WR Survey: Videoconferencing

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


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


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).


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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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)


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

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
340 No Plans
5.7 %

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.


What are your organization’s plans for the following? … - Appliance Destop

389 Use now
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
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.


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


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)


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


During a videoconference, how often do you? - Access Internet
78 Very often
95 Often
120 Occasionally
23.1 % 68 Rarely
44 Never
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

11.6 %

4.4 %

16.9 %
23.7 %

Figure 21 Conference recording – end users only


During a videoconference, how often do you? - Use Web Conference
46 Very often
67 Often
102 Occasionally
16.2 % 81 Rarely
91 Never

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
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.


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


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


g y g y
283 PC w/video 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
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.


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


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

Figure 30 Group videoconferencing - end users only


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

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

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.


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.


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


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…..


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.



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

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



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

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



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

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



70 Definitely NOT
140 Unlikely
218 Neutral
186 Likely
15.8 % 183 Definitely

7.9 %

10.0 %
21.0 %

20.7 %

Figure 45 Web conferencing – all respondents

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


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


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.


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.


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

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

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


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.


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

78 Hosted
214 In-house
64 Managed
24 Don't Know
19.1 %
52.3 %

5.9 %

15.6 %
7.1 %

Figure 57 Outsourcing interest – video – end users only


96 Hosted
136 In-house
66 Managed
33.5 %

5.7 % 20.9 %

16.3 %

Figure 58 Outsourcing interest – web conferencing – end users only

29 Hosted
265 In-house
32 Managed

7.1 %

13.4 %

7.8 %
7.3 %

Figure 59 Outsourcing interest – scheduling – end users only


19 Hosted
270 In-house
32 Managed

4.6 %

12.7 %

7.8 %
9.2 %

Figure 60 Outsourcing interest – endpoints – end users only

21 Hosted
276 In-house
36 Managed

5.1 %

12.3 %

8.8 %
6.1 %

Figure 61 Outsourcing interest – network – end users only

END OF REPORT


WR Survey: Videoconferencing

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to WR Survey: Videoconferencing

Similar to WR Survey: Videoconferencing (20)

More from Videoguy

More from Videoguy (20)

WR Survey: Videoconferencing