Time and Activity: Comparisons
Objective. Compare teams, accounts or periods on attendance and utilisation while first aligning the things that must match for the comparison to be fair.
This screen answers 'how does this team or period compare with that one?' It puts two or more scopes side by side so differences in attendance, available hours or utilisation are visible at a glance.
See it in the demo
What this screen answers
A Sales or CSM person opens Comparisons when the question is relative: is this team better or worse than that one, is this month different from last. It answers 'where is the gap and how big is it' across teams, accounts or periods, which is what most management conversations and QBRs actually turn on.
The task
Pick the two (or few) scopes and the single measure to compare, and set the same period for all of them. Before reading the gap, do the alignment step out loud: are the groups comparable on size, roster, shift pattern, client mix and data coverage. Only then read the difference, and read its size relative to the normal variation you would see within either group, not as an absolute verdict.
How to read it
The dominant misread is comparing unlike things. A difference between two teams is only a performance signal once work type, roster, tenure, period and coverage are aligned - otherwise the gap is structural, not behavioural. A night team and a day team, or a team with a coverage gap, will differ for reasons that have nothing to do with effort. Keep the denominators identical: attendance against the same schedule basis, utilisation against available hours on both sides. And a gap smaller than each group's own week-to-week variation is not a real difference.
Honest limits
Comparisons shows availability and activity differences, not output or quality differences, so a team ahead here is not necessarily producing more or better work - that comparison belongs to Work Output and must align the same way. The screen cannot tell you why a gap exists. Use it to locate a gap worth investigating, then confirm the cause with context and the customer's own baseline rather than declaring a winner.
Interpretation check
A gap between teams is only a performance signal after you align work type, roster, tenure, period and coverage. Unaligned, most differences are structural, not behavioural.
Practical task
In the demo, compare two teams on one measure for the same period, write the alignment you checked (size, roster, coverage, denominator), and state whether the gap is real or structural in one line.
Self-check
Team X shows higher utilisation than Team Y. What must you check before calling X better?
Alignment: same period, comparable roster and shift pattern, same client mix, equal data coverage, and the same denominator (available hours). Unaligned, the gap may be structural.
Why can a night team look worse without working worse?
Different shift patterns, staffing and coverage change the inputs to attendance and utilisation. The difference is structural. Align or annotate before comparing.
A gap is 2 points but each team swings 5 points week to week. Is the gap real?
No. A difference smaller than each group's own variation is within noise. Do not treat it as a finding.
Does winning this comparison mean the team produces more?
No. This compares availability and activity, not output or quality. Output comparison is a Work Output question and needs its own alignment.
Verified vs demo. Screen is live in the demo at /#/compare; exact controls and figures are SME-validation-pending.