think balm immersive internet business value study slides 5 26 09
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
ThinkBalm Immersive Internet Business Value Study, Q2 2009
Erica Driver, Co-founder and Principal, ThinkBalmMay 27, 2009
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
>40% of respondents saw positive economic benefit; 42% don’t know
“MQ18. What is the total economic benefit your organization obtained by using immersive technologies in 2008 or 1Q 2009, in US dollars?”
Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 66 respondents. Percentage may not total 100 due to rounding.
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
Number of respondents
Total economic benefit (USD)
12(18%) 9
(14%) 6(9%)
1(2%)
1(2%)
4(6%)
0
5(8%)
28(42%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
>50% of respondents expect positive economic benefit in 2009
“MQ20. What is the total business value your organization anticipates getting out of its investment in immersive technologies in 2009, in US dollars?”
Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 65 respondents. Percentage may not total 100 due to rounding.
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
Number of respondents 7
(11%)6
(9%) 4(6%)
5(8%) 3
(5%)
6(9%)
0
10(15%)
24(37%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Expected total economic benefit (USD)
One third of respondents said project data shows success and another 61% reported that projects “feel like” a success
Project data shows success
“MQ15. In general terms, how successful was/were your organization's immersive technology deployment(s) in 2008 and 1Q 2009?”
Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 66 respondents. Percentage may not total 100 due to rounding.
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
3 (5%)
1 (2%)
40 (61%)
22 (33%)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Project ongoing, no data, but it "feels like" a success
Project ongoing, no data, but it "feels like" a failure
Project data shows failure
Number of survey respondents
Important benefits: face time, innovation, and cost savings
“MQ13. How important were each of the following business benefits for immersive technology pilot(s) or deployment(s) your organization did in 2008 or 1Q 2009?”
Increased innovation
Cost savings or avoidance
Competitive differentiation
Development of new business capability
Employee productivity improvement
Streamlined business process(es)
New source of revenue
Enabling people in disparate locations to spend time together
Standardization of business practices over wide geographical area
Increased revenue from existing products or services
7
10
11
18
23
34
34
36
45
45
14
18
24
21
23
18
20
20
14
18
15
11
22
11
11
9
5
7
5
0
28
25
7
15
7
4
6
1
2
3
0 20 40 60 80
Very important
Somewhat important
Not very important
Not important at all
Number of survey respondents
Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = from 64 to 66 depending on the business benefit in question
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
Nearly ¾ say org’s investment might or will increase in ‘09/’10
We might increase our investment, compared to 2008 and 1Q 2009 levels.
“MQ23. How do the experiences your organization had with immersive technologies in 2008 or 1Q 2009 affect plans for increased investment in immersive technologies in 2009 and 2010?”
Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 64 respondents
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
Number of survey respondents
We will definitely increase our investment, compared to 2008 and 1Q 2009 levels.
We probably won't increase our investment, compared to 2008 and 1Q 2009 levels.
We won't increase our investment, compared to 2008 and 1Q 2009 levels.
Unknown 4 (6%)
3 (5%)
10 (16%)
24 (38%)
23 (36%)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Common use cases in 2008 / 1Q ‘09: learning & training, meetings
Learning and training
“MQ7. For which of the following use cases did your organization pilot or deploy immersive technology in 2008 or 1Q, 2009?”
Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 66 respondents. Multiple answers accepted.
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
9 (14%)
12 (18%)
12 (18%)
13 (20%)
21 (32%)
23 (35%)
32 (49%)
50 (76%)
53 (80%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Meetings
Conferences
Collaborative 3D data visualization
Collaborative design and prototyping
Business activity rehearsal
Human resource management
Other
Remote system and facility management
Number of survey respondents
Internal meetings were more common than external meetings
“MQ8. Please briefly describe your organization’s deployment(s) of immersive technologies in 2008 and 1Q 2009.”
Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 66 respondents. Open-ended question. Multiple answers accepted.
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
Internal meetings
Number of survey respondents
Learning and training
External meetings
Conferences
Marketing
Social networking
Prototyping
3D data visualization or process design
Recruiting
Asset creation (e.g., machinima) 3 (5%)
4 (6%)
4 (6%)
5 (8%)
5 (8%)
9 (14%)
9 (14%)
10 (15%)
24 (36%)
24 (36%)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Common use cases for the remainder of 2009 will be learning and training and meetings
“MQ21. For the remainder 2009, what is the likelihood of your organization using immersive technology for each of the following use cases?”
Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = from 61 to 65 depending on the use case in question
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
Number of survey respondents
Learning and training
Meetings
Conferences
Collaborative 3D data visualization
Collaborative design and prototyping
Business activity rehearsal
Human resource management
Remote system and facility management 6
7
15
20
24
28
34
43
12
13
16
20
18
21
20
13
19
19
16
12
15
13
8
8
22
20
9
9
5
2
1
0
0 20 40 60 80
Definitely
Likely
Unlikely
Definitely not
I don't know
Advocates eye more complex use cases for 2010-2011
Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = from 58 to 64 depending on the use case in question
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
“MQ21 and MQ22. For the remainder 2009, and for 2010 and 2011, what is the likelihood of your organization using immersive technology for each of the following use cases?”
2009 2010-2011
Rating Average (max = 4)
Learning and training 3.6 3.6
Remote system and facility management 2.0 2.4
Human resource management 2.1 2.4
Business activity rehearsal 2.7 3.1
Collaborative design and prototyping 2.8 3.1
Collaborative 3D data visualization 3.0 3.3
Conferences 3.2 3.4
Meetings 3.4 3.6
1 = Definitely not; 2 = Unlikely; 3 = Likely; 4 = Definitely; = .10 point increase in avg. rating
Leading alternatives: Web conf., in person, videoconferencing
“MQ10. What alternative technologies or approaches did your organization consider instead of immersive technologies for the projects you described?”
Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 64 respondents. Multiple answers accepted.
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
Web conferencing
7 (11%)
12 (19%)
15 (23%)
16 (25%)
20 (31%)
20 (31%)
21 (33%)
21 (33%)
25 (39%)
29 (45%)
35 (55%)
37 (58%)
0 10 20 30 40
Face-to-face meeting
Video conferencing
Telephone
Other
Wiki and/or blog
Document repository
Web-based team workspaces
Enterprise social networking software
Instant messaging
Telepresence
Unified communications
Number of survey respondents
Immersive meetings are more like in-person meetings than like they are like Web conferences
• Instant messaging• Telephone
• Combined voice and text conference
• Video conference• Web conferencing
• In-person meeting• Telepresence• Immersive meeting
Low High
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
Synchronous single-channel
communication
Synchronous multi-channel
communication
Synchronous multi-channel plus rich
presence information
Engagement
>50% of respondents: immersive costs less than alternatives
“MQ12. How did the cost of implementing immersive technology compare with what it would have cost to take an alternative approach?”
Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 66 respondents. Percentage may not total 100 due to rounding.
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
Immersive technology was more expensive than alternatives
I don’t know
Immersive technology cost about the same as alternatives would have
Immersive technology was less expensive than alternatives
Number of survey respondents
10 (15%)
7 (11%)
11 (17%)
38 (58%)
0 10 20 30 40
Why immersive vs. others? Reduce costs, increase engagement
“MQ11. Why did your organization choose to use immersive technologies over the alternatives for the project(s) you described?”
Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 66 respondents. Open-ended question. Multiple answers accepted.
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
2 (3%)
2 (3%)
3 (5%)
4 (6%)
8 (12%)
8 (12%)
11 (17%)
12 (18%)
12 (18%)
17 (26%)
18 (27%)
0 5 10 15 20
To expand customer reach
Because of competitive pressure
For 3D data visualization
For the user experience
We can’t get the job done any other way
For rich presence awareness
To become geographically independent
To achieve more effective communication
To assess this emerging technology
To increase engagement
To reduce costs
Number of survey respondents
Face-to-face
In-Person Meeting
Video conferencing &
telepresence Immersive
Simulated In-Person Meeting
Source: ThinkBalm
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
Face-to-face doesn’t necessarily mean in-person
>1/2 of respondents cite costs at <$35K, with >1/3 citing less than $10K
“MQ17. How much money did your organization spend to implement immersive technologies in 2008 or 1Q 2009, in US dollars?”
Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 66 respondents. Percentage may not total 100 due to rounding.
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
Money the organization spent to implement immersive technologies (USD)
6(9%)
24(36%)
7(11%)
2(3%)
5(8%)
7(11%)
6(9%)
2(3%)
7(11%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Number of respondents
About 45% of orgs spent <160 person-hours rolling out immersive tech
“MQ14. How many person hours did it take to roll out the immersive technology(ies) your organization used in 2008 and 1Q 2009, once you made the decision to deploy it?”
Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 49 respondents. Percentage may not total 100 due to rounding.
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
6(12%)
8(16%) 7
(14%)
1(2%)
10(20%)
5(10%)
3(6%)
918%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Number of person / hours per spent
Number of survey respondents
About 2/3 of respondents didn’t recoup investment or don’t know if they have, and 29% recouped investment in <9 months
“MQ16. How long did it take to recoup the investment your organization made in immersive technology in 2008 and 1Q 2009, once the project(s) launched?”
Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 66 respondents. Percentage may not total 100 due to rounding.
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
Number of respondents
12 (18%)
5(8%) 2
(3%)0
3(5%)
19(29%)
25(38%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time it took to recoup investment
Two thirds of work-related immersive technology initiatives in 2008 and 1Q 2009 were pre-production
Enterprisewide rollout (to many if not all employees in the organization)
“MQ6. How would you classify the farthest-along immersive technology deployment your organization did in 2008 or 1Q 2009?”
Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 66 respondents. Percentage may not total 100 due to rounding.
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
Production rollout to entire targeted population
Pilot(s) (test rollout to subset of targeted population)
Early experiment(s)
Pre-production
Production
4 (6%)
17 (26%)
34 (52%)
11 (17%)
0 10 20 30 40
Number of survey respondents
Early adopters face many barriers to adoption
I don’t know
“MQ19. What barriers did your organization face, if any, during its 2008/1Q 2009 deployment of immersive technologies?”
Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 65 respondents. Multiple responses accepted.
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
Number of survey respondents
4 (6%)
7 (11%)
12 (19%)
15 (23%)
29 (45%)
30 (46%)
30 (46%)
32 (49%)
39 (60%)
0 10 20 30 40 50
More expensive than expected
Redundant features with existing technology
Getting budget approval
More effort than expected to train target audience
Corporate security restrictions
Getting users interested in the technology
Other
Users had inadequate hardware
Source: ThinkBalm, based on Geoffrey Moore’s technology adoption lifecycle
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
Innovators
Earlyadopters
Early majority Late
majority
Laggards
1H 2009 2013 2018
Early Immersive Internet adopters are facing “the chasm”
“The chasm”
The chasm• Ease of use• Hardware
requirements• Problematic
learning curve• Perception
problems