ExakTime Support has moved to Support Central.

This help site will be discontinued in the near future.

Why You Should NOT Change the Name Of An Existing Entity

Last Modified on

When editing Employees, Locations or Cost Codes within Exaktime Connect it is best practice to NOT change the name or description of an existing Employee, Location, Cost Code, etc. that has been used

This is due to how databases work. Your data is stored within a database that creates connections between all entities that have been created. Time Records are tied to Employees, Locations, and Cost Codes entities. Once one of these entities is created, a unique identifier is created and used to connect these elements together. This unique identifier is how the database recognizes each unique entity created and is independent of the actual name or description is given for that Employee, Location or CostCode. Think of the unique identifier as a social security number. Your name can change throughout your life, but your social security number will follow you everywhere you go.

Confusion can result from name-changes and looking up infomration. For example, you have Location-A or Job-A. Job A was created one month ago and employees have been working and clocking into that location all month.

After Job-A is complete, a new Job, Job-B starts. If you simply edit Job-A and change the name to Job-B, all previous time records that used to state Job-A will now show Job-B's name. Any report run for Job-B will include all hours made when it was called Job-A. This example would be the same if it was an Employee or a Cost Code.

Best practice is to create a new Location, Employee or Cost Code profile for all unique entries you wish to track time for. This allows for accurate records of all past Locations, Cost Codes and Employees throughout your time using Exaktime Connect. The only time that the name of an item should be changed is in the event that it was not entered correctly to begin with, such as a misspelling or incorrect name entered. 

Was this article helpful?
0 out of 0 found this helpful

Comments 0