Upload
videoguy
View
936
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Survey Results
Videoconferencing & IP Communications
May 2005
Wainhouse Research112 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 [email protected]
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
Which category best describes your company? o o o
Corporation with over 10,000 employees Corporation with 1,000 to 10,000 employees Corporation with 50 to 1,000 employees
o Corporation with 1 to 49 employees
1 o Educational Institution o Government or Military o Medical o Other
189 Corp >10,000115 Corp >1,000182 Corp >50207 Corp >1109 Edu50 Gov & Mil27 Medical32 Other
Customer Category
20.7 %
12.6 %
20.0 %
22.7 %12.0 %
5.5 %
3.0 %
3.5 %
Figure 1 Customer category - all respondents
133 Corp >10,00072 Corp >1,00041 Corp >5023 Corp >185 Edu33 Gov & Mil21 Medical9 Other
Customer Category
31.9 %
17.3 %
9.8 %
5.5 %
20.4 %
7.9 %
5.0 %
2.2 %
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
Which conferencing category BEST describes your company? o o o
Conferencing end user Conferencing equipment vendor Reseller/VAR/Distributor/Systems Integrator
o Service Provider (CSP, ASP, NSP, etc)
2 o Other
418 End User219 Reseller113 Vendor106 Service Provider56 Other
Which conferencing category best describes your company?
45.8 %
24.0 %
12.4 %
11.6 %
6.1 %
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
Where are you located? o o o
North America Latin/South America Europe/Middle East/Africa
o Asia/Pacific/India
3
530 North America236 EMA121 API22 Latin/South America58.3 %
26.0 %
13.3 %
2.4 %
Figure 4 Location - all respondents
299 North America71 EMA42 API4 Latin/South America
71.9 %
17.1 %
10.1 %
1.0 %
Figure 5 Location - end users only
Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 8 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
At my workplace, we have an enterprise instant messaging system 4 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 IM292 No IM290 Use Consumer IM27 Don't know
32.9 %
32.2 %
32.0 %
3.0 %
Figure 6 Instant messaging - all respondents
149 Have Corporate IM148 No IM103 Use Consumer IM14 Don't know
y p , p g g y
36.0 %
35.7 %
24.9 %
3.4 %
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.
5Use of personal video communications. Please check ALL the boxes that apply Don’t
Use Used in 2003
Will use in 2004 or 2005
Don’t Know
I use personal video communications products at home I use personal video communications products at work
422 Don't Use287 Used in 2004282 Will use in 2005 or 200613 Don't Know
y p p
46.3 %
31.5 %
30.9 %
1.4 %
Figure 9 Personal conferencing at home; all respondents
Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 10 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
188 Don't Use593 Used in 2004500 Will use in 2005 or 200611 Don't Know
y p p
20.6 %
65.0 %
54.8 %
1.2 %
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
Which statement best describes your PERSONAL position at work 6 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
599 Use Group382 Use Personal498 Manage65 None
Which statement best describes your PERSONAL position at work? Check all that apply.
65.7 %
41.9 %
54.6 %
7.1 %
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. 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 � � � �
7
PC-based Desktop Videoconferencing Systems (a webcam with PC software) � � � �
Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 12 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
644 Use now53 Deploy within a year29 Test within a year99 No Plans52 Don't Know
What are your organization’s plans for the following? … - Appliance Group
73.4 %
6.0 % 3.3 %
11.3 %
5.9 %
Figure 12 Plans for appliance group systems
248 Use now47 Deploy within a year88 Test within a year
340 No Plans95 Don't Know
What are your organization’s plans for the following? … - PC-Centric Group
30.3 %5.7 %
10.8 %
41.6 %
11.6 %
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
389 Use now91 Deploy within a year
100 Test within a year201 No Plans69 Don't Know
What are your organization’s plans for the following? … - Appliance Destop
45.8 %
10.7 %
11.8 %
23.6 %
8.1 %
Figure 14 Plans for desktop appliances
373 Use now89 Deploy within a year
121 Test within a year214 No Plans52 Don't Know
What are your organization’s plans for the following? … - PC Desktop
43.9 %
10.5 %
14.3 %
25.2 %
6.1 %
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 Deployed Worldwide
DESKTOP Videoconferencing Systems Deployed Worldwide
0 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-50 >50 Don’t know
01-1011-2021-3031-50�>50Don't know
How many videoconferencing systems does your company have ?
Group Systems Desktop Systems
340320300280260240220200180160140120100806040200
Figure 16 Number of videoconferencing systems – all users
Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 15 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
01-1011-2021-3031-50�>50Don't know
How many videoconferencing systems does your company have ?
Group Systems Desktop Systems
150140
130
120
110100
90
80
7060
50
40
3020
10
0
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.
During a videoconference, how often do you …
Very often Often Occasionally Rarely Never
I would if I
could 9
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
157 Very often127 Often79 Occasionally30 Rarely13 Never10 I would if I could
During a videoconference, how often do you? - PowerPoint
37.7 %
30.5 %
19.0 %
7.2 %
3.1 %2.4 %
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.
60 Very often62 Often76 Occasionally
124 Rarely78 Never9 I would if I could
During a videoconference, how often do you? - Document Camera
14.7 %
15.2 %
18.6 %
30.3 % 19.1 %
2.2 %
Figure 19 Document camera use – end users only
Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 17 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
78 Very often95 Often
120 Occasionally68 Rarely44 Never7 I would if I could
During a videoconference, how often do you? - Access Internet
18.9 %
23.1 %
29.1 %
16.5 %
10.7 %
1.7 %
Figure 20 Accessing the Internet – end users only
48 Very often45 Often
134 Occasionally98 Rarely70 Never18 I would if I could
During a videoconference, how often do you? - Record Conference
11.6 %
10.9 %
32.4 %
23.7 %16.9 %
4.4 %
Figure 21 Conference recording – end users only
Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 18 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
46 Very often67 Often
102 Occasionally81 Rarely91 Never26 I would if I could
During a videoconference, how often do you? - Use Web Conference
11.1 %
16.2 %
24.7 %
19.6 %22.0 %
6.3 %
Figure 22 Simultaneous web conferencing – end users only
62 Very often62 Often81 Occasionally55 Rarely
111 Never42 I would if I could
During a videoconference, how often do you? - Use Dual Streams
15.0 %
15.0 %
19.6 %
13.3 %
26.9 %
10.2 %
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
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
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 Method
Desired 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
Personal PC-based systemPC w/data connectionPC w/video connectionPC-centricRetrieve via LANWeb ConferenceNo PC Presentations
Which of the following best describes your videoconferencing-PC connection when y
Today's Method Desired Method
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 25 Videoconferencing to PC connections – end users
Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 21 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
283 PC w/video connection123 PC w/data connection114 PC-centric109 Web Conference92 Personal PC-based system81 Retrieve via LAN67 No PC Presentations
g y g y
32.6 %
14.2 %
13.1 %
12.5 %10.6 %
9.3 %
7.7 %
Figure 26 Today's method – all respondents
110 PC w/data connection102 Personal PC-based system81 PC w/video connection63 Retrieve via LAN63 PC-centric53 Web Conference33 No PC Presentations
g y g y
21.8 %
20.2 %
16.0 %
12.5 %
12.5 %
10.5 %
6.5 %
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
Same Increase Decrease Stay the
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
IncreaseDecreaseStay the Same
Has the use of videoconferencing changed at work? Will it change going forward?
GROUP 2004 to 2003 GROUP 2005 to 2004 PERSONAL 2004 to 2003 PERSONAL 2005 to 2004
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
73.2 % 76.3 %
47.3 %
64.6 %
6.5 % 5.1 % 3.5 % 2.4 %
20.3 % 18.5 %
49.2 %
33.0 %
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
Barrier Minor Barrier
Not a Barrier
Major Barrier
Minor Barrier
Not a 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.
Major BarrierMinor BarrierNot a Barrier
How do different factors affect your interest or ability to deploy additional Group videoconferencing systems ?
Systems are underutilized Poor reliability Too expensive No perceived need Need integration
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
18.0 % 14.7 % 16.8 %
13.4 %
30.4 %
22.2 % 18.0 %
10.9 %
22.4 %
34.2 %
27.9 % 28.0 %
33.8 %
41.1 %
34.9 % 32.8 %
30.5 %
34.7 %
47.8 %
57.4 % 55.1 % 52.8 %
28.5 %
42.9 %
49.2 %
58.6 %
42.9 %
Figure 29 Results for group systems, all respondents
Major BarrierMinor BarrierNot a Barrier
How do different factors affect your interest or ability to deploy additional Group videoconferencing systems ?
Systems are underutilized Poor reliability Too expensive No perceived need Need integration
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
18.4 %
12.2 % 16.0 % 15.8 %
30.1 %
19.2 % 16.8 %
11.0 %
22.4 %
35.0 % 30.7 %
27.7 %
33.3 %
40.0 %
34.6 % 34.8 % 32.8 %
35.9 %
46.6 %
57.1 % 56.3 %
51.0 %
29.9 %
46.3 % 48.5 %
56.1 %
41.8 %
Figure 30 Group videoconferencing - end users only
Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 24 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
Major BarrierMinor BarrierNot a Barrier
How do different factors affect your interest or ability to deploy additional desktop videoconferencing systems ?
Systems are underutilized Poor reliability Too expensive No perceived need Need integration
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
16.5 %
24.9 % 23.2 %
14.1 % 16.7 %
21.2 % 18.6 %
10.3 %
23.1 %
29.6 % 32.2 % 32.1 % 31.4 % 31.8 % 33.3 %
31.5 % 27.3 %
34.6 %
53.9 %
42.9 % 44.7 %
54.5 % 51.5 %
45.5 % 49.9 %
62.4 %
42.3 %
Figure 31 Results for desktop videoconferencing, all respondents
Major BarrierMinor BarrierNot a Barrier
How do different factors affect your interest or ability to deploy additional desktop videoconferencing systems ?
Systems are underutilized Poor reliability Too expensive No perceived need Need integration
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
17.9 %
25.0 % 23.1 %
15.8 % 15.7 % 19.4 % 18.4 %
10.1 %
24.9 % 27.9 %
33.0 % 31.6 %
33.1 % 31.7 % 32.9 % 31.0 % 27.4 %
34.4 %
54.2 %
42.0 % 45.3 %
51.1 % 52.6 %
47.7 % 50.6 %
62.5 %
40.7 %
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
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Expense Integration NetworkIssues
Utilization No need Mgmttools
Reliability Quality Support
Figure 33 Group barriers – 2005, end users only
Group Barriers - 2004
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Expense Utilization NetworkIssues
Integration No need Mgmttools
Reliability Quality Support
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
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Quality Reliability Integration NetworkIssues
No need Mgmttools
Utilization Expense Support
Figure 35 Personal barriers – 2005, end users only
Personal Barriers - 2004
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Quality Reliability Integration No need NetworkIssues
Mgmttools
Utilization Expense Support
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
Know Will Definitely NOT deploy
Unlikely to deploy
Neutral right now
Likely to deploy
Will definitely deploy or 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
148 Definitely NOT154 Unlikely168 Neutral161 Likely153 Definitely103 Don't Know
For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing and collabo
16.7 %
17.4 %
18.9 %
18.2 %
17.2 %
11.6 %
Figure 37 IP-PBX - all respondents
64 Definitely NOT70 Unlikely75 Neutral85 Likely69 Definitely46 Don't Know
For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing an
15.6 %
17.1 %
18.3 %
20.8 %
16.9 %
11.2 %
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
107 Definitely NOT174 Unlikely167 Neutral171 Likely188 Definitely74 Don't Know
For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing and collabo
12.1 %
19.8 %
19.0 %
19.4 %
21.3 %
8.4 %
Figure 39 Desktop videoconferencing all respondents
42 Definitely NOT95 Unlikely84 Neutral74 Likely78 Definitely32 Don't Know
For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing an
10.4 %
23.5 %
20.7 %
18.3 %19.3 %
7.9 %
Figure 40 Desktop videoconferencing – end users only
Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 30 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
103 Definitely NOT161 Unlikely226 Neutral158 Likely240 Definitely
0 Don't Know
For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing and collabo
11.6 %
18.1 %
25.5 %
17.8 % 27.0 %
0.0 %
Figure 41 Collaboration suite – all respondents
42 Definitely NOT95 Unlikely
112 Neutral73 Likely86 Definitely0 Don't Know
For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing an
10.3 %
23.3 %
27.5 %
17.9 %
21.1 %
0.0 %
Figure 42 Collaboration suite - end users only
Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 31 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
101 Definitely NOT172 Unlikely249 Neutral138 Likely89 Definitely
136 Don't Know
For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing and collabo
11.4 %
19.4 %
28.1 %
15.6 %10.1 %
15.4 %
Figure 43 Enabled applications – all respondents
42 Definitely NOT93 Unlikely
122 Neutral56 Likely35 Definitely59 Don't Know
For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing an
10.3 %
22.9 %
30.0 %
13.8 % 8.6 %
14.5 %
Figure 44 Enabled applications - end users only
Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 32 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
70 Definitely NOT140 Unlikely218 Neutral186 Likely183 Definitely89 Don't Know
For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing and collabo
7.9 %
15.8 %24.6 %
21.0 %
20.7 %
10.0 %
Figure 45 Web conferencing – all respondents
20 Definitely NOT68 Unlikely
102 Neutral93 Likely81 Definitely43 Don't Know
For 2005-2006, what is your position on the following desktop conferencing an
4.9 %
16.7 %25.1 %
22.9 %
19.9 %
10.6 %
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
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
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
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
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
404 Yes304 No199 Don't Know
g p y
44.5 %
33.5 % 21.9 %
Figure 49 Adding video to web conferencing - all respondents
174 Yes124 No118 Don't Know
Several vendors of web conferencing solutions have introduced video capabilitie
41.8 %
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
470 Very296 Important81 Neutral37 Not23 Don't Know
p p p p
51.8 %
32.6 %
8.9 %
4.1 %
2.5 %
Figure 51 Desktop compatibility with room systems – all respondents
226 Very128 Important38 Neutral15 Not9 Don't Know
54.3 %
30.8 %
9.1 %
3.6 %2.2 %
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 little or no impact on our plans
We would evaluate HD as an alternative to our existing systems
We would definitely move to HD and implement HD videoconferencing
Don’t Know
396 No Impact311 Evaluate107 Will move93 Don't Know
g ( ) , y p g
43.7 %
34.3 %
11.8 %
10.3 %
Figure 53 High definition results - all respondents
193 No Impact158 Evaluate38 Will move27 Don't Know
g ( ) , y p g
46.4 %
38.0 %
9.1 %
6.5 %
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
a hosted service We currently do everything in-house and are likely to continue to do so.
We currently do everything in-house and are interested in outsourcing in the future
We currently use a managed services provider.
Don’t Know
Audio bridging Video bridging Web conf We currently use
a hosted service We currently do everything in-house and are likely to continue to do so.
We currently do everything in-house and are interested in outsourcing in the future
We currently use a managed services provider.
Don’t Know
Reservation and scheduling
Endpoint monitoring & mgmt
Network monitoring
HostedIn-houseIn-house > ManagedManagedDon't Know
As IP communications embraces audio-video-web media and becomes integrated into the enterprise m
Audio Video Web Scheduling Endpoints Network
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
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.
141 Hosted143 In-house20 In-house > Managed72 Managed33 Don't Know
As IP communications embraces audio-video-web media and becomes integrate
34.5 %
35.0 %
4.9 % 17.6 %
8.1 %
Figure 56 Outsourcing interest –audio – end users only
78 Hosted214 In-house29 In-house > Managed64 Managed24 Don't Know
As IP communications embraces audio-video-web media and becomes integrate
19.1 %
52.3 %
7.1 %15.6 %
5.9 %
Figure 57 Outsourcing interest – video – end users only
Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 39 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
96 Hosted136 In-house23 In-house > Managed66 Managed85 Don't Know
As IP communications embraces audio-video-web media and becomes integrate
23.6 %33.5 %
5.7 %
16.3 %
20.9 %
Figure 58 Outsourcing interest – web conferencing – end users only
29 Hosted265 In-house30 In-house > Managed32 Managed55 Don't Know
As IP communications embraces audio-video-web media and becomes integrate
7.1 %
64.5 %
7.3 %7.8 %
13.4 %
Figure 59 Outsourcing interest – scheduling – end users only
Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 40 ©Wainhouse Research 2005
19 Hosted270 In-house38 In-house > Managed32 Managed52 Don't Know
As IP communications embraces audio-video-web media and becomes integrate
4.6 %
65.7 %
9.2 %7.8 %
12.7 %
Figure 60 Outsourcing interest – endpoints – end users only
21 Hosted276 In-house25 In-house > Managed36 Managed50 Don't Know
As IP communications embraces audio-video-web media and becomes integrate
5.1 %
67.6 %
6.1 %8.8 %
12.3 %
Figure 61 Outsourcing interest – network – end users only
END OF REPORT
Videoconferencing Endpoint Survey Report page - 41 ©Wainhouse Research 2005