WR Survey: Videoconferencing
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

WR Survey: Videoconferencing

on

  • 898 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
898
Views on SlideShare
898
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

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.

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

WR Survey: Videoconferencing WR Survey: Videoconferencing Document Transcript

  • Survey Results Videoconferencing & IP Communications May 2005 Wainhouse Research 112 Sumner Road Brookline, MA 02146 www.wainhouse.com
  • Wainhouse Research conducted an on-line survey in mid-May 2005. An invitation was sent to the subscriber list of the Wainhouse Research Bulletin and later to the PUG (Polycom User Group) Principal Members list inviting all subscribers to go to the Wainhouse Research home page and fill out our annual videoconferencing survey form. Five $50 gift certificates to amazon.com were offered as an incentive, with the winners to be drawn at random. Response to the survey was excellent. Over 900 responses were received with nearly half of the respondents classifying themselves as end users. The questionnaire used in 2005 repeated many of the questions used in earlier surveys. The results of earlier survey studies are available on the Wainhouse Research web site; see www.wainhouse.com/surveys. The primary author of this report can be reached at andrewwd@wainhouse.com Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 2 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • List of Figures Figure 1 Customer category - all respondents ............................................................................................... 6 Figure 2 Customer category - end users only ................................................................................................ 6 Figure 3 Company type - all respondents ...................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4 Location - all respondents ............................................................................................................... 8 Figure 5 Location - end users only ................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 6 Instant messaging - all respondents................................................................................................. 9 Figure 7 Instant messaging - end users only.................................................................................................. 9 Figure 8 Time series analysis: Instant Messaging - all respondents ............................................................. 9 Figure 9 Personal conferencing at home; all respondents ........................................................................... 10 Figure 10 Personal conferencing at work, all respondents .......................................................................... 11 Figure 11 Personal positions at work – all respondents............................................................................... 12 Figure 12 Plans for appliance group systems .............................................................................................. 13 Figure 13 Plans for PC-centric group systems............................................................................................. 13 Figure 14 Plans for desktop appliances ....................................................................................................... 14 Figure 15 Plans for PC-based personal systems .......................................................................................... 14 Figure 16 Number of videoconferencing systems – all users ...................................................................... 15 Figure 17 Number of videoconferencing systems - end users only............................................................. 16 Figure 18 Use of PowerPoint – end users only............................................................................................ 17 Figure 19 Document camera use – end users only ...................................................................................... 17 Figure 20 Accessing the Internet – end users only ...................................................................................... 18 Figure 21 Conference recording – end users only ....................................................................................... 18 Figure 22 Simultaneous web conferencing – end users only....................................................................... 19 Figure 23 Use of dual streams – end users only .......................................................................................... 19 Figure 24 Features used during a videoconference ..................................................................................... 20 Figure 25 Videoconferencing to PC connections – end users ..................................................................... 21 Figure 26 Today's method – all respondents ............................................................................................... 22 Figure 27 Desired Method – all respondents............................................................................................... 22 Figure 28 Videoconferencing changes at work - end users only ................................................................. 23 Figure 29 Results for group systems, all respondents ................................................................................. 24 Figure 30 Group videoconferencing - end users only.................................................................................. 24 Figure 31 Results for desktop videoconferencing, all respondents ............................................................. 25 Figure 32 Desktop videoconferencing - end users only............................................................................... 25 Figure 33 Group barriers – 2005, end users only ........................................................................................ 26 Figure 34 Group barriers – 2004, end users only ....................................................................................... 26 Figure 35 Personal barriers – 2005, end users only..................................................................................... 27 Figure 36 Personal barriers – 2004, end users only..................................................................................... 27 Figure 37 IP-PBX - all respondents............................................................................................................. 29 Figure 38 IP-PBX - end users only.............................................................................................................. 29 Figure 39 Desktop videoconferencing all respondents................................................................................ 30 Figure 40 Desktop videoconferencing – end users only.............................................................................. 30 Figure 41 Collaboration suite – all respondents .......................................................................................... 31 Figure 42 Collaboration suite - end users only ............................................................................................ 31 Figure 43 Enabled applications – all respondents ....................................................................................... 32 Figure 44 Enabled applications - end users only ......................................................................................... 32 Figure 45 Web conferencing – all respondents ........................................................................................... 33 Figure 46 Web conferencing - end users only ............................................................................................. 33 Figure 47 Deployment scores for desktop collaboration solutions – end users ........................................... 34 Figure 48 Percent of end users who will definitely NOT deploy solutions ................................................. 34 Figure 49 Adding video to web conferencing - all respondents .................................................................. 35 Figure 50 Adding video to web conferencing – end users only................................................................... 35 Figure 51 Desktop compatibility with room systems – all respondents ...................................................... 36 Figure 52 Desktop compatibility with room systems – end users only ....................................................... 36 Figure 53 High definition results - all respondents...................................................................................... 37 Figure 54 High definition results, end users only........................................................................................ 37 Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 3 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • Figure 55 Outsourcing interest – end users only ......................................................................................... 38 Figure 56 Outsourcing interest –audio – end users only.............................................................................. 39 Figure 57 Outsourcing interest – video – end users only............................................................................. 39 Figure 58 Outsourcing interest – web conferencing – end users only ......................................................... 40 Figure 59 Outsourcing interest – scheduling – end users only .................................................................... 40 Figure 60 Outsourcing interest – endpoints – end users only...................................................................... 41 Figure 61 Outsourcing interest – network – end users only ........................................................................ 41 Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 4 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • Noteworthy Observations With over 900 total respondents, the number of respondents classifying themselves as end users is over 45%, and when lumped with “other,” the majority of whom are end users as well, the per cent of end users is over 50%. North American respondents represented 58% of total respondents and 72% of all end users. Use of Instant Messaging did not appear to change dramatically over the past 12 months (Fig 8). The use of personal conferencing at home appears to lag quite a bit behind the use of personal conferencing at work. (Fig 9-10) The % of respondents that have no plans to deploy appliance room systems has risen between May 2005 and May 2004, a possible indicator of slowing growth for what is the largest segment of the videoconferencing industry. The major perceived barrier to the deployment of group videoconferencing systems is expense, as ranked by end users. Quality ranked 8th; these results are the same for 2005 and 2004 (Fig 32-33) and almost identical to the results of 2002, when the survey form was slightly different. Network issues also ranked consistently high as a major concern. The major perceived barrier to the deployment of personal videoconferencing systems is quality, then reliability, and then integration. This ranking of barriers was the same in 2005 and 2004 and almost the same in 2002. For 2005, the most likely to deploy solution is now web conferencing, while collaboration-enabled high level software applications are the least likely (Fig 46). IP PBX-based solutions ranked high in the “will NOT deploy” category. (Fig 47) There was no clear demand for high definition videoconferencing systems, with a large number of respondents waiting to evaluate the systems or with no opinion. (Fig 52-53). The use of managed services and hosted services varied widely between audio, video, and web conferencing applications as did the interest in making changes (Fig 54). Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 5 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • 1 Which category best describes your company? o Corporation with over 10,000 employees o Corporation with 1,000 to 10,000 employees o Corporation with 50 to 1,000 employees o Corporation with 1 to 49 employees o Educational Institution o Government or Military o Medical o Other Customer Category 189 Corp >10,000 115 Corp >1,000 182 Corp >50 12.6 % 207 Corp >1 109 Edu 50 Gov & Mil 20.7 % 27 Medical 20.0 % 32 Other 3.5 % 3.0 % 5.5 % 22.7 % 12.0 % Figure 1 Customer category - all respondents Customer Category 133 Corp >10,000 72 Corp >1,000 41 Corp >50 23 Corp >1 31.9 % 85 Edu 33 Gov & Mil 17.3 % 21 Medical 9 Other 2.2 % 9.8 % 5.0 % 5.5 % 7.9 % 20.4 % Figure 2 Customer category - end users only There is a sharp difference in the distribution of company sizes when “end users only” are filtered out from the overall population. For example, corporations from 1 to 49 employees represented 22.7% of the total respondents, but only 5.5% of the end users while the % of very large corporations increased dramatically. Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 6 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • 2 Which conferencing category BEST describes your company? o Conferencing end user o Conferencing equipment vendor o Reseller/VAR/Distributor/Systems Integrator o Service Provider (CSP, ASP, NSP, etc) o Other Which conferencing category best describes your company? 418 End User 219 Reseller 113 Vendor 45.8 % 106 Service Provider 56 Other 6.1 % 24.0 % 11.6 % 12.4 % Figure 3 Company type - all respondents We believe most of the “other” respondents are actually end users who did not know how to classify themselves. The end user fraction is up from 37.8% in 2004. Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 7 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • 3Where are you located? o North America o Latin/South America o Europe/Middle East/Africa o Asia/Pacific/India 530 North America 236 EMA 121 API 58.3 % 22 Latin/South America 2.4 % 13.3 % 26.0 % Figure 4 Location - all respondents 299 North America 71 EMA 42 API 4 Latin/South America 71.9 % 1.0 % 10.1 % 17.1 % Figure 5 Location - end users only Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 8 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • 4 At my workplace, we have an enterprise instant messaging system Yes, we have a corporate-approved IM system No, but we informally use one of the consumer services (AOL, MSN, Yahoo, etc) No, we do not use IM at all Don’t know 298 Have Corporate IM 292 No IM 290 Use Consumer IM 27 Don't know 32.9 % 32.2 % 3.0 % 32.0 % Figure 6 Instant messaging - all respondents y p , p g g y 149 Have Corporate IM 148 No IM 103 Use Consumer IM 14 Don't know 36.0 % 3.4 % 35.7 % 24.9 % Figure 7 Instant messaging - end users only Have Corporate No IM Use Consumer Don’t Know May 2005 32.9% 32.2% 32.0% 3.0% May 2004 32.4% 34.5% 31.4% 1.8% Figure 8 Time series analysis: Instant Messaging - all respondents Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 9 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • These results were a bit surprising in that the adoption of instant messaging appears to have changed only slightly in the past year, with corporate IM systems moving only from 32.4% to 32.9%, while those claiming “no IM” dropped from 34.5% to only 32.2%. The most significant difference between “all respondents” and “end users only” appears to be in the use of consumer IM, which is much lower for the end user population, a statistic that seems reasonable given that end users also appear to be the larger companies filling out the survey form. 5 Use of personal video communications. Please check ALL the boxes that apply Don’t Used in Will use Don’t Use 2003 in 2004 Know or 2005 I use personal video communications products at home I use personal video communications products at work y p p 422 Don't Use 287 Used in 2004 282 Will use in 2005 or 2006 46.3 % 13 Don't Know 1.4 % 31.5 % 30.9 % Figure 9 Personal conferencing at home; all respondents Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 10 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • y p p 188 Don't Use 593 Used in 2004 500 Will use in 2005 or 2006 11 Don't Know 65.0 % 20.6 % 1.2 % 54.8 % Figure 10 Personal conferencing at work, all respondents The use of personal conferencing at home appears to lag quite a bit behind the use of personal conferencing at work. Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 11 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • 6 Which statement best describes your PERSONAL position at work I use group videoconferencing systems to communicate with others as part of my job I use personal videoconferencing systems to communicate with others as part of my job I manage videoconferencing systems for others at my company None of the above Which statement best describes your PERSONAL position at work? Check all that apply. 599 Use Group 382 Use Personal 498 Manage 65.7 % 65 None 41.9 % 7.1 % 54.6 % Figure 11 Personal positions at work – all respondents The pie chart for positions at work does not add to 100% because people were allowed to check off more than one category. The chart for end users only is nearly the same, except that 76% of the end users checked the “manage” function, much more than the % for the total population. 7 What are your organization’s plans for the following? … Use now Deploy within a year Test within a year No Plans Appliance Group Videoconferencing Systems PC-Centric Group Videoconferencing Systems (Systems that can run applications such as Microsoft Office w/o an external PC) Desktop or Personal Videophones PC-based Desktop Videoconferencing Systems (a webcam with PC software) Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 12 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • What are your organization’s plans for the following? … - Appliance Group 644 Use now 53 Deploy within a year 29 Test within a year 99 No Plans 73.4 % 52 Don't Know 5.9 % 11.3 % 3.3 % 6.0 % Figure 12 Plans for appliance group systems What are your organization’s plans for the following? … - PC-Centric Group 248 Use now 47 Deploy within a year 88 Test within a year 340 No Plans 5.7 % 30.3 % 95 Don't Know 10.8 % 11.6 % 41.6 % Figure 13 Plans for PC-centric group systems The lack of interest in PC-Centric group systems did not surprise us. We also note that 80% of the respondents either use or plan to deploy within a year appliance group systems. Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 13 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • What are your organization’s plans for the following? … - Appliance Destop 389 Use now 91 Deploy within a year 100 Test within a year 45.8 % 201 No Plans 69 Don't Know 10.7 % 8.1 % 11.8 % 23.6 % Figure 14 Plans for desktop appliances What are your organization’s plans for the following? … - PC Desktop 373 Use now 89 Deploy within a year 121 Test within a year 43.9 % 214 No Plans 52 Don't Know 10.5 % 6.1 % 14.3 % 25.2 % Figure 15 Plans for PC-based personal systems The results for desktop video solutions appear to be unusually strong, with ~55% of the respondents either using now or planning to deploy within a year. Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 14 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • 8) How many videoconferencing systems does your company have ? Group Videoconferencing Systems DESKTOP Videoconferencing Systems Deployed Worldwide Deployed Worldwide 0 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-50 >50 Don’t know How many videoconferencing systems does your company have ? 340 0 320 1-10 11-20 300 21-30 280 31-50 260 >50 Don't know 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Group Systems Desktop Systems Figure 16 Number of videoconferencing systems – all users Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 15 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • How many videoconferencing systems does your company have ? 150 0 1-10 140 11-20 130 21-30 31-50 120 >50 110 Don't know 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Group Systems Desktop Systems Figure 17 Number of videoconferencing systems - end users only The distribution of videoconferencing system populations is interesting and not much changed since 2004 or 2002 for that matter. 9 During a videoconference, how often do you … I would Very Often Occasionally Rarely Never if I often could Show PowerPoint Presentations in the videocall Use a document camera? Access the Internet Record the conference? Conduct a separate and simultaneous web conference to show documents or presentations Use dual streams (H.239) Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 16 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • During a videoconference, how often do you? - PowerPoint 157 Very often 127 Often 79 Occasionally 37.7 % 30 Rarely 13 Never 10 I would if I could 2.4 % 30.5 % 3.1 % 7.2 % 19.0 % Figure 18 Use of PowerPoint – end users only For this question, we decided to plot the data from end users only. The results show that different functions are used with widely varying frequency during videoconferences. During a videoconference, how often do you? - Document Camera 60 Very often 62 Often 76 Occasionally 15.2 % 124 Rarely 78 Never 18.6 % 9 I would if I could 14.7 % 2.2 % 19.1 % 30.3 % Figure 19 Document camera use – end users only Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 17 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • During a videoconference, how often do you? - Access Internet 78 Very often 95 Often 120 Occasionally 23.1 % 68 Rarely 44 Never 7 I would if I could 18.9 % 1.7 % 29.1 % 10.7 % 16.5 % Figure 20 Accessing the Internet – end users only During a videoconference, how often do you? - Record Conference 48 Very often 45 Often 134 Occasionally 98 Rarely 10.9 % 70 Never 32.4 % 18 I would if I could 11.6 % 4.4 % 16.9 % 23.7 % Figure 21 Conference recording – end users only Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 18 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • During a videoconference, how often do you? - Use Web Conference 46 Very often 67 Often 102 Occasionally 16.2 % 81 Rarely 91 Never 24.7 % 26 I would if I could 11.1 % 6.3 % 19.6 % 22.0 % Figure 22 Simultaneous web conferencing – end users only During a videoconference, how often do you? - Use Dual Streams 62 Very often 62 Often 81 Occasionally 15.0 % 55 Rarely 111 Never 42 I would if I could 19.6 % 15.0 % 10.2 % 13.3 % 26.9 % Figure 23 Use of dual streams – end users only We arbitrarily used a weighting factor in order to rank the features used during a videoconference, giving 4 points for very often, 3 points for often, 2 points for occasionally, etc. The order of popularity appears to have not changed during the last three surveys. The figure below plots results for 2005 and 2004. There is no real-world interpretation of the vertical axis in the next graph, but according to our weighting scheme one might assign these numbers to a “popularity” scale. Of particular interest is that the order of ranking has not changed from 2004 to 2005. In 2002 the wording of the question was slightly different, but PowerPoint, Internet, and document camera were ranked 1-2-3 then also. Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 19 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • Features Used during Videoconference 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 PowerPt Internet Doc Cam Record Web Conf Dual Strm 2005 2004 Figure 24 Features used during a videoconference Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 20 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • 10 Which of the following best describes your videoconferencing-PC connection when you need to collaborate or present? Today’s Desired Method Method I use a PC-based personal videoconferencing system I connect my laptop PC to a room videoconferencing system using a DATA connection - LAN, serial, PCMCIA, etc. I connect my laptop PC to a room videoconferencing system using a VIDEO connection – PC video input (VGA style), scan converter, etc I use a PC permanently assigned to the conference room or a PC-centric room videoconferencing system with an embedded PC. I use an appliance videoconferencing system in the conference room to retrieve my presentation via the enterprise LAN. I do not use a PC to collaborate or present during a videoconference Which of the following best describes your videoconferencing-PC connection when y Personal PC-based system 110 PC w/data connection PC w/video connection 100 PC-centric Retrieve via LAN 90 Web Conference 80 No PC Presentations 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Today's Method Desired Method Figure 25 Videoconferencing to PC connections – end users Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 21 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • g y g y 283 PC w/video connection 123 PC w/data connection 114 PC-centric 109 Web Conference 32.6 % 92 Personal PC-based system 81 Retrieve via LAN 14.2 % 67 No PC Presentations 13.1 % 7.7 % 9.3 % 12.5 % 10.6 % Figure 26 Today's method – all respondents g y g y 110 PC w/data connection 102 Personal PC-based system 81 PC w/video connection 63 Retrieve via LAN 20.2 % 63 PC-centric 53 Web Conference 21.8 % 33 No PC Presentations 16.0 % 6.5 % 10.5 % 12.5 % 12.5 % Figure 27 Desired Method – all respondents These results are consistent with past results – the most common connection today appears to be the VGA video connection, but respondents appear to really want a LAN data connection. Approximately 7% do not use a PC to collaborate during a videoconference. Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 22 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • 11. Please check the appropriate boxes Group Videoconferencing Personal Video Communications Increase Decrease Stay the Increase Decrease Stay the Same Same If you compare 2004 to 2003, how do you think the USEAGE of videoconferencing changed at work If you compare 2005 to 2004, how do you think the USEAGE of videoconferencing WILL CHANGE at work Has the use of videoconferencing changed at work? Will it change going forward? Increase 76.3 % 350 73.2 % Decrease Stay the Same 300 64.6 % 250 47.3 % 49.2 % 200 33.0 % 150 20.3 % 18.5 % 100 6.5 % 5.1 % 3.5 % 2.4 % 50 0 GROUP 2004 to 2003 GROUP 2005 to 2004 PERSONAL 2004 to 2003 PERSONAL 2005 to 2004 Figure 28 Videoconferencing changes at work - end users only Bottom line on these results is that respondents feel that group videoconferencing USAGE will continue to increase at work, although 1/5th expect usage to stay the same. We are somewhat surprised that a smaller number of end users expect personal videoconferencing to increase compared to the number who expect group videoconferencing to increase in 2005, given the huge push on video made by Microsoft and Cisco. 12) How do different factors affect your interest or ability to deploy additional videoconferencing systems ? GROUP VC systems DESKTOP VC systems FACTOR Major Minor Not a Major Minor Not a Barrier Barrier Barrier Barrier Barrier Barrier Currently deployed systems are underutilized or too hard to use Poor audio/video quality Poor reliability/dependability Need better remote management/monitoring tools Systems are too expensive Networks are too complicated or expensive No perceived need or value on part of users Need better maintenance and support agreements Need integration with VoIP, web conferencing, IM, or presence management systems Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 23 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • The following graphs list results in the same order as the nine factors are listed in the question above, but labels for all factors do not print out because of limited space. How do different factors affect your interest or ability to deploy additional Group videoconferencing systems ? 58.6 % Major Barrier 550 57.4 % Minor Barrier 55.1 % 52.8 % Not a Barrier 500 49.2 % 47.8 % 450 42.9 % 42.9 % 41.1 % 400 34.2 % 34.9 % 34.7 % 350 33.8 % 32.8 % 30.4 % 30.5 % 27.9 % 28.5 % 300 28.0 % 250 22.2 % 22.4 % 18.0 % 18.0 % 200 16.8 % 14.7 % 13.4 % 150 10.9 % 100 50 0 Systems are underutilized Poor reliability Too expensive No perceived need Need integration Figure 29 Results for group systems, all respondents How do different factors affect your interest or ability to deploy additional Group videoconferencing systems ? 260 Major Barrier 57.1 % 56.3 % 56.1 % Minor Barrier 240 Not a Barrier 51.0 % 220 48.5 % 46.6 % 46.3 % 200 41.8 % 40.0 % 180 35.9 % 35.0 % 34.6 % 34.8 % 160 33.3 % 32.8 % 30.7 % 30.1 % 29.9 % 140 27.7 % 120 22.4 % 18.4 % 19.2 % 100 16.8 % 16.0 % 15.8 % 80 12.2 % 11.0 % 60 40 20 0 Systems are underutilized Poor reliability Too expensive No perceived need Need integration Figure 30 Group videoconferencing - end users only Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 24 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • How do different factors affect your interest or ability to deploy additional desktop videoconferencing systems ? 62.4 % Major Barrier 500 Minor Barrier Not a Barrier 450 53.9 % 54.5 % 51.5 % 49.9 % 400 45.5 % 42.9 % 44.7 % 42.3 % 350 34.6 % 300 32.2 % 33.3 % 32.1 % 31.4 % 31.8 % 31.5 % 29.6 % 250 27.3 % 24.9 % 23.2 % 23.1 % 21.2 % 200 18.6 % 16.5 % 16.7 % 150 14.1 % 10.3 % 100 50 0 Systems are underutilized Poor reliability Too expensive No perceived need Need integration Figure 31 Results for desktop videoconferencing, all respondents How do different factors affect your interest or ability to deploy additional desktop videoconferencing systems ? 220 Major Barrier 62.5 % Minor Barrier 200 Not a Barrier 54.2 % 52.6 % 180 51.1 % 50.6 % 47.7 % 160 45.3 % 42.0 % 40.7 % 140 34.4 % 33.0 % 33.1 % 32.9 % 120 31.6 % 31.7 % 31.0 % 27.9 % 27.4 % 100 25.0 % 24.9 % 23.1 % 17.9 % 19.4 % 18.4 % 80 15.8 % 15.7 % 60 10.1 % 40 20 0 Systems are underutilized Poor reliability Too expensive No perceived need Need integration Figure 32 Desktop videoconferencing - end users only As we have done in previous years, we arbitrarily assigned two points to any factor that was a major barrier and one point for being a minor barrier in order to come up with a simple scheme to rank order the different factors. In this first set of graphs, we plot factors for group and personal systems for each of the last three surveys. The results are extremely consistent, if not counter-intuitive. Cost is a major problem, while video quality appears to no longer be perceived as a major barrier. Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 25 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • Group Barriers - 2005 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 Expense Integration Network Utilization No need Mgmt Reliability Quality Support Issues tools Figure 33 Group barriers – 2005, end users only Group Barriers - 2004 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 Expense Utilization Network Integration No need Mgmt Reliability Quality Support Issues tools Figure 34 Group barriers – 2004, end users only The following three figures use the same weighting formula to compare results for the past three surveys for personal conferencing. As shown by the graphs, the barriers for personal videoconferencing and those for room videoconferencing are perceived by end users to be very different. Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 26 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • Personal Barriers - 2005 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Quality Reliability Integration Network No need Mgmt Utilization Expense Support Issues tools Figure 35 Personal barriers – 2005, end users only Personal Barriers - 2004 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Quality Reliability Integration No need Network Mgmt Utilization Expense Support Issues tools Figure 36 Personal barriers – 2004, end users only Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 27 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • 13. For 2004-2005, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing and collaboration solutions? Don’t Will Unlikely to Neutral Likely to Will Know Definitely deploy right now deploy definitely NOT deploy or deploy have deployed Solutions based on an IP PBX or IP telephony technology A simple, single function, client-client desktop videoconferencing solution Client-server solutions based on an integrated conferencing suite or collaboration portal for voice, video, web Solutions based on collaboration-enabled applications such as CRM, LMS, or office productivity / workflow tools A desktop web conferencing and/or IM solution based on a product or a service where video is unimportant Remainder of page left blank….. Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 28 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing and collabo 148 Definitely NOT 154 Unlikely 168 Neutral 17.4 % 161 Likely 153 Definitely 103 Don't Know 16.7 % 18.9 % 11.6 % 18.2 % 17.2 % Figure 37 IP-PBX - all respondents For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing an 64 Definitely NOT 70 Unlikely 17.1 % 75 Neutral 85 Likely 69 Definitely 18.3 % 15.6 % 46 Don't Know 11.2 % 20.8 % 16.9 % Figure 38 IP-PBX - end users only The results for all respondents and end users only are very much the same for several desktop conferencing and collaboration solutions. Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 29 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing and collabo 107 Definitely NOT 174 Unlikely 167 Neutral 19.8 % 171 Likely 188 Definitely 74 Don't Know 19.0 % 12.1 % 8.4 % 19.4 % 21.3 % Figure 39 Desktop videoconferencing all respondents For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing an 42 Definitely NOT 95 Unlikely 84 Neutral 23.5 % 74 Likely 78 Definitely 32 Don't Know 20.7 % 10.4 % 7.9 % 18.3 % 19.3 % Figure 40 Desktop videoconferencing – end users only Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 30 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing and collabo 103 Definitely NOT 161 Unlikely 226 Neutral 18.1 % 158 Likely 240 Definitely 0 Don't Know 25.5 % 11.6 % 0.0 % 17.8 % 27.0 % Figure 41 Collaboration suite – all respondents For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing an 42 Definitely NOT 95 Unlikely 112 Neutral 23.3 % 73 Likely 86 Definitely 0 Don't Know 10.3 % 27.5 % 0.0 % 21.1 % 17.9 % Figure 42 Collaboration suite - end users only Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 31 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing and collabo 101 Definitely NOT 172 Unlikely 249 Neutral 19.4 % 138 Likely 89 Definitely 136 Don't Know 28.1 % 11.4 % 15.4 % 15.6 % 10.1 % Figure 43 Enabled applications – all respondents For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing an 42 Definitely NOT 93 Unlikely 122 Neutral 22.9 % 56 Likely 35 Definitely 59 Don't Know 10.3 % 30.0 % 14.5 % 13.8 % 8.6 % Figure 44 Enabled applications - end users only Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 32 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing and collabo 70 Definitely NOT 140 Unlikely 218 Neutral 186 Likely 15.8 % 183 Definitely 24.6 % 89 Don't Know 7.9 % 10.0 % 21.0 % 20.7 % Figure 45 Web conferencing – all respondents For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing an 20 Definitely NOT 68 Unlikely 102 Neutral 25.1 % 93 Likely 16.7 % 81 Definitely 43 Don't Know 4.9 % 10.6 % 22.9 % 19.9 % Figure 46 Web conferencing - end users only Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 33 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • We arbitrarily assigned a value of 5 points for “definitely will deploy” and 3 points for “likely to deploy” in order to try to rank the desktop conferencing and collaboration solutions. For 2005, the most likely to deploy solution is now web conferencing, while collaboration-enabled high level software applications are the least likely. We also suspect that the respondent base is more experienced with videoconferencing and more likely to be relatively new to web conferencing, with therefore less penetration to date. Deployment Scores 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 WebConf CollabSuite Simple DVC IPPBX SWApps 2005 2004 Figure 47 Deployment scores for desktop collaboration solutions – end users We also looked at the percentage of end user respondents who said they would definitely NOT deploy these solutions. The high ranking of the IP PBX approach was a surprise. Definitely NOT Deploying Scores 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 IPPBX Simple DVC CollabSuite SWApps WebConf 2005 2004 Figure 48 Percent of end users who will definitely NOT deploy solutions Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 34 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • 14. Several vendors of web conferencing solutions have introduced video capabilities. Do you believe this approach to desktop video will be preferable compared to traditional desktop video solutions? How valuable is adding video capabilities to traditional web conferencing meetings? Yes No Don’t Know g p y 404 Yes 304 No 199 Don't Know 44.5 % 33.5 % 21.9 % Figure 49 Adding video to web conferencing - all respondents Several vendors of web conferencing solutions have introduced video capabilitie 174 Yes 124 No 41.8 % 118 Don't Know 29.8 % 28.4 % Figure 50 Adding video to web conferencing – end users only Not surprisingly, there is a lot of uncertainty around the suitability of web conferencing solutions that have been video-enabled. Solutions today do not generally support the video quality that most people are looking for in a desktop videoconferencing session. Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 35 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • 15. How important is it for desktop collaboration solutions to be able to participate in meetings with room videoconferencing systems. (select one) Very Important Important Not Important Don’t Know p p p p 470 Very 296 Important 81 Neutral 51.8 % 37 Not 23 Don't Know 2.5 % 4.1 % 8.9 % 32.6 % Figure 51 Desktop compatibility with room systems – all respondents 226 Very 128 Important 38 Neutral 54.3 % 15 Not 9 Don't Know 2.2 % 3.6 % 9.1 % 30.8 % Figure 52 Desktop compatibility with room systems – end users only Clearly, compatibility between desktop and room systems is a strong interest on the part of all respondents. Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 36 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • 16. High definition (HD) televisions are available in consumer stores, and many television programs are already available in high definition. HD promises images with higher clarity, but requires at least a 1Mbit network connection. How do you think HD would affect your company’s videoconferencing plans? HD would have We would evaluate We would definitely Don’t Know little or no impact HD as an move to HD and on our plans alternative to our implement HD existing systems videoconferencing g ( ) , y p g 396 No Impact 311 Evaluate 107 Will move 43.7 % 93 Don't Know 10.3 % 34.3 % 11.8 % Figure 53 High definition results - all respondents g ( ) , y p g 193 No Impact 158 Evaluate 38 Will move 46.4 % 27 Don't Know 6.5 % 9.1 % 38.0 % Figure 54 High definition results, end users only It is hard to read these results as being overly optimistic for the HD fortunes. Only 10% or so of the respondents said they would definitely move to HD and nearly half claim that it would have no impact on Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 37 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • their plans. However, the real benefits of HD have yet to be experienced by the videoconferencing public and it may be that people have to see HD in order to understand HD. It will be interesting to see if these results change over time as multiple vendors introduce HD videoconferencing systems and as people gain some experience with the quality, cost, reliability, and interoperability of these new systems. 17 . As IP communications embraces audio-video-web media and becomes integrated into the enterprise meeting fabric, some end users are considering outsourcing their IP communications to experts skilled in managing and maintaining these resources. Which category best describes your current level of interest in outsourcing support for rich media communications. (select one) We currently use We currently do We currently do We currently use a Don’t Know a hosted service everything in-house everything in-house managed services and are likely to and are interested in provider. continue to do so. outsourcing in the future Audio bridging Video bridging Web conf We currently use We currently do We currently do We currently use a Don’t Know a hosted service everything in-house everything in-house managed services and are likely to and are interested in provider. continue to do so. outsourcing in the future Reservation and scheduling Endpoint monitoring & mgmt Network monitoring As IP communications embraces audio-video-web media and becomes integrated into the enterprise m Hosted 260 In-house In-house > Managed 240 Managed 220 Don't Know 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Audio Video Web Scheduling Endpoints Network Figure 55 Outsourcing interest – end users only This is a difficult set of results to interpret, particularly since the concept of managed services is still vague in the marketplace, and because we have not asked about this area in previous surveys. Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 38 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • The graph above which covers all of the applications shows that hosted services are most common for audio bridging – not a surprise given the large size of the audio CSP market. For web conferencing, the in- house option ranked higher than the hosted service offering – a complete surprise. We can only surmise that NetMeeting and Lotus Sametime are popular among the end users filling out this survey – more popular than WebEx and Microsoft Live Meeting (PlaceWare). For those doing everything in-house but interested in outsourcing in the future, the highest interest was for network monitoring and management, but this level of interest was still relatively small. As IP communications embraces audio-video-web media and becomes integrate 141 Hosted 143 In-house 20 In-house > Managed 34.5 % 72 Managed 33 Don't Know 35.0 % 8.1 % 17.6 % 4.9 % Figure 56 Outsourcing interest –audio – end users only As IP communications embraces audio-video-web media and becomes integrate 78 Hosted 214 In-house 29 In-house > Managed 64 Managed 24 Don't Know 19.1 % 52.3 % 5.9 % 15.6 % 7.1 % Figure 57 Outsourcing interest – video – end users only Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 39 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • As IP communications embraces audio-video-web media and becomes integrate 96 Hosted 136 In-house 23 In-house > Managed 66 Managed 23.6 % 85 Don't Know 33.5 % 5.7 % 20.9 % 16.3 % Figure 58 Outsourcing interest – web conferencing – end users only As IP communications embraces audio-video-web media and becomes integrate 29 Hosted 265 In-house 30 In-house > Managed 32 Managed 64.5 % 55 Don't Know 7.1 % 13.4 % 7.8 % 7.3 % Figure 59 Outsourcing interest – scheduling – end users only Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 40 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
  • As IP communications embraces audio-video-web media and becomes integrate 19 Hosted 270 In-house 38 In-house > Managed 32 Managed 65.7 % 52 Don't Know 4.6 % 12.7 % 7.8 % 9.2 % Figure 60 Outsourcing interest – endpoints – end users only As IP communications embraces audio-video-web media and becomes integrate 21 Hosted 276 In-house 25 In-house > Managed 36 Managed 67.6 % 50 Don't Know 5.1 % 12.3 % 8.8 % 6.1 % Figure 61 Outsourcing interest – network – end users only END OF REPORT Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 41 ©Wainhouse Research 2005