DailySafe · Workplace research

Field research on working conditions

An exploratory qualitative review of timekeeping practices, based on ten interviews concerning construction, manufacturing, ship repair and other workplaces.

Interview analysis report — Vadim Akulenko, PhD

Research method

Ten interviews describing working-time recording practices were analyzed. The sample is exploratory, not statistically representative.

How practices vary by workplace

Construction crews reported morning group photos, attendance lists in chats and end-of-day fractions used for time accounting.

Factories and industrial sites used entry cards, facial recognition, fingerprints and supervisor visual checks.

Some small businesses and offices used schedules, informal agreements or output-based arrangements.

Reported difficulties

2 of 10 interviews: manual transfer errors and payroll discrepancies
3 of 10: queues and bottlenecks at clock-in devices
3 of 10: technical faults with access or biometric devices

However, 6 of 10 interviews reported no serious problems.

Relevance to DailySafe

The findings support preserving familiar workflows while reducing manual transfers, providing clear worker confirmation and correction paths, and allowing fallback when a clock-in device fails.

Further work: conditions and occupational safety

Alongside timekeeping, DailySafe is studying comprehension of safety briefings, information exchange across subcontractors, language barriers for foreign workers and ways to contest incorrect records. These questions also arise from field experience and require separate validation. Akulenko's ten interviews did not measure their prevalence.

Related scientific research

A separate internal review examined Korean TBM guidance, scientific evidence on safety instruction and methods of evaluating short safety videos. It is a literature-based methodological review, not a completed field experiment.