Customer Experience
IP on Washington
Unified Comm & Collab
The Future of the Internet
Network Management
Network/Apps Convergence
Leveraging Network Assets
Ethernet - Great Enabler
VoIP& SIP Trunking
Going Green with IP
Anywhere Connectivity
Defense in Depth Security
Virtualization - Data Center
Conversation Topics
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
YouTube
Via RSS
Recent blog posts
- READY ... SET ... INNOVATE!
- VoIP: The reasons behind the hype
- The password is not enough - Play smart on your social networks
- The Evolution from Managed to Cloud Based Services
- Hack your WAN for better performance (with Video)
- Working from home, the balancing act for employers and employees
- Net Neutrality Comments in the FCC’s “Open Internet” Docket
- Business Partners VS Service Providers – Identifying the needs of the CIO/CISO
- The Overlooked “Clean-tech”
- Ethernet Blogging / ENNI-SM vs ENNI-DM
Cisco Telepresence - Wow, Whoa, or Why
Bill Haskins — Wed, 06/10/2009 - 12:08
In a recent post, Dave Siegel asked 'Is Telepresence Worth the Pricetag'? Yesterday I had the opportunity to spend a full two hours in an immersive Cisco Telepresence conference, and while my experience did not provide the answer to Mr. Siegel's query, it did open my eyes to what Cisco is doing in this space.
Cisco has done an excellent job touting the virtues of Immersive Telepresence. In any related conversation, they will note 'legacy video rooms are utilized often below 10%, while our immersive rooms are utilized well above 50% - often 70% and above'. In the same breath, the explanation for 'why' these rooms are utilized generally falls back to the immersive experience - the lighting, spatial audio, participant proportions.
Sorry Cisco, but the reason your immersive rooms are utilized above 70% is only partially due to your whiz-bang experience. Don't get me wrong - the experience is phenomenal, and yes you will forget that the far end participant is not in the same room at some point in the meeting. The reason these rooms are highly utilized is that you have eliminated many key barriers to use that stand in the way of traditional videoconferencing:
- Scheduling: having delivered videoconferencing as a service provider, and supported enterprise videoconferencing as an IT Director, I will say that 'scheduling' is one of the top barriers to use of any video deployment. If you expect your users to schedule people, room resources, and then schedule a video bridge (often repeating the same information for users and rooms), you just cut your utilization by a large percent. Cisco's implementation can be so seamlessly integrated with your organization's scheduling engine that your focus on scheduling human and room resources is sufficient to hold a Telepresence meeting. Just grab a few Telepresence rooms in your calendar and you are ready to be immersed.
- Conference start: now that scheduling is out of the way, ask yourself - can your user start the experience without assistance? Historically, the answer has been 'probably not'. If you require the user to pick up a remote to do anything other than tune in to their favorite show, you've lost a percent of your audience. Cisco's approach is to start the call from an environment the user is familiar with - a desk phone. One press of a button and the system joins the appropriate meeting.
- Confidence: Cisco's done a bang up job on this one. For those video users out there - how many times have you sat down in front of your video unit, only to find someone A) stole the ethernet cable for their own use, B) walked off with the remote, C) removed the camera to see if it works on their home PC, or D) all of the above? Cisco's implementation of their high end room is a thing of pre-fabricated beauty. All cords are hidden, there's no need for a remote, the screens/cameras/lighting are bolted down (and if they weren't, I'm confident you'd find one of those sweet LCDs in the break room at some point). I expect most Cisco TP users are very confident the system will work when they walk into their room.
I'll add here - Cisco's back end implementation is well thought out, if not completely disruptive from a bridging provider's POV. You can't see a better example of Cisco's 'the intelligence is in the Network' opinion than their Telepresence implementation. The bridge is a friggen switch. The application is their Call Manager element. External entities are brought in via gateways. To manage a successful Cisco TP implementation is to manage your network environment well.
- Executive Buy In: Here's the dirty secret. Another top barrier to use for a traditional video room deployment is the view from the top. 'Build it and they will come' has never been more wrong than when applied to even a great traditional VC deployment. However, those organizations that stand behind their VC deployment, say by setting related travel policy and target cost savings requirements, will absolutely increase even standard room utilization rates. Most of Cisco's immersive deployments are mandated, and budgeted from the top. A CIO is not going to drop millions of dollars into a TP deployment without ensuring those rooms are used.
- Oh yeah - the experience: ok, ok, then there's the experience. Yep, it's sweet. We all know that QCIF Hollywood squares viewed at the end of a 20 foot conference room is a ridiculous way to meet. And as or more importantly, the audio is really slick - it is nice to be able to carry on a real conversation in a video setting for once, without any delay or half duplex talk over scenarios.
This experience increased my respect for Cisco's implementation immeasurably, and I'd recommend anyone questioning the cost factor to experience it fully before writing off the concept. While you may not think of Telepresence in a UC context, you should - Cisco has unified the scheduling process, support elements, and administrative components of their service. Further, they've done so in an integrated manner - the primary scheduling integration with Exchange and Lotus environments is key.
Back to Siegel's question - is the pricetag worth it? I still cannot answer that. I have a lot of good things to say about Cisco's implementation, however, the majority of improvements they've made to the videoconference experience are not specific to an immersive setting. Can you reduce the same barriers to use in a standard deployment? Yes. Can you deploy an HD system in a right sized room and actually hold a conversation over video with a remote participant? Sure. In the end, will you pay the price for eliminating barriers to use in any implementation - you bet. Also, while you can bring in external non-TP sites to an immersive call, they will reduce the quality of experience for all participants - I'll continue to view the Cisco TP deployment as somewhat of an island until you can transcode all sites into a TP call and maintain a 1080p experience for those sites able to maintain that quality.
Still, I now find myself in the Wow camp - upgraded from somwhere between Whoa and Why. I'd love to hear where you currently sit.
Our LATAM Bloggers
Blogroll
GigaOMThe 7 Somewhat United States of Facebook (new)
Telecom RamblingsTW Telecom Powers Through Q4 (new)
Communications and Technology Blog - Tehrani.com$1,000 For Pic of Al Gore Shoveling Snow (new)
NSP StrategistELN Numbers (new)
Global Crossing Media CenterGlobal Crossing Ties for 'Best Data Value' at ATLANTIC-ACM 2010 Global Wholesale Carrier Excellence Awards
Richard BennettSpeaking today in DC
User login
IP Knowledge Center
Good points on Cisco TP
Visitor — Mon, 07/27/2009 - 17:30Bill, You are right on the money. I have been exposed to Telepresence since Cisco bought the company I work for a few years ago and I think the keys are the ease of use and the incredible experience. I have found myself forgetting the other person is in a different location. It is really amazing. Pushing one button on the phone to start it couldn't be easier. I would agree that in the three screen rooms especially, it can definitely substitute an in person visit. I see these becoming sort of an enterprise telephone both of the future.
Great sight
Dennis Morton — Wed, 06/10/2009 - 14:24Natural adoption is key to ROI
Visitor — Tue, 07/28/2009 - 10:26I am a fan and from what I have seen of Cisco TP in a customer's sites, the reduction in the barriers to schedule and use and the immersive experience mean that your general non-techy user ,which makes up 90% of the workforce, naturally wants to use the solution and does not need to be coerced into using it. As the user does not need to modify their behaviour versus a normal same-room meeting, there is a natural affinity to embrace it and also to meet more regularly; just because you can.. Business is conducted through the interactive communication between people. I believe that Cisco have ceated a remote meeting solution that allows the important characteristcis of this human interaction to be retained. How have they done this? By taking a fresh look at the business problem and architecting a different approach to it. That's innovation that is.
Customer experience
Visitor — Wed, 06/10/2009 - 14:16Very nice post. So much of the customer experience is a result of integration and ease of use. VIdeo resolution and audio quality are certainly nice, but they don't matter if you can't get the people you need into the conference.
Nice!
James Conway — Wed, 06/10/2009 - 13:23That's a great write-up. I really enjoyed reading that.
You referenced "Hollywood Squares". How does it look? Does it cut back and forth between people or were all the participants visible at the same time.
Were you visible?
Also, being a veteran of conference calls, was there a substantial business benefit to being able to see the other person?
re: Nice!
Bill Haskins — Wed, 06/10/2009 - 20:52Thanks @Conway! The Cisco TP meeting referenced above included around 15 participants across 3 locations. Each room included three screens and three cameras, and no more than 2 participants per screen/camera. The solution ensures those at the far left of the seating section are displayed on the far right of the viewer's display, and the audio is projected from the same area. As we had three sites, we had an amount of voice activated switching when the active talker was not on a primary display - overall it was seamless. Very different than the Continuous Presence / Hollywood Squares approach that is employed on most traditional video bridging solutions.
Excellent, and age old question regarding business benefit - I am a strong believer in Video as a technology that can replace travel in the right setting. As the technology has evolved from SD to HD to Immersive experience, this view has only solidified. It is estimated that well over half of communication effectiveness is determined by non verbal queues - I've seen studies quoted from 55% to above 90%. And, with the advent of higher quality TP and HD systems comes wideband audio - which adds an enormous benefit to your ability to communicate over the wire. See Adam Uzelac's related post for more info on wideband audio.