Month: July 2013

List of Time Tracking Apps: Our very own time tracking tools list

A lot of people probably are unaware that we maintain a list of time tracking applications. We realize that everybody tracks time for different reasons and a time tracking tool that works for one person might not be perfect for another.

That’s why we encourage you to check out TimeTrackingResources.com where we currently have links to over 50 time tracking apps — from software to web. We’ll be maintaining this list and adding new apps whenever we spot a new one. Thanks!

Note: Our list is often updated, and the latest update was on August 5, 2013.

An observation about time tracking software

When selecting a time tracking tool it is important to choose something that offers you both flexibility and is easy to use. If you’ve ever used Basecamp, Freshbooks, or Harvest to track your time you’ll be familiar with the fixed “Client > Project > Tasks” structure which you must follow. Time must fit into that a project and projects must be associated with a client.

But what if you want to track your non-billable time or don’t need a whole “project” just to track a few hours here and there? That’s where these tools break down. If you want to track time for trivial tasks like “Email” or “Writing Proposals” you’re out of luck.

Most time tracking tools make it difficult to calculate your billable efficiency — the percentage of your time that is billable compared to non-billable. If you track all of your time this is possible.

Story from the book “Art and Fear”

The ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups.

All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality.

His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bathroom scales and weigh the work of the “quantity” group: 50 pounds of pots rated an “A”, 40 pounds a “B”, and so on.

Those being graded on “quality”, however, needed to produce only one pot — albeit a perfect one — to get an “A”.
Well, came grading time and a curious fact emerged: the works of highest quality were all produced by the group being graded for quantity.

It seems that while the “quantity” group was busily churning out piles of work-and learning from their mistakes — the “quality” group had sat theorizing about perfection, and in the end had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose theories and a pile of dead clay.