Looking for employee desktop monitoring tools.

V

voipfc

What are the best utilities that monitor staff desktop activity?

The main type of output required is how much time they spend
interacting with programs windows and the names of the programs. An
utility that can track which windows are active and how much mouse and
keyboard activity occurs on those windows.

In the case of websites there will be a need to check which web sites
are the most used.

/voipfc
 
M

Malke

voipfc said:
What are the best utilities that monitor staff desktop activity?

The main type of output required is how much time they spend
interacting with programs windows and the names of the programs. An
utility that can track which windows are active and how much mouse and
keyboard activity occurs on those windows.

In the case of websites there will be a need to check which web sites
are the most used.

/voipfc

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=employee+monitoring+tools&btnG=Google+Search


Malke
 
D

Dennis McCunney

voipfc said:
What are the best utilities that monitor staff desktop activity?

Google is your friend, but I'm curious: why do you think you *need* to
do this?
In the case of websites there will be a need to check which web sites
are the most used.

That is best handled by a proxy server on your end that tracks and logs
outgoing connections though your link to the internet. It's not a job
for a desktop monitor program.
______
Dennis
 
V

voipfc

voipfcwrote:

Google is your friend, but I'm curious: why do you think you *need* to
do this?

The purpose is to ensure that the main office programs such as the
Office programs, quickbooks etc those relevant to the work is what the
spend most of their time in. If staff don't appear to finishing their
work on time, it is important to now what they are really doing.
 
D

Dennis McCunney

voipfc said:
The purpose is to ensure that the main office programs such as the
Office programs, quickbooks etc those relevant to the work is what the
spend most of their time in. If staff don't appear to finishing their
work on time, it is important to now what they are really doing.

The simple solution for that is a standard image rolled out to all
company PCs that only includes authorized software, and setting the user
accounts as "Power Users", who can run installed software but not
install their own. "So and so is a lazy sod who is goofing of on
company time" is not the first assumption I make in such cases.

Granted, if they don't finish their work on time, you need to know why.
But assuming going in they are goofing off and doing other things
instead of working is a questionable idea. There may be other reasons
entirely, like too much work to get it all done, or procedures that get
in the way.

Going with a monitoring solution like this certainly does one thing: it
communicates to the employees "We don't trust you to do your work unless
someone is standing over your shoulder, so Big Brother is watching you!"

Speaking personally, I wouldn't want to work for an employer who held
that attitude. Would you?

And depending upon where the business is located, you may be legally
required to tell the employees such measures are in place and their
activities may be monitored.

At my employer, there was a standard image with approved software rolled
out to all PCs, and employees who needed something non-standard needed
approval from their manager and a request to IT to install it. There
was also a company policy handbook that specified acceptable use of the
resources that everyone had to read and sign a paper acknowledging they
understood. Employees who performed poorly got bad performance reviews,
and if improvement didn't happen, they got terminated. No employee
monitoring software was ever deployed because it was not seen as needed.

Efforts spent making sure employees aren't goofing off on company time
are better applied to making sure the employees *can* do their work
without unnecessary impediments, and making sure the company is a place
people like working for and *want* to do their work.
______
Dennis
 
R

Ron Martell

Efforts spent making sure employees aren't goofing off on company time
are better applied to making sure the employees *can* do their work
without unnecessary impediments, and making sure the company is a place
people like working for and *want* to do their work.
______
Dennis

<applause>

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2008)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
Syberfix Remote Computer Repair

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."
 
D

Dennis McCunney

Ed said:
I'll second that! A *very* well put case, and one I wholeheartedly agree
with.

Thanks to both of you. This is kind of a pet peeve of mine.

Robert Tonwnsend, in "Up the Organization", went on about "Theory X" vs
"Theory Y" organizations. "Theory X" organizations implicitly assumed
that people didn't want to work, would slack off at every opportunity,
and needed to be stood over. "Theory Y" organizations assumed that
working was as natural as eating, sleeping, and breathing, and that most
organizations with problems had made it unnecessarily difficult to get
the work done, and needed to rethink their policies and procedures.

Townsend did his best to create Theory Y organizations. He was the CEO
at Avis Rent a Car during their famous "We Try Harder" days, when Avis
came from having Problems to being a solid number 2 in the industry and
having regular revenue and profitability increases. "Up the
Organization" was in part the story of what he did at Avis, and why, and
it's one of the two best books on management I've read. (The other is
Peter F. Drucker's "Management: Tasks, Practices, and Responsibilities")

When I see questions like voipfc's, I think "Theory X", and my first
question is "Why do you assume your employees are trying to goof off on
you, and *need* such a setup in place?" The usual reasons for such
assumptions have little to do with actual employee performance, and
everything to do with insecurity on the part of the manager.
Ed Metcalfe.
______
Dennis
 
T

tpantazi

I have a very powerful tool from SpectorSoft.com Their product records
sites visited, programs used, emails sent, etc. It has the ability to
alert you when keywords appear. For example, if your employees are
using myspace or porns sites, you can find out. I do not work for or
with the company. I use their product to track my home network. I
have six kids and I need to be able to know what they are doing with
their PCs. I realize my use in not the same as an office, but I know
this would work well in that environment. You can have the tool
snapshot the screen from time to time, you can capture text messages,
emails, etc. I know a bunch of people will complain about whether
this is right or the best way to handle this. I am not going to weigh
in on that topic. In my office, I can manage people with more
positive methods, however, I can see that it is likely that some
people work in areas where that is not so easy. I simply have used
several products like this to try to monitor my kids PCs and this is
the best one of them all. It is also relatively cheap. As you would
expect, the software hides itself from the user and can be managed
remotely.
 
V

voipfc

I have a very powerful tool from SpectorSoft.com Their product records
sites visited, programs used, emails sent, etc. It has the ability to
alert you when keywords appear. For example, if your employees are
using myspace or porns sites, you can find out. I do not work for or
with the company. I use their product to track my home network. I
have six kids and I need to be able to know what they are doing with
their PCs. I realize my use in not the same as an office, but I know
this would work well in that environment. You can have the tool
snapshot the screen from time to time, you can capture text messages,
emails, etc. I know a bunch of people will complain about whether
this is right or the best way to handle this. I am not going to weigh
in on that topic. In my office, I can manage people with more
positive methods, however, I can see that it is likely that some
people work in areas where that is not so easy. I simply have used
several products like this to try to monitor my kids PCs and this is
the best one of them all. It is also relatively cheap. As you would
expect, the software hides itself from the user and can be managed
remotely.
 
V

voipfc

voipfcwrote:


The simple solution for that is a standard image rolled out to all
company PCs that only includes authorized software, and setting the user
accounts as "Power Users", who can run installed software but not
install their own. "So and so is a lazy sod who is goofing of on
company time" is not the first assumption I make in such cases.

Granted, if they don't finish their work on time, you need to know why.
But assuming going in they are goofing off and doing other things
instead of working is a questionable idea. There may be other reasons
entirely, like too much work to get it all done, or procedures that get
in the way.

Going with a monitoring solution like this certainly does one thing: it
communicates to the employees "We don't trust you to do your work unless
someone is standing over your shoulder, so Big Brother is watching you!"

Speaking personally, I wouldn't want to work for an employer who held
that attitude. Would you?

And depending upon where the business is located, you may be legally
required to tell the employees such measures are in place and their
activities may be monitored.

At my employer, there was a standard image with approved software rolled
out to all PCs, and employees who needed something non-standard needed
approval from their manager and a request to IT to install it. There
was also a company policy handbook that specified acceptable use of the
resources that everyone had to read and sign a paper acknowledging they
understood. Employees who performed poorly got bad performance reviews,
and if improvement didn't happen, they got terminated. No employee
monitoring software was ever deployed because it was not seen as needed.

Efforts spent making sure employees aren't goofing off on company time
are better applied to making sure the employees *can* do their work
without unnecessary impediments, and making sure the company is a place
people like working for and *want* to do their work.
______
Dennis

The impression I get is that a lot of computer users have a rather
idealistic view of a modern technological probably inspired by Star
Trek, some kind of Vorsprung durch Technik outlook. If you are nice to
everybody no they will do you no harm. Well some employees join a
company with the opportunity to engage in some fraud in mind.

Most business people are not of that kind, probably due to experiences
of being betrayed by others, employees included.
When the internet wasn't present there was less chance of distractions
on the desktop. The desire is not to stop employees going online, but
to monitor that they are not spending office time and resources in a
way that is of not benefit to the company.

I'm sure is it now well known what happens at the office when there
are major sporting events.

I know of cases where the installation of CCTV for instance has paid
for itself within days.

Is it wrong for employers to seek to guard against such things?
 
D

Dennis McCunney

voipfc said:
The impression I get is that a lot of computer users have a rather
idealistic view of a modern technological probably inspired by Star
Trek, some kind of Vorsprung durch Technik outlook. If you are nice to
everybody no they will do you no harm. Well some employees join a
company with the opportunity to engage in some fraud in mind.

If you are *nasty* to everybody, they *will* do you harm.

The majority of folks are honest and trustworthy. There are exceptions,
but you *handle* them as exceptions.

Treat your employees like you don't trust them and must be virtually
standing over them at all times to make sure they perform, and you badly
damage morale and create a climate where people might look for ways to
shaft you, simply because they feel you are trying to shaft them, and
turnabout is fair play.

If you interview me for a position with your company, and I get the
impression you act like that, I'll decline your offer. I won't work for
a boss who assumes going in he can't trust me. Among other things, it
means *I* can't trust *him*.
Most business people are not of that kind, probably due to experiences
of being betrayed by others, employees included.
When the internet wasn't present there was less chance of distractions
on the desktop. The desire is not to stop employees going online, but
to monitor that they are not spending office time and resources in a
way that is of not benefit to the company.

I'm sure is it now well known what happens at the office when there
are major sporting events.

I know of cases where the installation of CCTV for instance has paid
for itself within days.

Is it wrong for employers to seek to guard against such things?

Not at all. What's wrong is assuming going in you can't trust your
people, and must be Big Brother watching them.

Most employees will do their jobs. You may hire an occasional problem,
but you handle that on an exception basis. You don't penalize everybody
*else* because you have a bad apple.

People who aren't performing will be evident, and that's what
performance reviews are for. You make clear when you hire them what the
standards are for their position. You evaluate them at performance
review time, based on the standards. If they aren't meeting the
standards, they get a poor review, less (or *no*) raise, and a written
warning that they will be terminated if they don't shape up. If they
don't shape up, you *do* terminate them.

And note, there should be plenty of informal feedback along the way. A
performance review, good or bad, should not come as a *surprise* to the
employee. They should have a pretty good idea going into the review
what their boss thinks of them. I've seen cases where the employee
thought all was well till he was called into the boss's office and
fired. This is simple incompetence on the part of the boss. If he was
*that* unhappy with the employee, he should have made it clear and
demanded changes well before it got to be a cause for termination.

None of this requires employee monitoring software on company PCs. If I
have a guy who isn't getting his job done, I don't *care* that he's
spending his time going to www.XXXrated.com, and downloading porn when
he should be working. What he's doing *instead* of working is
irrelevant. He's not working. All I care about is that he isn't doing
the job, and I take steps accordingly.

If the work isn't getting done, the first question you ask is "Why
not?", and you don't assume the answer is "people are goofing off".

We had a major problem at a former employer, and the SVP of our division
called each of us in to sound us out on what was wrong and what to do
about it. My response was basically:

"When something goes wrong, the first question that gets asked is "Who
f****d up? That's the wrong question. The question is what happened,
and how do we change our procedures so it can't happen again.

The folks who work here all want to do their jobs. Things haven't been
getting done because it isn't clear who is *supposed* to do something,
and everyone assumes someone else will take care of it. We need to make
clear who is responsible for what, and that every task has an owner
assigned to it.

Also, *you* need to set an example. You're the boss. We all work for
you. So-and-so is behaving the way she is to the folks she manages
because she's afraid of what you'll say to her! You need to make it
clear that we don't look for heads to roll when something goes wrong.
We look to fix things so the problem can't happen again. You need to
make that clear, and you need to demonstrate by your actions how we
handle problems."

"Interesting. Am I really perceived that way?"

"Yes, Larry."

We had a problem shortly after where he did precisely as I suggested,
and I told him quite honestly after the fact that that was exactly what
I meant when I made my comments, and I was proud to work for him. He
was pleased and flattered. (I was relieved. It's always a worry when
the boss wants to know what the problem is and the answer is in part
"You are.")
______
Dennis
 
H

Harry Johnston

voipfc said:
When the internet wasn't present there was less chance of distractions
on the desktop. The desire is not to stop employees going online, but
to monitor that they are not spending office time and resources in a
way that is of not benefit to the company. [...]

Is it wrong for employers to seek to guard against such things?

Not at all - if you don't care about your employees working conditions, or the
fact that pretty much all the competent people will get fed up and leave.

In fact, all this network monitoring stuff is pretty darn sissy. Why don't you
just hire a thug to walk around and beat up anyone who looks like they're
thinking about goofing off?

Harry.
 
T

tpantazi

voipfc said:
When the internet wasn't present there was less chance of distractions
on the desktop. The desire is not to stop employees going online, but
to monitor that they are not spending office time and resources in a
way that is of not benefit to the company. [...]
Is it wrong for employers to seek to guard against such things?

Not at all - if you don't care about your employees working conditions, or the
fact that pretty much all the competent people will get fed up and leave.

In fact, all this network monitoring stuff is pretty darn sissy. Why don't you
just hire a thug to walk around and beat up anyone who looks like they're
thinking about goofing off?

Harry.

It's amazing how people get offended when someone suggests ways of
monitoring employees. You hear things like the above statement where
they extend it to ridiculous lengths that are absurd. Yet if you the
employer think those things of an employee, you are a evil monger.
The fact is when employees know you are monitoring them, it tends to
keep them honest. In environments with no restrictions, it is common
for people to take advantage. Just because you monitor what people
do, doesn't mean you are beating them up nor does it mean you will
take action on every non-work related activity. However, if you
cannot track them, it is hard to establish where their time is going
and what it is being spent on. By the way, I am not a manager nor an
employer. I have been both in the past. Current;y I work in an
organization that monitors my activity. While I do plenty of personal
stuff, I have never been called to task for it. However, others have
been because they crossed the line. Did they get fired? No, they were
told to knock it off and they did. Did some resent it enough to
leave, yep. But I say go for them. Not everyone can deal with it.
The company I work for has not laid off a single employee in the 9
years I have been there. As a matter of fact I have only seen five
people get fire for cause. Each of them was given fair warning and
they refused to do as they were told. Throughout the hard times and
good times, our company has vowed to not let people go. We even hired
people when other companies were laying off. I have gotten bonuses
nearly every quarter. Don't get me wrong we have issues. But for a
company with nearly 150 IT people and roughly 1500 overall employees,
they are very good to their people. They can be because they monitor
us. They know what we do, and set boundaries. Just beacuse they ahve
the tools to discipline people doesn't mean they will at every
infraction.
 
M

MikeR

voipfc said:
The impression I get is that a lot of computer users have a rather
idealistic view of a modern technological probably inspired by Star
Trek, some kind of Vorsprung durch Technik outlook. If you are nice to
everybody no they will do you no harm. Well some employees join a
company with the opportunity to engage in some fraud in mind.

Most business people are not of that kind, probably due to experiences
of being betrayed by others, employees included.
When the internet wasn't present there was less chance of distractions
on the desktop. The desire is not to stop employees going online, but
to monitor that they are not spending office time and resources in a
way that is of not benefit to the company.

I'm sure is it now well known what happens at the office when there
are major sporting events.

I know of cases where the installation of CCTV for instance has paid
for itself within days.

Is it wrong for employers to seek to guard against such things?

It's not wrong for a business to protect it's own interests, but the method can, and
most often is a "Beatings will continue until morale improves" approach.

If a workers direct supervisor doesn't know what his staff is doing and can't be
bothered to get off his duff to actually walk around and talk to them, and be
interested in what they're doing, then he needs to be re-educated or replaced. That
goes all the way up the chain.
Mike
 
V

voipfc

The impression I get is that a lot of computer users have a rather
idealistic view of a modern technological probably inspired by Star
Trek, some kind of Vorsprung durch Technik outlook. If you are nice to
everybody no they will do you no harm. Well some employees join a
company with the opportunity to engage in some fraud in mind.

Most business people are not of that kind, probably due to experiences
of being betrayed by others, employees included.
When the internet wasn't present there was less chance of distractions
on the desktop. The desire is not to stop employees going online, but
to monitor that they are not spending office time and resources in a
way that is of not benefit to the company.

I'm sure is it now well known what happens at the office when there
are major sporting events.

I know of cases where the installation of CCTV for instance has paid
for itself within days.

Is it wrong for employers to seek to guard against such things?

One thing I need to impress upon is that monitoring tools are not
necessarily necessarily spying tools. Employees are not being secretly
spied upon if they are made to understanding that their computer
activities are monitored and that any activities harmful or against
the company policy will be noted, even if they are not monitored in
real time. If they also conduct any activities that are personal or of
an embarrassing nature those will also be noted.

It is then up to them to decide what sort of private activities they
are willing to conduct on company systems.
 
D

Dennis McCunney

* voipfc wrote, On 4/30/2007 10:48 AM:

It's wrong to assume going in your employees can't be trusted and must
be watched. There will be exceptions, but they *are* exceptions, and
you don't need monitoring tools to deal with them.
One thing I need to impress upon is that monitoring tools are not
necessarily necessarily spying tools. Employees are not being secretly
spied upon if they are made to understanding that their computer
activities are monitored and that any activities harmful or against
the company policy will be noted, even if they are not monitored in
real time. If they also conduct any activities that are personal or of
an embarrassing nature those will also be noted.

It is then up to them to decide what sort of private activities they
are willing to conduct on company systems.

If you feel you must to this at all, the only ethical way is to tell
everyone monitoring tools are in place and may be used. (Depending upon
your location, you may be legally *required* to tell them.)

My belief is that such tools are normally unnecessary and are counter
productive, as they damage employee morale and lead to resentment that
might trigger exactly the behavior you wish to prevent. I've explained
why above.

I'd think long and hard before I actually did this, and the only
circumstance I might do it was in a case where I suspect illegal
activity by an employee that could threaten the company, and I needed
hard evidence to hand to the authorities.
______
Dennis
 
E

Ed Metcalfe

Dennis McCunney said:
Thanks to both of you. This is kind of a pet peeve of mine.

Robert Tonwnsend, in "Up the Organization", went on about "Theory X" vs
"Theory Y" organizations. "Theory X" organizations implicitly assumed
that people didn't want to work, would slack off at every opportunity,
and needed to be stood over. "Theory Y" organizations assumed that
working was as natural as eating, sleeping, and breathing, and that most
organizations with problems had made it unnecessarily difficult to get
the work done, and needed to rethink their policies and procedures.

Townsend did his best to create Theory Y organizations. He was the CEO
at Avis Rent a Car during their famous "We Try Harder" days, when Avis
came from having Problems to being a solid number 2 in the industry and
having regular revenue and profitability increases. "Up the
Organization" was in part the story of what he did at Avis, and why, and
it's one of the two best books on management I've read. (The other is
Peter F. Drucker's "Management: Tasks, Practices, and Responsibilities")

When I see questions like voipfc's, I think "Theory X", and my first
question is "Why do you assume your employees are trying to goof off on
you, and *need* such a setup in place?" The usual reasons for such
assumptions have little to do with actual employee performance, and
everything to do with insecurity on the part of the manager.

______
Dennis

Dennis,

For me too.

It still surprises me how many employers do not understand the basic
principal - treat people like adults and *most* of them will behave like
adults, treat them like kids and a lot of them will behave like kids.

Ed Metcalfe.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
What are the best utilities that monitor staff desktop activity?

The main type of output required is how much time they spend
interacting with programs windows and the names of the programs. An
utility that can track which windows are active and how much mouse and
keyboard activity occurs on those windows.

In the case of websites there will be a need to check which web sites
are the most used.

/voipfc

It is strange that no one is asking this question anymore, when I think it is getting more and more timely. Monitoring employees is not the same as spying. They are entitled to being notified about this and knowing when they are and aren't under surveillance. I am using a simple software called 'my team monitor' to do this job for me. This program is switched on by the employee when he starts the shift and off at the end, and in the meantime it logs the number of keystrokes and mouse clicks and it takes screenshots. This way I see what they are working on and how much activity has been going on, but I am not recording anything that is private or confidential. The program is free at myteammonitor dot com.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Looking for staff activity monitoring tools 2
Desktop monitoring software? Stealthy? 7
WinXP - Remote Desktop 6
Windows 10 Fed up with Win 10 33
Employee Database 2
KidLogger 0
S.M.A.R.T. Disk Monitoring in W2K 5
For Sale i3 Desktop Unit 0

Top