Forum Discussion
Time investors vs Collaborators Directionality
Hi Kunaal! The directionality in group queries actually has nothing to do with who initiated collaboration. You can think of time investors as the "subject" of the measure, and the collaborators as the "object" that they are collaborating with. So if A spends an hour sending emails to B, it will show up as one hour of time that A invested in B. If A spends an hour in meetings with B, it will also show up as one hour of time that A invested in B. The special perspective of the group queries is that they view collaboration time as something that can be budgeted between collaborators, so if that same meeting is instead between A, B, and C, then A's time "investment" will be evenly split between B and C. But there's no consideration for who initiated the meeting or email.
I hope that helps to clarify!
kb2010
Hi Kunaal! The directionality in group queries actually has nothing to do with who initiated collaboration. You can think of time investors as the "subject" of the measure, and the collaborators as the "object" that they are collaborating with. So if A spends an hour sending emails to B, it will show up as one hour of time that A invested in B. If A spends an hour in meetings with B, it will also show up as one hour of time that A invested in B. The special perspective of the group queries is that they view collaboration time as something that can be budgeted between collaborators, so if that same meeting is instead between A, B, and C, then A's time "investment" will be evenly split between B and C. But there's no consideration for who initiated the meeting or email.
I hope that helps to clarify!
kb2010
Thanks Jessalynn
Doesn't Time investor i.e. the person initiating imply directionality? i.e. if A set up a meeting with B and C doesn't this imply that A is setting up the interaction with B and C? granted in some cases managers will ask a junior to set up the meeting but fundamentally i thought the initiator of the email, meeting, call (digital exhaust) was the source at least as I think about it for the network query.
So in your example would a group to group query for a 1 on 1 look as follows if the time investor initiated or set up?
- Time Investor (Person A) to Collaborator (Person B) -> Collaboration Hours = 1
For a meeting with multiple recipients (assume 1 hour meeting and A, B, and C are all participants but A set the meeting up):
- Time Investor (Person A) to Collaborator (Person B) -> Collaboration Hours = 0.5
- Time Investor (Person A) to Collaborator (Person C) -> Collaboration Hours = 0.5
What about B and C who are on the same meeting and technically collaborating with each other and A? If directionality isn't a factor would it be 0.33hr for all three participants?
Hi Kunaal! The time investor is not the person who initiated the collaboration. Every person in an interaction is a time investor if they are licensed and not otherwise filtered out of the time investor group when you set up the query.
In your first example, A invested 1 hour in B. B also invested 1 hour in A.
In your second example, assuming the three people are in three different groups, then A invested 30 minutes in B and 30 minutes in C. B invested 30 minutes in A and 30 minutes in C. C invested 30 minutes in A and 30 minutes in B. From each person's perspective, there are two other people in the meeting, so they are splitting their time between the two.If, say, A and B are in the same group, and C is in a different group, the time allocation would change, because we assume groups don't give time to themselves if other groups are present. In that case, A would give one hour to C, B would give one hour to C, and C would give 30 minutes each to A and B (which would appear as one hour given to their shared group).
