee's phone. No hardware or installation is required and adding a new point takes minutes. The condition: the employee must have a phone.
Comparison
| Criterion | Paper | Card | Biometrics | QR/Mobile |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial cost | None | Medium | High | Low |
| Record accuracy | Low | High | High | High |
| New point | Easy | Device needed | Device needed | Minutes |
| Field work | Difficult | Difficult | Difficult | Suitable |
| Transfer risk | Yes | Yes | None | Controlled |
| Maintenance | None | Yes | Yes | Minimal |
Choosing by situation
- One office, fixed schedule, 100+ people - a terminal-based solution is effective.
- Several sites, a changing team - a mobile solution fits better.
- Field and travel work - fixed devices do not work at all.
- High-security zone - biometrics plus physical control.
- A small team - a simple method is enough.
A practical example
A cleaning services company employed 60 people across 18 sites. The first approach was to install a card reader at each site - the calculation showed that hardware and installation alone came to several times the annual subscription cost.
The second option was to have the site supervisor keep records. It was cheap, but the entries were written in bulk at the end of the day and accuracy was missing.
The choice fell on mobile recording: a separate point was created for each site, and employees checked in on arrival and departure. As a result the real distribution of hours per site became visible and reporting to clients became easier - an unplanned benefit.
Details missed during selection
- The failure scenario. What happens when a device breaks or the internet drops?
- Data export. If you decide to change systems, can you take the records out?
- Scalability. How does cost grow when a new branch opens?
- Personal data. Does the storage of biometric data comply with your rules?
Hybrid setups
In real companies conditions are never uniform, so the model that works most often in practice is a mixed one. Examples:
- Production plus office. A terminal in the workshop where phones are restricted, mobile recording in the office and warehouse.
- Headquarters plus sites. A card system at the head office, mobile points for field teams.
- Critical zone plus general area. Biometrics in the restricted area, QR at the remaining points.
The essential condition of a hybrid setup is that all records must come together in one report. If two separate systems are used and the reports are merged by hand, the advantage is lost.
The question to ask during selection is therefore: can the system show different record types in the same timesheet?
Reliability and fallback scenarios
Every system needs a failure scenario, and it should be considered at the selection stage.
In terminal-based systems the main risk is the device breaking - that point's records stop and the day is restored by hand. Keeping a spare device costs money; not keeping one is a risk.
In card systems the risk is a forgotten or lost card; this is a daily occurrence and requires a temporary workaround.
In mobile systems the risk is a dead battery or a network problem. The first case needs an alternative rule; the second usually causes no trouble, because the record is stored on the device and sent later.
A practical recommendation: write a "failure day" rule for whichever system you choose - who makes the record and how it is confirmed.
Changing the system
Moving from one system to another should be considered during selection, yet it is usually forgotten.
The key question is data export: can you extract your existing records? If the answer is no, the historical record is lost during migration, which creates both a legal and a practical problem.
The second question is the parallel period. A switch should not happen in a single day - at least one full month should run with both systems and the results compared.
The third is the archive: in what format and for how long will the old system's records be kept? Answering that in advance makes the transition considerably simpler.
Preparing a requirements note
The main reason system comparisons lead nowhere is that the requirement was never written down. A one-page note solves this and covers six points.
Structure: how many entry points exist, at which addresses, and whether the number will grow.
Headcount: number of employees, smartphone availability, turnover rate.
Patterns: standard, shift, flexible, field - which of them exist.
Conditions: indoor or outdoor, workwear, hygiene requirements, phone restrictions.
Reporting: for whom, in which format, and whether payroll integration is required.
Budget: initial and annual.
With this note the comparison becomes objective: every option is assessed against the same list and the decision rests on your own situation rather than on marketing copy.
In summary
There is no universally best system for recording working hours - the choice depends on the number of points, the working conditions and the characteristics of the workforce.
The practical rule is this: with one fixed entrance and clean conditions the classic solutions work; with a multi-point, mobile or changing structure the mobile approach is the only one that scales.
Finally, whichever system is chosen, three things do not depend on it and must be built anyway: written rules, formalised schedules, and a report format agreed with payroll. Without them even the best technology fails to deliver.
The next step
Writing a one-page requirements note before choosing a system is the single most useful step. Without it the comparison degenerates into reading feature lists.
QRGate is built on the mobile recording approach and requires no hardware or installation. See what QRGate can do or calculate the price.
