Think Balm Immersive Internet Business Value Study Slides 5 26 09

ThinkBalm Immersive Internet
Business Value Study, Q2 2009

Erica Driver, Co-founder and Principal, ThinkBalm
May 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?”
28
30 (42%)
25

20
Number of 12
respondents 15 (18%) 9
10 (14%) 6 5
(9%) 4
1 1 (6%) (8%)
5
(2%) (2%) 0
0

Total economic benefit (USD)

Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009
n = 66 respondents. Percentage may not total 100 due to rounding.


>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?”

30 24
25 (37%)

20

Number of 15 10
respondents 7 6 6 (15%)
10 (11%) 4 5
(9%) (8%) 3 (9%)
5 (6%) (5%)
0
0

Expected total economic benefit (USD)



One third of respondents said project data shows success and another
61% reported that projects “feel like” a success

“MQ15. In general terms, how successful was/were your organization's
immersive technology deployment(s) in 2008 and 1Q 2009?”

Project data shows success 22 (33%)

Project ongoing, no data, but it quot;feels likequot; a success 40 (61%)

Project ongoing, no data, but it quot;feels likequot; a failure 1 (2%)

Project data shows failure 3 (5%)

0 10 20 30 40 50
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?”

Enabling people in disparate locations to 45 18 03
spend time together
Increased innovation 45 14 5 2

Cost savings or avoidance 36 20 7 1 Very
important
Competitive differentiation 34 20 5 6
Somewhat
Development of new business capability 34 18 9 4 important
Employee productivity improvement 23 23 11 7
Not very
Standardization of business practices over
18 21 11 15 important
wide geographical area
Streamlined business process(es) 11 24 22 7 Not
Increased revenue from existing products important
10 18 11 25
or services at all
New source of revenue 7 14 15 28

0 20 40 60 80
n = from 64 to 66 depending on the business benefit in question


Nearly ¾ say org’s investment might or will increase in ‘09/’10

“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?”

We will definitely increase our investment,
compared to 2008 and 1Q 2009 levels. 23 (36%)

We might increase our investment, compared
24 (38%)
to 2008 and 1Q 2009 levels.

We probably won't increase our investment,
10 (16%)
compared to 2008 and 1Q 2009 levels.

We won't increase our investment,
3 (5%)
compared to 2008 and 1Q 2009 levels.

Unknown 4 (6%)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

n = 64 respondents


Common use cases in 2008 / 1Q ‘09: learning & training, meetings

“MQ7. For which of the following use cases did your organization
pilot or deploy immersive technology in 2008 or 1Q, 2009?”

Learning and training 53 (80%)
Meetings 50 (76%)
Conferences 32 (49%)
Collaborative 3D data visualization 23 (35%)
Collaborative design and prototyping 21 (32%)
Business activity rehearsal
13 (20%)
Human resource management
12 (18%)
Other
12 (18%)
Remote system and facility management
9 (14%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

n = 66 respondents. Multiple answers accepted.


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.”

Internal meetings 24 (36%)
Learning and training 24 (36%)
External meetings 10 (15%)
Conferences 9 (14%)
Marketing 9 (14%)
Social networking 5 (8%)
Prototyping 5 (8%)
3D data visualization or process design 4 (6%)
Recruiting 4 (6%)
Asset creation (e.g., machinima) 3 (5%)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

n = 66 respondents. Open-ended question. Multiple answers accepted.


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?”

Learning and training 43 13 8 0

Meetings 34 20 8 1

Conferences 28 21 13 2
Definitely
Collaborative 3D data visualization 24 18 15 5 Likely
Collaborative design and prototyping 20 20 12 9 Unlikely
Definitely not
Business activity rehearsal 15 16 16 9
I don't know
Human resource management 7 13 19 20

Remote system and facility management 6 12 19 22

0 20 40 60 80

n = from 61 to 65 depending on the use case in question


Advocates eye more complex use cases for 2010-2011

“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?”

Rating Average (max = 4)
2009 2010-2011

Business activity rehearsal 2.7 3.1

Remote system and facility management 2.0 2.4

Collaborative 3D data visualization 3.0 3.3

Collaborative design and prototyping 2.8 3.1

Human resource management 2.1 2.4

Conferences 3.2 3.4

Meetings 3.4 3.6

Learning and training 3.6 3.6

1 = Definitely not; 2 = Unlikely; 3 = Likely; 4 = Definitely; = .10 point increase in avg. rating

n = from 58 to 64 depending on the use case in question


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?”

Web conferencing 37 (58%)
Face-to-face meeting 35 (55%)
Video conferencing 29 (45%)
Telephone 25 (39%)
Other 21 (33%)
Wiki and/or blog 21 (33%)
Document repository 20 (31%)
Web-based team workspaces 20 (31%)
Enterprise social networking software 16 (25%)
Instant messaging 15 (23%)
Telepresence 12 (19%)
Unified communications 7 (11%)

0 10 20 30 40
n = 64 respondents. Multiple answers accepted.


Immersive meetings are more like in-person meetings than like they are
like Web conferences

Engagement

Low High

Synchronous single- Synchronous multi- Synchronous multi-
channel channel channel plus rich
communication communication presence information

• Instant messaging • Combined voice and • In-person meeting
• Telephone text conference • Telepresence
• Video conference • Immersive meeting
• Web conferencing


>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?”

Immersive technology was less 38 (58%)
expensive than alternatives

Immersive technology cost about the 11 (17%)
same as alternatives would have

Immersive technology was more 7 (11%)
expensive than alternatives

I don’t know 10 (15%)

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?”

To reduce costs 18 (27%)
To increase engagement 17 (26%)
To assess this emerging technology 12 (18%)
To achieve more effective communication 12 (18%)
To become geographically independent 11 (17%)
For rich presence awareness 8 (12%)
We can’t get the job done any other way 8 (12%)
For the user experience 4 (6%)
For 3D data visualization 3 (5%)
Because of competitive pressure 2 (3%)
To expand customer reach 2 (3%)

0 5 10 15 20

n = 66 respondents. Open-ended question. Multiple answers accepted.


Face-to-face doesn’t necessarily mean in-person

In-Person Meeting Simulated In-Person Meeting

Video conferencing &
Face-to-face telepresence Immersive

Source: ThinkBalm


>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?”
30
24
25 (36%)

20
Number of
15
respondents
6 7 7 6 7
10 (11%) 5 (11%) (11%)
(9%) (8%) (9%)
2 2
5 (3%) (3%)
0

Money the organization spent to implement immersive technologies (USD)



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?”

12 10
(20%) 9
10 8 18%)
(16%) 7
8 6 (14%)
Number of survey (12%) 5
respondents 6 (10%)
3
4 (6%)
1
2 (2%)
0

Number of person / hours per spent



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?”

30 25
(38%)
25
19
20 (29%)
Number of
12
respondents 15 (18%)
10 5
(8%) 2 3
5 (3%) (5%)
0
0

Time it took to recoup investment



Two thirds of work-related immersive technology initiatives in 2008 and
1Q 2009 were pre-production

“MQ6. How would you classify the farthest-along immersive
technology deployment your organization did in 2008 or 1Q 2009?”

Early experiment(s) 11 (17%)
Pre-
production Pilot(s) (test rollout to subset of
targeted population) 34 (52%)

Production rollout to entire
targeted population 17 (26%)

Production Enterprisewide rollout (to many if not
all employees in the organization) 4 (6%)

0 10 20 30 40



Early adopters face many barriers to adoption

“MQ19. What barriers did your organization face, if any, during its
2008/1Q 2009 deployment of immersive technologies?”

Users had inadequate hardware 39 (60%)
Corporate security restrictions 32 (49%)
Getting users interested in the technology 30 (46%)
Other 30 (46%)
More effort than expected to train target audience 29 (45%)
Getting budget approval 15 (23%)
Redundant features with existing technology 12 (19%)
More expensive than expected 7 (11%)
I don’t know 4 (6%)

0 10 20 30 40 50

n = 65 respondents. Multiple responses accepted.


Early Immersive Internet adopters are facing “the chasm”

Early
majority Late
The chasm
Early majority
• Ease of use
• Hardware adopters
requirements
• Problematic
learning curve Innovators Laggards
• Perception
problems “The chasm”

1H 2009 2013 2018

Source: ThinkBalm, based on Geoffrey Moore’s technology adoption lifecycle


Think Balm Immersive Internet Business Value Study Slides 5 26 09

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (8)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (18)

Ähnlich wie Think Balm Immersive Internet Business Value Study Slides 5 26 09

Ähnlich wie Think Balm Immersive Internet Business Value Study Slides 5 26 09 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Think Balm Immersive Internet Business Value Study Slides 5 26 09