Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.045919463 = product of:
  0.091838926 = sum of:
    0.091838926 = sum of:
      0.056579717 = weight(_text_:management in 1495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056579717 = score(doc=1495,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17543502 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05204841 = queryNorm
          0.32251096 = fieldWeight in 1495, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1495)
      0.035259206 = weight(_text_:22 in 1495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035259206 = score(doc=1495,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18226467 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05204841 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1495, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1495)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

People who are collaborating can share files in two main ways: performing Group Information Management (GIM) using a common repository or performing Personal Information Management (PIM) by distributing files as e-mail attachments and storing them in personal repositories. There is a trend toward using common repositories with many organizations encouraging workers to use GIM to avoid duplication of files and management. So far, PIM and GIM have been studied by different research communities, so their effectiveness for file retrieval has not yet been systematically compared. We compared PIM and GIM in a large-scale elicited personal information retrieval study. We asked 275 users to retrieve 860 of their own shared files, testing the effect of sharing method on success and efficiency of retrieval. Participants preferred PIM over GIM. More important, PIM retrieval was more successful: Participants using GIM failed to find 22% of their files compared with 13% failures using PIM. This may be because active organization aids retrieval: When using personally created folders, the failure percentage was 65% lower than when using default folders (e.g., My Documents), and more than 5 times lower than when using folders created by others for GIM. Theoretical reasons for this are discussed.

0.040728174 = product of:
  0.08145635 = sum of:
    0.08145635 = sum of:
      0.046197146 = weight(_text_:management in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046197146 = score(doc=5843,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17543502 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05204841 = queryNorm
          0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 5843, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5843)
      0.035259206 = weight(_text_:22 in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035259206 = score(doc=5843,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18226467 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05204841 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5843, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5843)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Personal information management (PIM) is an activity in which people store information items in order to retrieve them later. The purpose of this paper is to test and quantify the effect of factors related to collection size, file properties and workload on file retrieval success and efficiency. Design/methodology/approach In the study, 289 participants retrieved 1,557 of their shared files in a naturalistic setting. The study used specially developed software designed to collect shared files' names and present them as targets for the retrieval task. The dependent variables were retrieval success, retrieval time and misstep/s. Findings Various factors compromise shared files retrieval including: collection size (large number of files), file properties (multiple versions, size of team sharing the file, time since most recent retrieval and folder depth) and workload (daily e-mails sent and received). The authors discuss theoretical reasons for these negative effects and suggest possible ways to overcome them. Originality/value Retrieval is the main reason people manage personal information. It is essential for retrieval to be successful and efficient, as information cannot be used unless it can be re-accessed. Prior PIM research has assumed that factors related to collection size, file properties and workload affect file retrieval. However, this is the first study to systematically quantify the negative effects of these factors. As each of these factors is expected to be exacerbated in the future, this study is a necessary first step toward addressing these problems.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 72(2020) no.1, S.130-147

0.01460882 = product of:
  0.02921764 = sum of:
    0.02921764 = product of:
      0.05843528 = sum of:
        0.05843528 = weight(_text_:management in 3971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05843528 = score(doc=3971,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17543502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05204841 = queryNorm
            0.3330879 = fieldWeight in 3971, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3971)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Why we organize our personal digital data the way we do and how design of new PIM systems can help us manage our information more efficiently. Each of us has an ever-growing collection of personal digital data: documents, photographs, PowerPoint presentations, videos, music, emails and texts sent and received. To access any of this, we have to find it. The ease (or difficulty) of finding something depends on how we organize our digital stuff. In this book, personal information management (PIM) experts Ofer Bergman and Steve Whittaker explain why we organize our personal digital data the way we do and how the design of new PIM systems can help us manage our collections more efficiently.

Content

Bergman and Whittaker report that many of us use hierarchical folders for our personal digital organizing. Critics of this method point out that information is hidden from sight in folders that are often within other folders so that we have to remember the exact location of information to access it. Because of this, information scientists suggest other methods: search, more flexible than navigating folders; tags, which allow multiple categorizations; and group information management. Yet Bergman and Whittaker have found in their pioneering PIM research that these other methods that work best for public information management don't work as well for personal information management. Bergman and Whittaker describe personal information collection as curation: we preserve and organize this data to ensure our future access to it. Unlike other information management fields, in PIM the same user organizes and retrieves the information. After explaining the cognitive and psychological reasons that so many prefer folders, Bergman and Whittaker propose the user-subjective approach to PIM, which does not replace folder hierarchies but exploits these unique characteristics of PIM.

0.011549287 = product of:
  0.023098573 = sum of:
    0.023098573 = product of:
      0.046197146 = sum of:
        0.046197146 = weight(_text_:management in 1714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046197146 = score(doc=1714,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17543502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05204841 = queryNorm
            0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 1714, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1714)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article we suggest a user-subjective approach to Personal Information Management (PIM) system design. This approach advocates that PIM systems relate to the subjective value-added attributes that the user gives to the data stored in the PIM system. These attributes should facilitate system use: help the user find the information item again, recall it when needed, and use it effectively in the next interaction with the item. Driven from the user-subjective approach are theee generic principles which are described and discussed: (a) The subjective classification principle, stating that all information items related to the same subjective topic should be classified together regardless of their technological format; (b) The subjective importance principle, proposing that the subjective importance of information should determine its degree of visual salience and accessibility; and (c) The subjective context principle, suggesting that information should be retrieved and viewed by the user in the same context in which it was previously used. We claim that these principles are only sporadically implemented in operating systems currently available an personal computers, and demonstrate alternatives for interface design.

0.011549287 = product of:
  0.023098573 = sum of:
    0.023098573 = product of:
      0.046197146 = sum of:
        0.046197146 = weight(_text_:management in 1354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046197146 = score(doc=1354,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17543502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05204841 = queryNorm
            0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 1354, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1354)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Personal Information Management (PIM) is an activity in which an individual stores personal information items to retrieve them later. In a former article, we suggested the user-subjective approach, a theoretical approach proposing design principles with which PIM systems can systematically use subjective attributes of information items. In this consecutive article, we report on a study that tested the approach by exploring the use of subjective attributes (i.e., project, importance, and context) in current PIM systems, and its dependence on design characteristics. Participants were 84 personal computer users. Tools included a questionnaire (N = 84), a semistructured interview that was transcribed and analyzed (n = 20), and screen captures taken from this subsample. Results indicate that participants tended to use subjective attributes when the design encouraged them to; however, when the design discouraged such use, they either found their own alternative ways to use them or refrained from using them altogether. This constitutes evidence in support of the user-subjective approach as it implies that current PIM systems do not allow for sufficient use of subjective attributes. The article also introduces seven novel system design schemes, suggested by the authors, which demonstrate how the user-subjective principles can be implemented.

0.011549287 = product of:
  0.023098573 = sum of:
    0.023098573 = product of:
      0.046197146 = sum of:
        0.046197146 = weight(_text_:management in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046197146 = score(doc=33,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17543502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05204841 = queryNorm
            0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

File sharing is an integral component of modern work. Files can be shared either using Group Information Management (GIM), where collaborators exploit a common repository (e.g., the cloud), or Personal Information Management (PIM), where files are sent via email attachments, and collaborators store files individually in personal collections. Given the recent prevalence of GIM, we compare the effects on retrieval for PIM versus GIM collections. We examine the effects of various theoretically motivated factors relating to collection size, properties of the target file, and user workload. In our study, 289 participants accessed 1,557 of their own shared files in a naturalistic setting. Results indicate that factors relating to collection size, file versions, and user workload negatively affect the retrieval of GIM more than PIM files, indicating that PIM is more scalable than GIM. Testing a very different population, we confirm previous findings that failure percentages of GIM are approximately double those of PIM. We discuss possible theoretical explanations, specifically how factors that hinder retrieval exacerbate the general GIM problem of retrieving files organized by other people. Overall, PIM's greater scalability has practical implications for fast-growing organizations such as startups when choosing their sharing policies.

0.008166579 = product of:
  0.016333157 = sum of:
    0.016333157 = product of:
      0.032666314 = sum of:
        0.032666314 = weight(_text_:management in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032666314 = score(doc=1103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17543502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05204841 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)