Time and Activity: Teams and managers
Objective. Compare teams on availability and utilisation fairly, and explain which differences require aligning context before any ranking is valid.
This screen rolls attendance, available hours and utilisation up by team and manager so a leader can see variation across the organisation. It answers 'where does the picture differ across teams?' - and it invites the most common comparison error in the product.
See it in the demo
What this screen answers
A senior manager needs to see beyond one team: across all teams and their managers, where do availability and utilisation differ, and which teams warrant a closer look? It is the screen for an operations review and for spotting a team whose pattern is out of line with its peers.
The task
Scope to the organisation or a group of teams for a chosen period and read the spread, not just the top and bottom. The task is to identify a team worth investigating and then, crucially, to check what else differs about it - schedule, work type, tenure, coverage - before drawing any conclusion from the ranking.
How to read it
Two teams are only comparable after their context is aligned. Differences in schedule, work type, tenure, team size and data coverage all move availability and utilisation independently of effort. The classic misread is ranking teams on a utilisation column and treating the bottom team as the worst performers, when they may do a different kind of work or carry more trainees. Read a difference as a question to investigate, not a league table.
Honest limits
This screen compares availability and activity, not output or quality - a 'better' utilisation does not mean a better-performing team in business terms. Comparisons are only as fair as the data coverage across teams; a team with weaker signal looks different for a reason that has nothing to do with work. Confirm definitions are consistent across teams with product before any comparison is shared.
Interpretation check
A utilisation or availability ranking across teams is not a performance league table. Teams differ in schedule, work type, tenure and coverage; align that context before a difference means anything, and never read it as an output comparison.
In the field
When comparing KnackGlobal sites or pods, aligning work type and tenure first prevents a false 'this site is underperforming' claim that would damage trust in a displacement account.
Practical task
On the demo teams view, pick the two most different teams and write one line naming a context factor (schedule, work type, tenure or coverage) you would have to align before the comparison is valid.
Self-check
A leader ranks teams by utilisation and wants to coach the bottom one. What do you check first?
Whether the teams are comparable - schedule, work type, tenure, size and data coverage. A lower figure may reflect different work or more trainees, not weaker effort.
Why can a 'better' utilisation team not be called the better performer?
This screen measures availability and activity, not output or quality. Better-performing in business terms is a Work Output question.
What can make a cross-team comparison structurally unfair with no visible warning?
Uneven data coverage across teams. A team with weaker activity signal looks different for a reason unrelated to how they work.
Verified vs demo. Screen is live in the demo at /#/teams; exact controls and figures are SME-validation-pending.