WWilson Tsai
HR Operations × Data Analytics × Risk Governance· ~30 employee company · ~15 field sales reps · 2–5 check-ins/day

Field Workforce Route & Mileage Risk Analysis

Problem Focus: Spatial Data Ambiguity × Workforce Compliance Governance

Executive Case OverviewImplemented · Data accumulating in 2026

A spatial verification model designed for field sales operations that replaces unguided manual coordinate spot-checks with candidate-location confidence scoring and a 3-tier review triage, reserving managerial context for formal decisions.

Operational Friction & The Pre-System State

Field sales representatives historically recorded daily client visits on paper sign-in sheets, providing zero spatial visibility for HR or Finance. When mobile GPS check-in was introduced, it generated large volumes of coordinate points but immediately created operational ambiguity.

Key Operational Friction Points:
  • Raw coordinates frequently reflected home-adjacent check-ins and unlinked transit locations with no clear medical facility record.
  • With ~15 field reps averaging 2–5 daily check-ins, manual inspection of every coordinate was labor-intensive, inconsistent, and unscalable.
  • Dense healthcare clusters (multiple clinics sharing an address or plaza) made single-coordinate geometric mapping inherently ambiguous.

The Governance Dilemma & Rejected Naive Rules

The obvious technical instinct is to apply rigid geometric automation. However, automated rules create severe false certainty and damage employee relations when applied to field operations.

Rejected Naive Rule
"Auto-snap coordinate to nearest facility → mark visit as verified"

Why Rejected: Physical proximity alone cannot prove client meeting intent. In dense medical clusters, snapping creates arbitrary false positives.

Rejected Naive Rule
"Auto-deduct all detour mileage as unapproved expenses"

Why Rejected: Field representatives require legitimate tactical agility (urgent prescription deliveries, traffic re-routing). Rigid geometric assumptions penalize necessary field flexibility.

System Design & Processing Pipeline

The model organizes raw daily records into structured workday event groups, compares actual claims against baseline route models, and evaluates candidate locations transparently. Crucially, raw location records may be ambiguous or represent multiple plausible locations (e.g., dense clinic buildings). The system preserves this uncertainty by calculating confidence scores rather than converting uncertain data into a false binary conclusion.

Raw Data Input
Raw attendance / GPS events
Chronological event grouping
Location normalization / candidate matching
Confidence assessment
(proximity + calendar/context evidence)
Preserves uncertainty rather than converting uncertain data into a false binary conclusion
Route estimation / comparison
System Automation Boundary
Risk triage
Human Manager Review Boundary
Human manager review
The system prioritizes records for review; it does not determine misconduct.

Visual Evidence & Interface Walkthrough

Selected interfaces from working prototypes, showing how the process and governance principles above translate into operational workflows.

Interface Evidence

Individual Punch Assessment & Multi-Candidate Matching

GPS coordinates are not converted directly into misconduct decisions. Distance, known-client proximity, nearby institutions, and candidate locations are assembled as evidence before ambiguous records are routed for human review.

【What This Proves】

Proves that the system utilizes multi-candidate location scoring and proximity indicators, presenting structured evidence to human managers for ambiguous punches rather than triggering automated disciplinary actions.

Interface Evidence

Weekly & Daily Risk-Based Review Queue

Instead of reviewing every attendance record, managers receive risk-prioritized review queues that concentrate attention on records requiring contextual judgment.

【What This Proves】

Demonstrates 3-tier risk prioritization (Normal vs. Priority Review) at the daily/weekly level, shielding managers from manually spot-checking coordinate streams for 15+ field sales reps.

Governed Decision Principle
"Flag for review, not judge misconduct."

The system strictly produces review priority signals to optimize managerial bandwidth. It never issues automated penalties or formal misconduct judgments. Any formal inquiry or compensation adjustment strictly requires a manager to review the operational context directly with the employee.

Implementation Maturity & Scope

Implemented · Data accumulating in 2026
Current Verified Scope:

The modular data pipeline (ingest, clean, route estimate, candidate scoring, triage) is fully implemented and validated with automated test suites.

Verification Status:

Implemented · Data accumulating in 2026

Next Planned Iteration:

Integration of automated calendar schedule cross-referencing for high-density multi-practice buildings.

Deliberate Trade-offs

  • Accepts residual ambiguity and requires ongoing manager review effort rather than offering a deceptively simple automated verdict.
  • Prioritizes employee trust and defensibility over aggressive automated cost-cutting.

Known Operational Limitations

  • Multiple independent clinics operating at the exact same street address cannot be differentiated by GPS coordinates alone without calendar logs.
Next Case · CASE 02
Performance Review & Calibration Platform
Back to Case IndexReturn to Homepage