Tracking for a Client Versus for Yourself

A record kept for somebody else is shaped by being read. A record kept for yourself is only useful if it is not. For teams applying “Tracking for a Client Versus for Yourself” to client or project work, the scheduling example provides an operational record to compare with estimates; the useful conversation is about scope and delivery, not activity as a substitute for results.

How the two differ

The client record is a claim: these hours were spent on your work, and here is the breakdown.

The personal record is an observation: this is what the day contained, including the parts that reflect badly.

The first must be defensible. The second must be honest.

Those are not the same requirement and frequently conflict.

What happens when they are merged

Entries get worded for the audience: "research" rather than "went down a rabbit hole for an hour".

Gaps close, because a gap looks like a lapse rather than like a fact.

Unproductive periods get attached to the nearest plausible project.

And the record loses exactly the material that would have told you something, while becoming no more accurate as a billing document.

Keeping them separate cheaply

One line per day in the personal record is enough: what the day actually contained, in plain words, including the bits you would not invoice.

The billing record stays as it is.

The cost of the second record is about two minutes a day, and it is the one that produces the findings in the rest of this collection.

What belongs only in the personal record

Time spent on the wrong thing before realising.

Rework caused by your own error, which is usually not billable and is always informative.

The reason a day went badly.

And the honest note about which clients cost more than they appear to, which is the most commercially useful thing in it and the least appropriate to share.

Where employers track you too

Some workplaces record time centrally, and that record has the client-record character: it is read.

Keeping a private note alongside is reasonable and is not deception, provided the official record is accurate.

Its own note covers the situation where your employer's tracking and your own overlap, including what not to do.

The sanitising test

If you would have to edit your record before showing it, it is a personal record.

If you would not, it is probably not telling you very much, because honest records contain things one would rather not show.

Notice which of yours is which.

When the client wants the detail

Some clients ask for granular breakdowns, which is their right under many agreements.

Produce it from the billing record.

And if the granularity requested exceeds what you can record accurately, say so at the contract stage rather than producing invented precision later.

What to check

Do you keep a record you would not show anybody?

If not, how honest is the one you keep?

Is your billing record accurate independently of the personal one?

And have you ever noticed a client costing more than they invoice for — and would your records show it?

Worth keeping in mind

Keep a record you would not show anybody. If you do not have one, the one you keep is probably being shaped, and the shaping removes exactly the material that would have told you something.

The short version

Two records cost about two minutes a day extra. That is the price of having one that is honest, and the honest one is where every finding in this collection comes from.

In short

A record kept for somebody else is shaped by being read.

A record kept for yourself is only useful if it is not, which is why merging them degrades both and keeping them separate costs about two minutes a day.

The point

If you would have to edit a record before showing it, it is a personal record.

If you would not, it is probably not telling you much. For a complementary perspective on work, measurement or planning, consult Slack.