A Checkinatwork responsibility matrix for a Belgian subcontractor chain

Several companies may enter the same Belgian work site. A responsibility matrix makes the operational handoffs visible, but it must not rewrite statutory duties or suggest that the main contractor can absorb every obligation.

Map the chain before access

List the contracting company, each subcontractor, the work location and the people authorised to manage the relevant records. Give every row a source owner, a verifier and an escalation contact. Keep legal responsibility separate from the practical person who performs a check.

The official Working in Belgium Checkinatwork guidance explains the presence-registration context. Use the live service and current guidance for the actual obligation; treat the matrix as an internal control aid.

Define four handoffs

First, confirm who supplies correct company and worker details. Second, confirm who grants secure access to the service. Third, define how the registration result is checked before entry. Fourth, assign exceptions such as a mismatch, outage or missing link to a work declaration.

Preserve evidence without copying everything

Store the reference, time, outcome and responsible person. Avoid circulating identity documents in chat groups when a controlled reference is enough. Apply retention and access rules appropriate to the evidence.

Review changes daily

A new subcontractor, replacement worker or changed location can invalidate yesterday's matrix. Add a short change check to the site start routine and close exceptions explicitly. Enfin can hold project roles, tasks and supporting documents; it does not replace the official declaration or registration systems. Explore Enfin, pricing, or discuss your workflow.

Test the record with a real exception

Before adopting the workflow, use a case with a missing source, two similar records or an unavailable owner. Check that the process stops with a clear question instead of silently choosing. Ask someone who did not prepare the record to find the source, decision and next step.

State what must still be decided outside the software. An accountant, prevention adviser, site manager or public authority may remain the competent decision maker. The digital workflow should make that handoff visible and attach the answer to the correct project, customer, invoice or document.

Schedule another review when the scope, party, official guidance, contract or product setting changes. The record then supports controlled execution rather than promising that old evidence or configuration stays valid automatically. Define who can reverse an error, notify affected people and decide that the exception is genuinely closed. Record that agreement with the project owner for the next review.