Usage Of Enterprise File Sharing Service Muller Chi 2010
14
Patterns of Usage in an Enterprise File-Sharing Service: Publicizing, Discovering, & Telling the News Michael Muller, David R Millen, & Jonathan Feinberg* IBM Research / Collaborative User Experience IBM Center for Social Software Cambridge, MA, USA * Jonathan Feinberg is now at Google. 1 IBM Research
-
Upload
michael-muller -
Category
Technology
-
view
2.517 -
download
1
description
We conducted a principle components analysis of users' actions in an enterprise file-sharing service. We describe four factors, their attributes with respect to social action and awareness, and their implications for design.
Transcript of Usage Of Enterprise File Sharing Service Muller Chi 2010
Patterns of Usage in an Enterprise File-Sharing Service:Publicizing, Discovering, & Telling the News
Michael Muller, David R Millen, & Jonathan Feinberg*
IBM Research / Collaborative User Experience
IBM Center for Social Software
Cambridge, MA, USA
* Jonathan Feinberg is now at Google.
1IBM Research
Agenda
• File-sharing in an enterprise
• Factor analysis of file-sharing usage patterns
– Upload & Publicize
– Annotate & Watch
– Discover & Tell
– Refind
• Interpretation• Interpretation
– Both more and less social than anticipated
– Design what and for whom?
– Who is missing? Future analyses
IBM Research 2
File-Sharing in an Enterprise
• Cattail, an enterprise file-sharing service
– Centralized
– Authenticated for all access
– Simpler than peer-to-peer or public networks
• Cattail statistical profile
– Users 88270 (many job roles, 80 countries)
– Uploaders15943 (18%)– Uploaders15943 (18%)
– Files 120288 (diverse formats)
– Downloads 728509
• Related work
– Dropbox / UD Dropbox (Schwartz, 2007)
– Apocrita (Reynolds et al., 2005)
– Studies of file-sharing (Christin et al., 2005; Lee, 2003; Rader, 2009;
Voida et al., 2006; Whalen et al., 2008)
IBM Research 3
Cattail Features and Capabilities
• Capabilities
– Upload – Share (recommend) *
– Download * – Collect *
– – Annotate *
– – Watch *
* Can be done on own files or on files that were uploaded by others
A F
IBM Research 4
P
Q
H
B
EG
A
B
B
C D
Factor Analysis
• Review of the method of factor analysis
– Start with too many variables
– Find subsets of variables that are highly correlated with one another
� summarize each subset of variables as a factor
– Continue the analysis in terms of the smaller number of factors
– Figures of merit: Eigenvalue & variance-accounted-for
• The 10 variables in our factor analysis• The 10 variables in our factor analysis
IBM Research 5
On own file On file of other
Upload �
Download � �
Share � �
Collect � �
Annotate � �
Watch �
Factor Analysis
Factor
Eigenvalue 2.995 1.192 1.061 1.001
% Variance 29.945 11.919 10.610 10.011
Factor
Measure
Upload &
Publicize
Annotate
& Watch
Discover
& Tell
Refind
Upload • .935 • .100 .125 .063
Download-Own .064 .021 .014 • .992 •
Download-Others’ .033 .066 • .858 • .042
IBM Research 6
Download-Others’ .033 .066 • .858 • .042
Share-Own • .734 • .202 .198 .073
Share-Others’ .241 .175 • .563 • -.015
Collect-Own • .855 • .062 .035 -.028
Collect-Others’ .085 • .523 • • .407 • -.048
Annotate-Own .276 • .756 • -.021 .071
Annotate-Others’ .134 • .874 • .097 .046
Watch-Others’ .025 • .761 • .184 -.040
Factor Analysis Results
• Upload & Publicize (15935 users, 18.1%)
� Upload + Share-own + Collect-own
– Interest in an audience for own files
• Annotate & Watch (9780 users, 11.1%)
� Annotate-own + Annotate-other + Watch-other
– Adding value / reviewing & rating
– Social awareness– Social awareness
• Discover & Tell (85303 users, 96.7%)
� Download-other + Share-other + Collect-other
– Interest in an audience for others’ files
– Personal utility of collections
• Refind (5149 users, 5.8%)
� Refind
– Download own files - Cattail as an extension of the user’s local drives
IBM Research 7
Interpretation: How do people use file-sharing in enterprise?
• Both more social and less social than anticipated
– More social
• Sharing, Collecting for use by others
– Upload & Publicize
– Discover & Tell
• Similar to “Information Curators” finding (ECSCW 2009)
• Apparently easy to organize (confer Rader, 2009, in public networks)
– “Yours, mine, and… ours” appears to be possible in enterprise sharing– “Yours, mine, and… ours” appears to be possible in enterprise sharing
– Less social
• Refind
– Public-access files with no viewers � a sharing-failure case?
• Users appropriated the technology for unanticipated purposes
(Dourish, 2001; Kujala & Kauppinen, 2004)
– Impression management (see also Thom-Santelli et al, 2008)
– Curating (ECSCW 2009)
– RefindingIBM Research 8
A UI for each Factor? Or combined UI?
Factor Upload &
Publish
Annotate
& Watch
Discover
& TellRefind
Upload &
Publish-
4301
(4.9%)
13269
(15.0%)
5143
(5.8%)
Annotate
& Watch
4301
(4.9%)-
9368
(10.6%)
2054
(2.3%)
Discover
& Tell
13269
(15.0%)
9368
(10.6%)-
4640
(5.3%)
5143 2054 4640
IBM Research 9
Refind5143
(5.8%)
2054
(2.3%)
4640
(5.3%)-
Total15935
(18.1%)
9780
(11.1%)
85303
(96.7%)
5149
(5.9%)
Potential
Features
• Promote files +
collections
• Impression
management
• Ratings by
readers
• Search terms
• Structured
discussion
threads / file
• Has my
annotation
been read? By
whom?
• Promote files +
collections
• Impression
management
• Ratings by
readers
• Search terms
• Synchroniza-
tion (private
disk � Cattail)
• Ego-centric
filters
A UI for each Factor? Or combined UI?
Factor Upload &
Publish
Annotate
& Watch
Discover
& TellRefind
Upload &
Publish-
4301
(4.9%)
13269
(15.0%)
5143
(5.8%)
Annotate
& Watch
4301
(4.9%)-
9368
(10.6%)
2054
(2.3%)
Discover
& Tell
13269
(15.0%)
9368
(10.6%)-
4640
(5.3%)
5143 2054 4640
10
Refind5143
(5.8%)
2054
(2.3%)
4640
(5.3%)-
Total15935
(18.1%)
9780
(11.1%)
85303
(96.7%)
5149
(5.9%)
Potential
Features
• Promote files +
collections
• Impression
management
• Ratings by
readers
• Search terms
• Structured
discussion
threads / file
• Has my
annotation
been read? By
whom?
• Promote files +
collections
• Impression
management
• Ratings by
readers
• Search terms
• Synchroniza-
tion (private
disk � Cattail)
• Ego-centric
filters
IBM Research
Same features
for two different
factors
Three factors
deal with groups
of artifacts
Three factors
deal with
awareness of
actions by
others, & with
impression
management
Many users
engage in more
than one factor
Summary of Contributions
• Four factors in file sharing
– In the enterprise (and beyond?)
– Patterns of sociality
– Patterns of individual utility
– Appropriation of technology for new purposes
• Implications for design
– Unified user interface, supporting– Unified user interface, supporting
• Work with collections of artifacts
• Impression management
• Ratings by readers
• Awareness of the work of others
IBM Research 11
Who is Missing? Future Work
• Analyses so far
– How do people use file-sharing in the enterprise?
• Four factors in usage (this note)
– “Information curators” (ECSCW 2009)
– Focused on people who changed the database
• Upload original content
• Contribute: Share (recommend), Annotate, Collect…
(also Downloaders)• (also Downloaders)
– Our four factors are primarily about visible contributions to the system
• Lurkers in file-sharing
– Lurkers are the modal users (75%)
– How do lurkers use file-sharing?
– What do lurkers need from a file-sharing service?
– Should lurkers eventually become contributors?
– Hearing the “silent” users
IBM Research 12
Factor Analysis
Factor
Eigenvalue 2.995 1.192 1.061 1.001
% Variance 29.945 11.919 10.610 10.011
Factor
Measure
Upload &
Publicize
Annotate
& Watch
Discover
& Tell
Refind
Upload • .935 • .100 .125 .063
Download-Own .064 .021 .014 • .992 •
Download-Others’ .033 .066 • .858 • .042
IBM Research 14
Download-Others’ .033 .066 • .858 • .042
Share-Own • .734 • .202 .198 .073
Share-Others’ .241 .175 • .563 • -.015
Collect-Own • .855 • .062 .035 -.028
Collect-Others’ .085 • .523 • • .407 • -.048
Annotate-Own .276 • .756 • -.021 .071
Annotate-Others’ .134 • .874 • .097 .046
Watch-Others’ .025 • .761 • .184 -.040
