• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Krebs Voos Save 76% in Virtual Worlds

Krebs Voos Save 76% in Virtual Worlds



Learn how we saved 76% to 81% of our event costs by using virtual worlds, and how they can be used to do agile project management with distributed teams. Presented at the Agile2010 conference in ...

Learn how we saved 76% to 81% of our event costs by using virtual worlds, and how they can be used to do agile project management with distributed teams. Presented at the Agile2010 conference in Orlando.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



4 Embeds 344

http://www.learninggeneralist.com 168
http://craigsmith.id.au 109
http://cds43.wordpress.com 66
http://www.linkedin.com 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Krebs Voos Save 76% in Virtual Worlds Krebs Voos Save 76% in Virtual Worlds Presentation Transcript

    • AgileBill Krebs & Keith Voos © 2010 Agile Dimensions LLC
    • IBM Developer & Lead ’83-09 Programmer, Lead, Consultant, Teacher Agile Coach Allscripts 160,000 physicians and 800 hospitals use Allscripts solutions to automate their operations.  Certified in Virtual Words from U of Washington’s 1 year program  Author of upcoming book chapter on Agile Project Management in “3D Virtual World Learning Handbook”  Agile since 2001  Certified CSM, CSP, MBTI, Innovation Games, Virtual Worlds  Taught Agile to over 1,000 people worldwide Disclosure: partner with Teleplace 2
    • Project Management Professional Certified ScrumMaster Certified Business Continuity Planner Project Manager, State Farm Insurance  All projects managed in 2009 and 2010 have been Agile  Began using Virtual World Environments Dec 2008  Agile ScrumMaster since 2008 3
    • 4
    •  If I don’t see you, I forget you are there  Geo discrimination? Some in room, some remote.
    • Does this somehow convey more information?
    •  Global teams, face to face travel costs  Hard to remain engaged with screen share and teleconference combo. (but good chance to catch up on e-mail)  Webcams convey superfluous information, use more bandwidth. Venues are limited by physical and budget constraints. 7
    • Spatial Audio + Sense of Proximity + Shared Interactive Objects = Sense of presence
    • © 2010 Agile Dimensions LLC
    • default { touch_start(integer detectedCount) { llOwnerSay( "Transitioning to the foo state."); state foo; } } state foo { touch_start(integer detectedCount) { llOwnerSay( "Transitioning back to the default state."); state default; } }
    •  Face to Face: Agile Coach Camp RTP Mar 2010 vs. Agile Worlds Jan 2010 Face to Face Face to Face Virtual Estimate 30 Actual 45 +Local Actual Venue $1,450 2,435 1,400 Travel Costs 19,500 29,268 0 Time Lost to 6,300 14,400 21,600 Travel (training) Labor Volunteer Volunteer 825 + Volunteer Food 315 4,442 0 $8,525 Total 35,665 57,745 76% to 81% Assume labor rate of $60 per VersionOne salary Survey
    • © 2010 Agile Dimensions LLC
    • 16
    • http://bit.ly/agile3dfactory
    •  Meetup.com/agile3d
    • Churn in marketplace Feels like Agile in 2001 2015 ?
    • Organization Event Microsoft / Sodexo Virtual Global Inclusion Summit Cisco Diversity and Inclusion Ernst & Young Inventory US Holocaust Museum Witnessing History Catt Laboratory First-Responder Experience Loyalist College Border Service Training Ball State University Teaching Rhetoric Penn State Environmental Science BP Challenge for Global Graduates IBM Academy of Technology Event Shapiro Institute Immersive Negotiation Training
    • Organization Event Results Agile Project Saved over $1 million by State Farm Insurance Management using virtual worlds Saved 76% of event Agile Dimensions LLC Agile Worlds Conference costs compared to Agile Coach Camp Virtual Worlds Best Hosted events for 3,000 Rockcliffe University Practices in Education and 2,077 people over Consortium Conference two years Used Agile for a new One year certification University of Washington team separated by 2,800 Course miles.
    •  Built Cyber Security Simulation  Stakeholder: US Department of Energy  Distributed team – 2,800 miles away  660 labor hours  $3,700 cost of supplies  Demoed to Whitehouse  Used Scrum
    •  Experimentation with multiple environments  Control group  Local dispersed (Jan 09-Dec 09)  Offshore and Local (June 09-Aug 10)  Internal evaluation of Enterprise Edition software.. (Oct 09-Dec 09)
    •  Support Structure  Community Support or dedicated service unit.  Agile Coaching through the tool  Separate Agile Training Room  Agile Coaches holding classes
    •  Participants and Business Cases  Projects ▪ Dispersed teams ▪ Offshore communication needs ▪ Collaborative Environment needs  New Technology Areas ▪ Utilize functions not integrated in other products
    • Digestion People Events Profile “Profile Surfing” Join Groups
    •  PC, Mac, Web, Mobile?  Served or Client?  Served, or behind firewall?  Cheap or Premium?  Persistent?  Programmability  LSL, Python, C#  Immersion Level  Modelling  Private or Social?  Primitives, Meshes, tools No one tool has the answer yet
    • Hi Kirk, At the town hall meeting today, Sammy brought his laptop with camera and was sending the stream while Eric was sharing his desktop presentation at the same time. It really worked well. Much better than the phone-in thing. Thanks to both of them. I hope we do more of this in the future. Can we do that again? That was incredibly beneficial and what a great use of the tool. It can be exhausting to listen in, on the phone, on a large meeting such as that. When speakers switch quickly, gesture, or turn their attention elsewhere – as is natural when presenting - it can be very hard to keep up and understand who is contributing what. It also makes it hard to stay focused. Being able to see both the speakers, the PPT and the whole room and their reaction was very helpful. I felt very connected to both those in the Town Hall meeting and those of us having a presence in a virtual world. Mike, I just attended my first Town Hall meeting in a virtual world and it was awesome. I was able to hear and see the presenters … and … during Josh’s presentation was able to see his computer screen on the left as he was presenting on the right. This was very helpful. I am thankful that Sammy McCubbins is putting in the effort to get this software/technology up and running. And that we have the ability to use it.
    • Pros: 1. Allows us to expand our collaborative environment to multiple sites including, Corporate North, Corporate South, and our soon to be offshore team in India 2. Allows everyone on the team to view and comment on documents, demonstrations, screen reviews, database design reviews, and code reviews at the same time 3. All team members (on shore and off shore) are able to have face to face conversations regarding difficult or confusing screen/code designs. 4. Ability for all team members to update documents on the display panels 5. The projector display is where we will get the biggest bang. We plan on using this feature a lot with our offshore team. 6. Ability to save documents from the room directly back into our own applications and then into Phase if needed. Cons: 1. A short delay when entering information into one of the documents on the display panels. 2. Not a working calendar for the team.
    • Pros: 1. Great for use with distributed teams. I have one team that has adopted this well. They are spread out and it has been really helpful for them to use. My other team mostly sits close together, and they have been much slow to adopt this technology. 2. Very cool tool! Saves significant time for daily standup meetings and for communicating status updates 3. Becomes more natural as you spend more time on it. 4. The ability to collaborate with the team without traveling to another location. 5. Not having to commute long distances to a conference room for a 15/20 meeting. 6. Seeing the same documents, etc. as the rest of the group. Being able to hear people when they speak, seeing who has joined the meeting, quickly moving to different landmarks Cons: 1. Time to learn to use product- about 3 weeks intermittently, shorter if using daily. 2. Feedback from users concerning sound quality… very intermixed. Wireless networking POS (Point of Service) standards? Does your current network handle data and voice differently?
    • Venuegen –Balance Teleplace – Good for Data Unity3d / Jibe – toolkit ReactionGrid - Advanced Webex – 2d - not engaging Sococo – 2.5D, but useful Unisfair, ON24 – Cost Agile Dimensions has tools in blue. Save time. Let us help you choose. 32
    •  Bandwidth  Initial learning curve  Graphics cards  Firewall and ports  Partial mobile enablement  (pocket Metaverse)
    • 34
    • 35
    • 37
    • 38
    • 39
    • 40
    • http://bit.ly/awnteleplace 41
    • 42
    • 43
    • Hi performance, more programmable
    • Less engaging, but still useful sometimes 45
    • Brian Bauer, CTO. Etape Partners Steve Mahaley – Director at Duke Ron Burns, President Proton Media Joe Little – BP Chief Tech Office Debbie Dalmand – Ernst & Young Mary Ann Mengel – Penn State Mike Hamilton – Ernst & Young Barton Pursel – Penn State Erica & Sam Driver – Consultants Michael Pack – U of Maryland Randy Hinrichs – CEO 2b3d, UWA Koreen Olbrish – CEO Tandem Learning Boris Kizelshteyn – CEO Popcha Margaret Regan – CEO FutureWork Christopher Keesey – Ohio University Sarah Robbins – Indiana U Chuck Hamilton – IBM John Royer – director AstraZenca Karen Keeter – IBM Lesley Scopes U of Southhampton Joanne Martin - IBM Clare Timothy - BP John Hengeveld – Strategist at Intel Eilif Trondsen – Research Director Ken Hudson – Director at Loyalist Virtual Worlds @ Work College Kevin Feenan – Rockcliffe U David Klevan – Holocaust Museum Tony O’Driscoll – Duke University Anders Groenstedt – Groenstedt Grp Karl Kapp – Boomsburg University
    • Don’t reinvent the wheel  Orientation  Over 6 person years  Training  Bill – cert in VWs and Scrum  3d  Staff – IQ 147, conference  Agile speaker  More  Machinima  Rockcliffe U  Event Organization  11 Sims,  Sponsored  Security, Admin, Faculty  Community  4 build companies  Web hosting companies Mission: Serve the Agile and 3d Communities. Cover the cost of our passion. Make 3d Real.
    •  Avenue for Accessibility  Virtual Ability – Virtual Ability.org  Virtual Helping Hands  Wheelies  Cape Able  It’s Greener  Saved 27 tones of Co2 at AgileCon
    • Join meetup.com/Agile3d 49
    •  Rockcliffe U – urockcliffe.com  Jokaydia - jokaydia.com  Extreme Reality - extreme-reality.com  Pooky Media - pookymedia.com  The Epoch Institute  Joel Foner – Joel Foner.com – coaching coaches  UW Avalumni  Reaction Grid – reactiongrid.com  Teleplace, Inc. – teleplace.com  VenueGen – venugen.com  Shapiro Negotiations Institute - shapironegotiations.com  And more!
    •  Learning in 3D by Karl Kapp and Tony O’Driscoll  Training and Collaboration with Virtual Worlds by Alex Heiphetz and Gary Woodill  Journal of Virtual Worlds - jvwresearch.org  Video – channel agile3d  Agile Worlds 2010 http://bit.ly/Agile3dCon10a  Hopscotch http://bit.ly/agile3dhopscotch  Agile 3d Factory http://bit.ly/agile3dfactory  Peek at Teleplace http://bit.ly/awnteleplace  Cyber Security Themepark http://bit.ly/3dsecuritypark  Why Immersion? http://bit.ly/whyimmersion
    • linkedin.com/in/BillKrebs agilebill@agiledimensions.com twitter.com/AgileBill4d meetup.com/agile3d 52