Most Improved: Reliability

It measures improvement in reliability, not raw volume. The template scores verified attendance and task completion events, then compares each entrant against their own recent baseline. That makes it useful when you want to reward the person who changed most, not the person who already has the highest output.

Use the individual format when you want personal accountability and a clear link between one person's behavior and the result. It works well for frontline staff, shift-based roles, and mixed-experience groups where team averages would hide progress. If the work is naturally collective, a team or threshold_all format may fit better.

This template is set up for a 14-day run, which fits the natural cadence of behavior change without turning into a permanent leaderboard. You can repeat it periodically, but it should still feel like a fresh contest with a clear start and end. Avoid leaving it open-ended, because that turns it into ongoing ranking instead of a contest.

The template uses verified system actions: attendance.shift_completed_on_time and task.completed. That means scores come from real work events already captured in the platform, which helps prevent manual scoring drift and Goodhart's-law problems. If you need to track an external KPI like sales or steps, use a manual contest instead.

Fairness comes from the most_improved goal type. Each entrant is judged against their own recent baseline, so someone who started behind can still win by making the biggest change. That is different from raw highest_score contests, where the same top performers can dominate every time.

Yes. The template uses points as the prize type, but you can adapt the reward structure to fit your program. You can also adjust the baseline window, point weighting, and whether attendance or task completion matters more, as long as the contest still rewards verified improvement.

The biggest mistake is using raw totals instead of improvement, which defeats the purpose of the format. Another common issue is mixing in unverified manual entries, which weakens trust in the standings. It also helps to explain the baseline clearly so entrants understand what they are trying to improve.

This template is better when you want a bounded contest with a clear finish line and a fairer path for newer or lower-performing entrants. An always-on leaderboard can motivate some people, but it often rewards the same top names and loses novelty. This format creates a short, focused sprint around measurable reliability gains.

Yes, but it should be reviewed with local policy, labor rules, and any works-council or union requirements. Because it is an opt-in individual contest based on verified work events, it is easier to explain than subjective scoring. Keep the rules transparent, avoid punitive framing, and make sure participation and rewards are handled consistently.