Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Think Balm Immersive Internet Business Value Study Slides 5 26 09
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Think Balm Immersive Internet Business Value Study Slides 5 26 09

637

Published on

Published in: Business, Economy & Finance
1 Comment
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Here is a link to the full 36-page report, 'ThinkBalm Immersive Internet Business Value Study, Q2 2009': http://thinkbalm.com/2009/05/26/thinkbalm-publishes-business-value-study/
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
637
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
1
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. ThinkBalm Immersive Internet Business Value Study, Q2 2009 Erica Driver, Co-founder and Principal, ThinkBalm May 27, 2009 © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 2. >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. © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 3. >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) Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009 n = 65 respondents. Percentage may not total 100 due to rounding. © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 4. 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 Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009 n = 66 respondents. Percentage may not total 100 due to rounding. © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 5. 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 Number of survey respondents Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009 n = from 64 to 66 depending on the business benefit in question © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 6. 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 Number of survey respondents Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009 n = 64 respondents © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 7. 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 Number of survey respondents Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009 n = 66 respondents. Multiple answers accepted. © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 8. 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 Number of survey respondents Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009 n = 66 respondents. Open-ended question. Multiple answers accepted. © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 9. 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 Number of survey respondents Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009 n = from 61 to 65 depending on the use case in question © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 10. 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 Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009 n = from 58 to 64 depending on the use case in question © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 11. 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 Number of survey respondents Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009 n = 64 respondents. Multiple answers accepted. © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 12. 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 © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 13. >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 Number of survey respondents Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009 n = 66 respondents. Percentage may not total 100 due to rounding. © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 14. 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 Number of survey respondents Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009 n = 66 respondents. Open-ended question. Multiple answers accepted. © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 15. 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 © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 16. >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) Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009 n = 66 respondents. Percentage may not total 100 due to rounding. © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 17. 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 Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009 n = 49 respondents. Percentage may not total 100 due to rounding. © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 18. 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 Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009 n = 66 respondents. Percentage may not total 100 due to rounding. © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 19. 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 Number of survey respondents Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009 n = 66 respondents. Percentage may not total 100 due to rounding. © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 20. 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 Number of survey respondents Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009 n = 65 respondents. Multiple responses accepted. © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
  • 21. 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 © 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.

×