Who We Are
The Running Total is an independent editorial project about working-time limits, overtime records, rest and the systems used to manage them. Our rankings draw on our own practical research and experience; positions cannot be purchased.
Our focus
Working time is rarely held in one neat number. Scheduled shifts, actual hours, call-outs, second jobs, travel, training, corrections and leave can sit in different places. Our core articles examine how those fragments become a reliable record and how organisations can identify a problem while there is still time to act.
The software guides answer a related question: which current tools deserve a place on a practical shortlist for a defined workflow? They sit alongside the operational articles and follow a published methodology.
Experience behind the reviews
Our review practice combines workflow analysis, documentation research and hands-on evaluation of representative time, attendance, scheduling and reporting tasks. We pay attention to work around the software: policy, configuration, employee explanation, manager review, payroll handoff, correction, support, offboarding and retention.
Different workplaces have different legal duties, collective arrangements, safety risks and payroll structures. We publish criteria and limitations so readers can see where our judgment applies and where local testing must take over.
Editorial independence
Editorial order is not sold. A vendor cannot purchase the top position, suppress a caution or rewrite our criteria. Products are included because they are relevant to the topic and can be evaluated with credible evidence. Rankings are based on our own structured research, practical workflow assessment and documented editorial judgment.
Product links lead to official homepages. Links other than Monitask use nofollow. Link treatment does not determine the review result or replace evidence.
What readers can expect
Each guide defines the problem, explains the method, compares products consistently and identifies a control or limitation for every option. We avoid universal claims, invented test results and promotional language presented as research.
We correct errors when reliable evidence shows a claim is wrong or incomplete. Readers should confirm current capabilities and run a pilot that includes ordinary exceptions. The goal is to make selection more disciplined, not to replace local responsibility.
Privacy
The publication does not provide public account registration or collect enquiries through open forms. The privacy page explains site data handling. Readers should never submit employee, payroll, health, biometric or other sensitive personal information through public web channels.