Most businesses digitised central parts of their administration long ago. Payroll is handled in one system, finance in another, projects in a third and time tracking perhaps in a fourth.
Therefore, the question is rarely whether the company has the right digital tools. What is rather of interest is how data moves between the systems.
An enterprise architecture can consist of good solutions and still create unnecessary manual work if employees have to export files, check information and re-enter data to make the processes connect.
This is where integrations gain their real value.
Time tracking is often the start of several processes
Time tracking is a good example, because the same data typically matters to several parts of the business.
Recorded hours can affect pay and supplements, form the basis for invoicing, be included in project economics and be used to monitor resource consumption and profitability. At the same time, information from, for example, GPS and fleet management can be used to support the time recording itself.
Time data therefore does not necessarily move in only one direction.
Data from other systems can make time tracking more precise and automated, while the completed records can subsequently be forwarded to payroll, finance, project and ERP systems.
This makes time tracking part of a larger data flow rather than an isolated administrative function.
An integration does not necessarily remove a process
The fact that two systems are integrated doesn't automatically mean the workflow has improved.
What is crucial is, which data is moved, when it is moved, and where in the process the employees still need to make decisions.
For example, there may be good reasons why hours need to be approved before they are forwarded to payroll or invoicing. The aim should therefore not necessarily be to automate every step.
The aim is to automate those stages where manual processing does not add value.
If an administrative officer every week exports approved hours from one system and imports the exact same information into another, there is rarely much value in the manual intermediary.
If the employee, on the other hand, controls deviations, supplements or project allocation, human judgement can still be important.
A good integration is therefore just as much about define the correct workflow as if connecting two systems.
Where should the data originate from?
When several systems are working with the same data, another important question arises: Which system is the origin of the individual data?
Employee data may, for example, exist in both the payroll system, the time-tracking system and the ERP system. Project data can be found in several places. And if information is maintained manually in multiple systems, the risk of different versions of the same data arises.
A coherent system landscape therefore requires clear data flows.
It must be clear where information is created and maintained, which systems receive it, and what happens when something changes.
Not only does this reduce duplicate entries, it also makes the data set more consistent across the organisation.
Automation begins before integration
Integrations are not just about forwarding completed time entries either.
In modern time-recording systems, the automation process can begin even before the employee records their time.
In Intempus, historical records, GPS data and other relevant information can be used, among other things, to suggest time entries. The employee is thus provided with a qualified starting point that can be checked and accepted directly in the app.
With autoregistration the process can be further automated. In this case, the system creates the records in advance, and the employee’s main role is to take action when the working day deviates from what is expected.
When the approved data can subsequently be forwarded to the organisation’s other systems, a more coherent flow is created – from the data that underpins time recording to the systems that subsequently utilise the results.
The interesting thing is not the number of integrations
A large number of integrations is not an end in itself.
The relevant integration is the one that removes a manual intermediary, improves data quality, or simplifies an existing process.
That is why it makes sense to view the company’s IT landscape as a whole:
- Where is the same information recorded more than once?
- Where are data exported and imported manually?
- Where do errors or the need for control typically arise?
- Which system should be the starting point for the individual data?
- Which steps actually require human judgment – and which do not?
The answers to those questions often say more about the company's integration needs than a list of the systems the company uses.
Integrations must fit the company's system landscape
The most important thing, therefore, is not to have as many integrations as possible, but to choose the integrations that support the company's actual workflows.
At Intempus, time tracking can be integrated with a range of payroll, financial, ERP and fleet management systems. The purpose is not to replace the systems the company has already chosen, but to make time tracking a cohesive part of the existing system landscape.
Because the best integration isn’t necessarily the one you notice. It’s the one that ensures data ends up in the right place without anyone having to move it manually.
Here you can read more about the integration possibilities with Intempus.
