Work adherence
Objective. Define work adherence as the middle adherence layer, show how it differs from schedule adherence, and keep it distinct from output adherence.
A dictionary entry. Work adherence measures whether the activity a person was doing during scheduled time was the intended productive work, not just whether they were on schedule. It sits between schedule adherence and output adherence.
See it in the demo
What it is
Work adherence answers: during the time the person was on schedule, were they actually doing the work the schedule intended - the right activity, on the right task - rather than merely being present in the right state? Schedule adherence (MET-14) confirms the person was on shift and in the scheduled state; work adherence looks one layer deeper at whether that time was spent on the intended productive activity. It still stops short of judging how much got finished, which is output adherence (MET-16).
How it is calculated
At app-logic level: the activity observed during scheduled productive time is compared against the work that time was intended for, expressed as how much of the scheduled productive time was spent on intended work. Included: the activity signals and the mapping of activity to intended work for the scheduled state. Excluded or adjusted: approved exceptions and non-productive states that the schedule already accounts for. The activity-to-work mapping, what counts as intended work, and the capture coverage behind it are configurable and depend on data quality - confirm with product. A non-productive application label alone is not proof of no useful work, so work adherence should be read with that caution, not as a verdict on an individual.
How to read it and the common misread
Read work adherence as 'was scheduled time spent on the intended work', a bridge between following the plan and producing output. Low work adherence points to misrouted effort, blockers or mapping gaps worth investigating; the target is the customer's own baseline. The common misread is to collapse the three layers into one - treating work adherence as either schedule adherence (being on shift) or output adherence (hitting the standard). It is neither: a person can be on schedule and on the intended work yet still below the output standard, and an activity label marked non-productive does not by itself prove no useful work occurred.
Where it appears
In Real-Time Adherence, in the layered adherence views (control room, work and output adherence, exceptions and analytics), where it is read alongside schedule and output adherence. It leans on activity signals that originate in Employee Monitoring capture, so its trustworthiness tracks that capture's coverage. Demo figures are seeded illustrations.
Interpretation check
Work adherence sits between schedule adherence and output adherence: it checks that scheduled time was spent on the intended work, not merely that the person was on shift, and not that the output standard was met.
Practical task
In the RTA demo, find an agent whose schedule adherence is high but work adherence is lower. Write one sentence on what that gap suggests to investigate, and note what you would need to confirm about the activity mapping before drawing a conclusion about the person.
Self-check
How does work adherence differ from schedule adherence?
Schedule adherence checks the person was on shift and in the scheduled state; work adherence checks that the scheduled productive time was actually spent on the intended work. It is a deeper layer.
How does work adherence differ from output adherence?
Work adherence asks whether the time was spent on intended work; output adherence asks whether enough was actually produced against the standard. Doing the right activity does not guarantee hitting the output standard.
Why should a low work-adherence reading not be treated as proof an employee did nothing useful?
A non-productive activity label is not proof of no useful work; mapping and capture gaps can mislabel genuine work. Investigate with context before concluding.
What does work adherence depend on that you should validate?
The activity-to-work mapping, the definition of intended work, and the underlying capture coverage from Employee Monitoring - all configurable and dependent on data quality; confirm with product.
Verified vs demo. The demo shows work adherence on seeded activity. A customer's work adherence depends on their activity-to-work mapping and capture coverage, which must be validated in their instance before it is used to judge individuals.