| Function | People | M365 credits / person / week | M365 sessions / person / week | M365 credits / session |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 206 | 1223.6 | 20.7 | 59.03 |
| Other functions (pooled) | 75 | 856.4 | 16.2 | 52.86 |
| Product | 72 | 746.5 | 13.9 | 53.72 |
| Sales | 44 | 726.7 | 13.7 | 53.21 |
| Operations | 54 | 663.3 | 13.6 | 48.63 |
| Finance | 29 | 566.5 | 8.8 | 64.35 |
Product mix is the new baseline. The report now separates observed M365 Copilot and GitHub Copilot activity before relating either product to working patterns. M365 credits, GitHub AI credits and GitHub activity remain separate measures; no common unit or conversion has been confirmed.
Consumption is concentrated. Across the observed product window, the highest-volume 10% of people with positive Microsoft 365 credits account for 38.0% of all observed M365 credits. Concentration is reported within each product separately: M365 credits and GitHub AI credits are different units and are never pooled into a shared denominator. See the consumption detail page for the concentration cuts and the heavy-user pattern split.
Enablement is a people measure. M365 enablement is reported as the share of people with any observed enabled day, not as a percentage of possible enabled days.
Ways of Working comparisons use the joined product window. The Person query has 26 weeks of collaboration history, while product feeds cover 13 weeks of weekday daily records. Relationships in this report use the product weeks after aggregating all product files to a single Person × week panel.
M365 credits per session is retained as an appendix-style intensity measure. It is not a productivity or value measure, and it does not establish that a group is more or less efficient.
| Segment | People | Share of population | M365 enabled users | M365 credits / person / week | GitHub credits / person / week | GitHub active days / person |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observed both | 134 | 28% | 100% | 1656.0 | 72.5 | 43.1 |
| Observed M365 only | 193 | 40% | 100% | 1203.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Observed GitHub only | 50 | 10% | 66% | 0.0 | 89.1 | 44.4 |
| No observed product use | 103 | 21% | 49% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
The dashboard first aggregates every daily or dimensional product
export to PersonId × MetricDate, where
MetricDate is the Sunday week start. The joined panel then
has one row per Person Query row, so downstream charts cannot
accidentally multiply people by service, feature, language or model
dimensions.
Network metrics describe collaboration breadth in the observed calendar and communication graph. They do not measure relationship quality, influence, delivery quality or business impact. The useful question is whether product-use segments have visibly different collaboration reach that deserves deeper analysis.
After-hours collaboration counts meetings, email, Teams chats, calls and channels with at least one other person outside configured working hours, with overlapping activity deduplicated. It is not total work time. Flexible schedules, on-call duties and time zones may matter, but none is recorded here.
Profile partition withheld: one or more cells or complements are below the publication floor.
| Product | People with positive credits | Share used by top 10% | Share used by top 25% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Microsoft 365 Copilot credits | 327 | 38.0% | 61.2% |
| GitHub AI credits | 184 | 38.5% | 60.0% |
Volume and consistency answer different questions. Concentration shows how much of the observed credit total sits with the highest-volume people. The pattern split shows whether those people consume at that level habitually or in occasional bursts. A group can be concentrated without being habitual.
The window is 13 product weeks. Consistency is measured inside that window only. It is a lookback description, not a trend, and it cannot show whether a pattern is starting or fading. Unobserved weeks are excluded from both the threshold and the per-person counts, so a coverage gap is never counted as a quiet week.
Thresholds are parameters, not findings. Heavy user: top 20% of people with positive observed M365 credits, by average weekly credits. High-credit week: a person-week at or above the 90th percentile of all active person-weeks. Sustained: at least 50% of a person’s observed weeks are high-credit weeks. Changing any threshold changes the groups; narrower heavy-user cuts are permitted and will be withheld whenever a resulting group falls below the publication floor.
| CreditQuartile | People | Credits / person / week | M365 credits / session | Share of population |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No observed M365 credits | 153 | 0.0 | N/A | 31.9% |
| Q1 lowest | 82 | 311.2 | 30.45 | 17.1% |
| Q2 | 82 | 679.3 | 39.02 | 17.1% |
| Q3 | 82 | 1177.3 | 47.98 | 17.1% |
| Q4 highest | 81 | 3413.8 | 72.75 | 16.9% |
Profile partition withheld: one or more cost-intensity cells or complements are below the publication floor.
| Profile component | Definition | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| High credit | Upper quartile of average weekly M365 credits among positive M365 users | Higher M365 credit volume |
| Lower credit | Other positive M365 users | Lower M365 credit volume |
| High cost per session | Upper quartile of M365 credits per session among people with at least 10 observed M365 sessions | More credits used per observed M365 session |
| Standard cost per session | Below the high-cost threshold, with enough observed sessions | Lower observed M365 cost intensity |
| Limited M365 sessions | Fewer than 10 observed M365 sessions, including zero-session and GitHub-only people | Insufficient sessions; never included in standard/high-cost comparisons |
The label high cost per session describes a measurable consumption pattern. It is not a wellbeing, productivity or value judgement.
Profile baseline withheld: the complete ConsumptionProfile by CreditQuartile partition does not meet the publication floor.
| Question | Rule |
|---|---|
| Identity | Take the PersonId / PeopleHistoricalId
crosswalk from Consumption activity files; never derive opaque
identifiers by string manipulation |
| Metadata | Join Consumption activity to PeopleMetaData with
PeopleHistoricalId; use person-query attributes for
whole-population grouping because a person query alone has no
PeopleHistoricalId |
| Weekly relationships | Aggregate daily product records to person-week, then join to
person-query weeks by PersonId and
MetricDate |
| Service grain | Aggregate across ServiceName before computing
person-week M365 credits or credits per session |
| Credit quartiles | Use M365 credits only; calculate among positive M365 users and retain people with no observed M365 credits separately |
| Cost intensity | Use M365 credits per observed M365 session; do not infer token mix |
| Focus identity | Check that meetings, scheduled calls and available-to-focus hours reconcile to the configured working-hours basis, and that uninterrupted plus interrupted hours reconcile to available-to-focus hours |
| Network measures | Use weekly person-query network metrics and average them across weeks; never sum them |
| Privacy | At least 10 distinct people per published cell, contributing cohort and non-empty contributor complement. Pool unsafe function cells, then recheck; withhold an entire failing partition consistently across tables, charts, shares and ranks |
| Check | Status |
|---|---|
| PeopleMetaData people with no activity-file crosswalk | Review required |
| Credit activity rows with PeopleHistoricalId absent from PeopleMetaData | Pass |
This dashboard is a demonstration of analytical possibilities. Every person, credit, session and Ways of Working value is synthetic.
The current source set represents 480 synthetic people. The person query spans 26 Sunday-start weeks. The M365 and GitHub credit feeds cover the final 13 weeks at weekday daily grain, which is why this report filters Ways of Working measures to the product window before relating them to credits.
Available-to-focus hours are simulated on a 40-hour weekly basis here, but that basis is configurable per tenant through metric rules. The metric describes calendar time left after meetings and scheduled Teams calls, and should not be read as coding time or psychological flow.
The following effects are deliberately modest:
The uncompressed source-shaped CSVs sit under:
examples/utility-r/_data/
person-query/PersonQuery.csv
consumption-query/PeopleMetaData.csv
consumption-query/PersonM365CreditsMetrics.csv
consumption-query/PersonGitHubCreditsMetrics.csv
They are intended for demonstrations, workshops and adaptation of the template. They contain no customer data or real identifiers. The GitHub-query files in the same folder are not required for this consumption report.
Credits per session means Microsoft 365 Copilot credits consumed divided by observed Microsoft 365 Consumption-query sessions. It is preferred over any token-normalised measure because token fields are not present in this export.
Available-to-focus hours means working hours
remaining after excluding meetings and scheduled Teams calls.
Uninterrupted_hours and Interrupted_hours
partition available-to-focus time in this source. The working-hours
basis is tenant-configurable; the 40-hour identity checked here is
specific to this synthetic dataset.
Credit concentration uses only coarse positive-user M365 quartiles, shared with the credit-group panels. No individual curve, top-1% point, fine histogram, observed extrema or individual ranking is published. If any quartile or the no-observed-M365 group falls below the floor, the entire partition is withheld.
Credit activity segments are based on active product
weeks and observed M365 credit volume. They are not the standard
vivainsights action-based segments, because this source set
does not include a Copilot actions metric.
PeopleHistoricalId is the documented join key
between the Consumption activity files and PeopleMetaData.
It must be taken from the Consumption export rather than derived from
PersonId. A person-query export alone cannot be joined to
PeopleMetaData; the bridge is an activity file that carries
both PersonId and PeopleHistoricalId.
The dashboard shows associations. It does not establish that AI consumption caused a working pattern, and it does not observe output quality, task difficulty or business value. It also makes no wellbeing claims: uninterrupted, interrupted, available-to-focus, after-hours and weekend measures describe observed calendar and collaboration patterns only.