Think Balm Immersive Internet Business Value Study Slides 5 26 09

ThinkBalm Immersive Internet Business Value Study, Q2 2009

Erica Driver, Co-founder and Principal, ThinkBalmMay 27, 2009

© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.

>40% of respondents saw positive economic benefit; 42% don’t know

“MQ18. What is the total economic benefit your organization obtained by using immersive technologies in 2008 or 1Q 2009, in US dollars?”

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


Number of respondents

Total economic benefit (USD)

12(18%) 9

(14%) 6(9%)

1(2%)

1(2%)

4(6%)

0

5(8%)

28(42%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

>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?”



Number of respondents 7

(11%)6

(9%) 4(6%)

5(8%) 3

(5%)

6(9%)

0

10(15%)

24(37%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Expected total economic benefit (USD)

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

Project data shows success

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



3 (5%)

1 (2%)

40 (61%)

22 (33%)

0 10 20 30 40 50

Project ongoing, no data, but it "feels like" a success

Project ongoing, no data, but it "feels like" a failure

Project data shows failure

Number of survey respondents

Important benefits: face time, innovation, and cost savings

“MQ13. How important were each of the following business benefits for immersive technology pilot(s) or deployment(s) your organization did in 2008 or 1Q 2009?”

Increased innovation

Cost savings or avoidance

Competitive differentiation

Development of new business capability

Employee productivity improvement

Streamlined business process(es)

New source of revenue

Enabling people in disparate locations to spend time together

Standardization of business practices over wide geographical area

Increased revenue from existing products or services

7

10

11

18

23

34

34

36

45

45

14

18

24

21

23

18

20

20

14

18

15

11

22

11

11

9

5

7

5

0

28

25

7

15

7

4

6

1

2

3

0 20 40 60 80

Very important

Somewhat important

Not very important

Not important at all


Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = from 64 to 66 depending on the business benefit in question


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

We might increase our investment, compared to 2008 and 1Q 2009 levels.

“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?”

Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 64 respondents



We will definitely increase our investment, compared to 2008 and 1Q 2009 levels.

We probably won't increase our investment, compared to 2008 and 1Q 2009 levels.

We won't increase our investment, compared to 2008 and 1Q 2009 levels.

Unknown 4 (6%)

3 (5%)

10 (16%)

24 (38%)

23 (36%)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

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

Learning and training

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

Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 66 respondents. Multiple answers accepted.


9 (14%)

12 (18%)

12 (18%)

13 (20%)

21 (32%)

23 (35%)

32 (49%)

50 (76%)

53 (80%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Meetings

Conferences

Collaborative 3D data visualization

Collaborative design and prototyping

Business activity rehearsal

Human resource management

Other

Remote system and facility management


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.”

Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 66 respondents. Open-ended question. Multiple answers accepted.


Internal meetings



External meetings

Conferences

Marketing

Social networking

Prototyping

3D data visualization or process design

Recruiting

Asset creation (e.g., machinima) 3 (5%)

4 (6%)

4 (6%)

5 (8%)

5 (8%)

9 (14%)

9 (14%)

10 (15%)

24 (36%)

24 (36%)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

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?”

Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = from 61 to 65 depending on the use case in question




Meetings

Conferences

Collaborative 3D data visualization

Collaborative design and prototyping

Business activity rehearsal

Human resource management

Remote system and facility management 6

7

15

20

24

28

34

43

12

13

16

20

18

21

20

13

19

19

16

12

15

13

8

8

22

20

9

9

5

2

1

0

0 20 40 60 80

Definitely

Likely

Unlikely

Definitely not

I don't know

Advocates eye more complex use cases for 2010-2011

Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = from 58 to 64 depending on the use case in question


“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?”

2009 2010-2011

Rating Average (max = 4)

Learning and training 3.6 3.6

Remote system and facility management 2.0 2.4

Human resource management 2.1 2.4

Business activity rehearsal 2.7 3.1

Collaborative design and prototyping 2.8 3.1

Collaborative 3D data visualization 3.0 3.3

Conferences 3.2 3.4

Meetings 3.4 3.6

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

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?”

Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 64 respondents. Multiple answers accepted.


Web conferencing

7 (11%)

12 (19%)

15 (23%)

16 (25%)

20 (31%)

20 (31%)

21 (33%)

21 (33%)

25 (39%)

29 (45%)

35 (55%)

37 (58%)

0 10 20 30 40

Face-to-face meeting

Video conferencing

Telephone

Other

Wiki and/or blog

Document repository

Web-based team workspaces

Enterprise social networking software

Instant messaging

Telepresence

Unified communications


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

• Instant messaging• Telephone

• Combined voice and text conference

• Video conference• Web conferencing

• In-person meeting• Telepresence• Immersive meeting

Low High


Synchronous single-channel

communication

Synchronous multi-channel

communication

Synchronous multi-channel plus rich

presence information

Engagement

>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 more expensive than alternatives

I don’t know

Immersive technology cost about the same as alternatives would have

Immersive technology was less expensive than alternatives


10 (15%)

7 (11%)

11 (17%)

38 (58%)

0 10 20 30 40

Why immersive vs. others? Reduce costs, increase engagement

“MQ11. Why did your organization choose to use immersive technologies over the alternatives for the project(s) you described?”

Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 66 respondents. Open-ended question. Multiple answers accepted.


2 (3%)

2 (3%)

3 (5%)

4 (6%)

8 (12%)

8 (12%)

11 (17%)

12 (18%)

12 (18%)

17 (26%)

18 (27%)

0 5 10 15 20

To expand customer reach

Because of competitive pressure

For 3D data visualization

For the user experience

We can’t get the job done any other way

For rich presence awareness

To become geographically independent

To achieve more effective communication

To assess this emerging technology

To increase engagement

To reduce costs


Face-to-face

In-Person Meeting

Video conferencing &

telepresence Immersive

Simulated In-Person Meeting

Source: ThinkBalm


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

>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?”



Money the organization spent to implement immersive technologies (USD)

6(9%)

24(36%)

7(11%)

2(3%)

5(8%)

7(11%)

6(9%)

2(3%)

7(11%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


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?”



6(12%)

8(16%) 7

(14%)

1(2%)

10(20%)

5(10%)

3(6%)

918%)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Number of person / hours per spent


About 2/3 of respondents didn’t recoup investment or don’t know if they have, and 29% recouped investment in <9 months

“MQ16. How long did it take to recoup the investment your organization made in immersive technology in 2008 and 1Q 2009, once the project(s) launched?”




12 (18%)

5(8%) 2

(3%)0

3(5%)

19(29%)

25(38%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Time it took to recoup investment

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

Enterprisewide rollout (to many if not all employees in the organization)

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



Production rollout to entire targeted population

Pilot(s) (test rollout to subset of targeted population)

Early experiment(s)

Pre-production

Production

4 (6%)

17 (26%)

34 (52%)

11 (17%)

0 10 20 30 40


Early adopters face many barriers to adoption

I don’t know

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

Source: ThinkBalm Enterprise Immersive Internet Business Value Study, April 2009n = 65 respondents. Multiple responses accepted.



4 (6%)

7 (11%)

12 (19%)

15 (23%)

29 (45%)

30 (46%)

30 (46%)

32 (49%)

39 (60%)

0 10 20 30 40 50

More expensive than expected

Redundant features with existing technology

Getting budget approval

More effort than expected to train target audience

Corporate security restrictions

Getting users interested in the technology

Other

Users had inadequate hardware

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


Innovators

Earlyadopters

Early majority Late

majority

Laggards

1H 2009 2013 2018

Early Immersive Internet adopters are facing “the chasm”

“The chasm”

The chasm• Ease of use• Hardware

requirements• Problematic

learning curve• Perception

problems