Time and Activity: Attendance and hours
Objective. Separate present time, available hours and absence for one team on one day, and explain why attendance and availability are different questions.
This screen reconciles the roster against what actually happened: who was present, for how long, and what that leaves as available hours. It answers the question team leads currently assemble by hand from attendance logs, leave records and timesheets.
See it in the demo
What this screen answers
A team lead's weekly chore is stitching attendance, leave and timesheets together to answer 'who worked and for how long'. This screen answers it directly: present time against scheduled time, absence, and the available hours that remain. It is the evidence layer for any attendance or hours conversation.
The task
Scope to one team and one day. Read it as a subtraction: start from scheduled time, take out absence and late starts, and what remains is the available hours the later utilisation screen uses as its denominator. The task is to be able to say, for this team, how scheduled time became available time - and to keep the two labelled apart.
How to read it
Attendance answers presence against schedule; it does not answer availability or productivity. A person can be fully attendance-compliant and still have fewer available hours than scheduled once breaks and late starts are accounted for. The classic misread is treating an attendance percentage as the hours available for work - it is the gate into that figure, not the figure itself. This screen's available-hours number is what utilisation divides by downstream; get the denominator agreed here.
Honest limits
Presence is evidence of being there, not of work done - that is a utilisation and then a Work Output question. The reconciliation is only as accurate as the attendance and activity sources behind it; a person with no signal can skew a team's hours. Confirm with product which sources feed attendance for a given customer, and align the definition of 'available hours' with the customer before any downstream number is read.
Interpretation check
Attendance (present against schedule) and available hours (present and able to work) are different quantities. Do not read an attendance percentage as the hours available for work - available hours is what utilisation is calculated against.
In the field
KnackGlobal team leads spend hours a week reconciling attendance by hand; this screen replaces that assembly so the saved time, not a utilisation promise, is the first measurable value.
Practical task
For one demo team and day, write the chain in one line: scheduled time, minus absence/late, equals available hours - and state which figure utilisation will later divide by.
Self-check
A customer reads 98% attendance as '98% of hours available for work.' What is wrong?
Attendance is presence against schedule. Available hours come after breaks and late starts; they are usually lower and are the real denominator for utilisation.
Why is this the screen to agree definitions on before touching utilisation?
Its available-hours figure is exactly what utilisation divides by. If the denominator is not agreed here, every downstream percentage is disputable.
What does full presence NOT prove?
That work was done. Presence is a gate; productive use of available hours is utilisation, and useful output is a Work Output question.
Verified vs demo. Screen is live in the demo at /#/attendance; exact controls and figures are SME-validation-pending.