A location based time clock app clocks somebody in when they arrive and out when they leave, which sounds tidy and produces false punches wherever a signal is poor or a site boundary is vague. Underground car parks, large sites and dense city centres all generate exceptions, and the exceptions land on a supervisor.
Make the radius generous
A tight geofence produces more failures than fraud it prevents. A generous radius with the automatic punch treated as a suggestion the worker confirms produces cleaner records than any amount of automation, because the confirmation step catches the cases where the phone was wrong. Products that allow that step are worth choosing for it.
Accuracy is not uniform
Outdoors and moving, a phone is accurate to a few metres. Indoors, in a basement, or in a steel framed building it can be out by a great deal and can silently report a stale position rather than admit it does not know. Plan for that rather than fighting it, and never treat a single reading as proof of anything on its own.
Battery and the app that gets killed
Continuous location tracking drains batteries noticeably and is a common reason staff force quit the app, which then reads as missed punches and looks like avoidance. Collecting a location only at the punch removes the problem entirely, and for confirming that somebody reached a site it is all the information you needed.
Questions people ask about location based time clock app
Should the app clock people in automatically?
Automatic arrival with a confirmation step works well. Fully automatic punching produces a queue of disputes that a supervisor resolves by guessing.
Can a location be faked?
Yes, by anybody who cares to. Treat location as corroboration rather than as evidence, and design the process on that basis.
Is it lawful to record where staff clock in?
Where it is proportionate, notified in advance and limited to working time, generally yes. Continuous tracking needs a stated justification.