Attendance Team and manager wise

SergeiBaklan 

You have a point.  Whereas conventional spreadsheets require the reader to follow each precedent and look for adjacent annotation, names are better understood by referring to the documentation.  That begs the question of 'is there any documentation?'

I used to find reading a spreadsheet rather like reading a message written in a Caesar Cipher.  The encryption rules are simple enough but it still makes the message difficult to read.  My normal process was to decode one reference at a time and name it .  By the time I had named every reference, I most likely understood the workbook.  What that did not answer, was the question 'given a workbook built from defined names in the first place (where the naming convention might be idiosyncratic), could I do any better?  I believe the process is, in essence, to build the missing documentation.  For each name, I want to know: what business object does it represent; how it is calculated; what is its intended use; and, less importantly, where are any range references located?

 I have a copy of an academic paper which asserts that names are useless as a device for reducing spreadsheet risk.  It turned out that the experiments were to test the accuracy with which students could reproduce a series of formulae such as

= PrettyPollyGrossProfit + ThirstyFerretNetProfit

My immediate thoughts were why is one company's gross profit being added to a net profit?  Why proliferate Names?  Wouldn't the structure of the data be improved by having a defined name, CompanyName, with the individual names as text data values?  One then has meaningful relationships between GrossProfit and NetProfit that apply across all companies.

All of which suggests a level of planning that is alien to spreadsheet development.  There the strategy is more one of rushing in, getting the job done and sorting the errors later.