Creating Engagement in Virtual Meetings

and Distance Training

The importance of engagement; factors that create it

and environments that foster it

June 16, 2010

Table of Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4
Engagement Defined .............................................................................................................. 4
Engagement Causalities ......................................................................................................... 6
Focus .................................................................................................................................. 6
Empowerment ..................................................................................................................... 7
Presence............................................................................................................................. 8
Intimacy .............................................................................................................................. 9
Engagement and Productivity ................................................................................................10
Distance Modalities Described ..............................................................................................10
Engagement Effectiveness of Each Distance Modality ..........................................................13
Efficiency of Each Distance Modality .....................................................................................14
Cost Effectiveness .............................................................................................................15
Reach ................................................................................................................................16
Scalability...........................................................................................................................16
Immediacy .........................................................................................................................17
Total Efficiency Analysis ....................................................................................................17
Limited Use Cases .............................................................................................................18
Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................18
About VenueGen ...................................................................................................................19
Appendix ...............................................................................................................................20

2
Abstract
This paper is about creating engagement. It examines why the ability to engage attendees is
arguably the most important critical success factor for collaborative meetings and training
events. It defines engagement and explores the factors that help to create an engaging
atmosphere. Various meeting modalities are discussed and compared by their ability to create
engagement. Physical meetings, tele-presence, immersive 3D environments, as well as video
and web conferencing are examined. Finally, these modalities are compared holistically
considering other important factors such as cost, scalability, immediacy and accessibility to
comprehend how efficiently each approach creates its particular degree of engagement.

This paper will assist readers who are:

1. Looking for the most effective alternatives to in-person meeting and events;
2. Evaluating and comparing various distance meeting modalities;
3. Searching for a more engaging alternative to web conferencing;
4. Researching 3D immersion as a viable modality to consider for virtual collaboration,
training and events;
5. Building a return-on-investment justification for the use of 3D platforms as a serious
business and learning tool

Questions this paper addresses:

1. What is engagement?
2. Why is engagement important?
3. What are the factors that foster engagement?
4. How effective are the various distance meeting modalities in their ability to create
engagement?
5. How efficiently do the various distance meeting modalities create engagement when
other important factors are considered?
6. Why is 3D immersion a modality that should be seriously considered?

3
Introduction
As referenced in the appendix of this paper there is a growing body of research now that
consistently demonstrates how success metrics significantly improve when collaborative
distance meetings and training events are conducted using immersive 3D environments rather
than more traditional 2D web conferencing tools. Compared to web and video conferencing,
immersive 3D environments have been shown repeatedly to create more engaging, personal
and productive experiences for attendees. All types of productivity metrics have been defined,
studied and compared using 2D and 3D modalities. From participation and ideation to long-
term retention, across the board success outcomes have been shown to improve when
immersive 3D environments are used for virtual gatherings.

This paper is not another study demonstrating how success metrics improve when using
immersive environments. It focuses, rather, on answering the more fundamental question of
why success outcomes improve when virtual attendees are immersed in a 3D environment.

If the value of 3D immersion has been established, why are most organizations not scrambling
to implement 3D platforms as fast as they can? Advocates of immersive 3D environments are
quick to point to academic studies that invoke control groups and complicated statistical
methods, but historically we have not done a good job at explaining in laymens terms why
these outcomes improve. In order to do this we will need to more granularly define
engagement and examine in detail the factors that encourage it. Then, we will need to
compare the various popular distance meeting modalities to understand why 3D immersion
should be seriously considered as a platform for distance meetings and learning events.

Engagement Defined
Regardless of the purpose of a
physical or virtual gathering,
until the participants become
engaged in the process of
accomplishing the meeting
goals, it is impossible to achieve
anything. A 2007 Gallup study
estimated that disengaged
workers cost US corporations
over $350 billion each year.
Business thought-leaders have
said for years that it is our
intellectual (human capital) and
our ability to engage such
capital that creates value.

In its simplest form business success is defined by how well we are able to engage. We
engage our teams to write a project or business plan. We engage with contractors and staff to
direct and inspire them to build our product or service offering. We engage with customers to
inform them about our offering and answer questions about it. We engage with users to train
and support them. In short, all business success is built on our ability to engage.

4
The verb to engage is defined a number of different ways:

1. To secure and hold

2. To occupy or become involved with
3. To attract or please
4. To bind together
5. To bring into a conflict
6. To cause to become interlocked

A working business definition for engage could be:

to combine a groups energy, focus, creativity and

resources to accomplish a given goal or tasks

Long before we spent time trying to define engagement, insightful business leaders intuitively
knew of its value. Tremendous commitments of time and money were expended to get groups
of people physically together. If there was a serious problem to solve, client in the balance or
big deal to close, we spared no expense in getting our people physically together to talk in
person. Until just a few years ago this was by far the best way and sometimes the only way to
create the engaging interactions necessary to get the job done.

Enabled by the growth of the Internet today companies have become more geographically
dispersed and virtual than ever before. Online shared systems enable us to communicate
quickly from afar making the distance worker and distance learner practical. Web and video
conferencing tools became widely used for synchronous gatherings but in all but the most
expensive and elaborate tele-presence facilities, these technologies are still considered vastly
inferior to a physical meeting in their ability to create engagement. So for the most part, when it
really counts, we still choose to meet in person rather than to use available virtual meeting
technology. We accept the time delays and costs associated with getting together physically
because we realize the importance of total engagement.

The explosive growth of 3D technology and the early research around its use as a meeting and
training modality have generated much interest. Is it now possible for 3D immersive platforms
to create engagement at a level that is similar to an in-person gathering? In order to understand
how 3D immersion increases engagement over 2D alternative technologies we will need to
break engagement down into its various parts.

We know when we feel engaged and when we see a meeting where the participants are fully
engaged. Everyone is paying attention, thinking, participating, debating and throwing out new
ideas. The atmosphere is charged with excitement and energy and participants feel united by a
common purpose.

On the other hand we also know what disengagement looks like. One or two people dominate
the meeting. Its difficult to break in or get-the-floor. Participants, especially less assertive
ones, do not feel empowered to speak freely. Attendees begin to look tired, distracted or
ambivalent. Frustrated attendees often entrench on positions and create a toxic atmosphere
for new ideas and participation dwindles.

5
A fundamental rule of group dynamics is that people only tend to support ideas, goals, plans
and initiatives that they feel they helped to create. In other words, if they are not part of the
process and feel that their input helped to shape the outcome then they generally take no
ownership of it. Engagement is the power that creates buy-in. Engagement is the magic that
not only fosters better decision making, it is also the bond that holds people together in a
common cause and unites them behind an initiative.

Engagement Causalities
So we know what engagement looks like and its benefits but how do we create it?

There are many ways for people to converse today. We meet in person, via a phone bridge,
through web or video conferencing tools, in an elaborate tele-presence facility or through the
use of a 3D immersive meeting platform. Each of these modalities has different strengths and
tradeoffs that will be discussed later. The salient point for now is that the meeting modality is
irrelevant so long as engagement is achieved. Engagement is the primary goal. It really does
not matter how we go about making it happen. Engagement is about the relationship that exists
between meeting participants. If that relationship makes successful engagement possible then
the modality or means become irrelevant.

There are four key elements that foster engagement. Once these elements are understood
then it becomes much easier to gauge the level of engagement a particular modality will most
likely create.

Focus

Focus is the ability to communicate where ones attention is directed. It is one of, if not the most
important elements to creating engagement. Focus is the main reason why in-person meetings
are so much more engaging than web and video conferencing. As participants sit around a
conference table they most often direct their attention or focus to whoever is speaking. This is
significant. It communicates respect and an eagerness to understand the speakers
contribution. In turn, when the speaker sees all eyes turned on him, he is acutely aware of this
attention which elevates his energy and interest level. Teachers have known this for years.
They often stand beside a distracted student while lecturing or ask the opinion of a disengaged
pupil. The teacher knows that when all eyes are focused on that student, his energy level and
alertness will dramatically increase. This is the spotlight effect. When all eyes are upon us we
are in the spotlight and it becomes increasingly difficult to remain a passive bystander.

We cannot all speak at once. There is a complex and fascinating speaking dynamic that occurs
in meetings and training events when participants want to interject comments. Several
attendees often begin speaking at once. Some give way while others get louder as they
compete for the floor. There is a subtle voting process that happens many times throughout
most collaborative meetings whereby attendees communicate who they want to hear speak by
offering their focus. No matter how desperately we want to make our assertion if everyone else
in the room turns to look at the competing speaker then we will most often back down and wait
to make our point later.

Focus and focus-voting are extremely important to the flow and efficiency of engagement. The
inability to communicate focus is one of the major reasons why telephone and web conference

6
calls feel awkward. When we cannot see the focus of others we tend to talk over each other.
The loudest and most assertive person tends to dominate the meeting often frustrating other
would-be speakers who become passive deciding its just not worth the effort to jump in.

Video conferencing communicates lip movement which is helpful in quickly identifying who is
speaking but, short of a multi-camera tele-presence room, video-based attendees are still
unable to communicate or see focus. Without focus it is also impossible to see who a comment
is directed towards. Was that a sidebar discussion or meant for the entire group? Who a
comment is directed towards can often change its meaning or perceived intent.

When the element of focus is lost a huge component of engagement is also lost. Here is a
simple experiment to prove this point. Try blindfolding all of the participants in your next
physical meeting. You will discover that the meeting dynamics and productivity is much more
akin to a conference call. Taking focus out of a meeting is like removing all of the lubricant from
a piece of complex machinery. The gears may still move but they will be far less efficient,
generate more friction and endure significantly greater wear.

One of the most exciting and practical breakthroughs some immersive 3D platforms have
created is the ability to communicate focus. By simply clicking and dragging ones screen in the
3D venue attendees are able to turn their avatars head to look at whoever is speaking. Some
platforms even empower eye contact. This ability alone dramatically fosters engagement
bringing it much closer to the level found in physical meetings.

Empowerment

Empowerment is the degree to which meeting attendees feel that they have some level of
control. Focus is one type of control. We can choose who we want to look at in a meeting. If
we have the ability to choose to look over at a PowerPoint slide or at another attendee then we
feel that we have even a greater level of empowerment.

Empowerment is an important element in fostering engagement because when we feel

powerless we become passive bystanders and our energy level falls off dramatically. Actively
engaged participants in a meeting or training event do not just sit like zombies. They are
constantly communicating their engagement in the process. They smile, frown and give
quizzical looks when they do not understand something or need more information. They nod
their head while listening to a speaker to communicate that they agree or understand the point
being made. Others see these gestures and continuously count them as they ascertain the
individuals and groups consensus.

These degreesof-control are most important because of their tendency to keep attendees from
becoming passive when they are not speaking. Most attendees will spend the vast majority of
their time in a meeting listening rather than speaking. Unfortunately, listening generally does
not create the same energy level that speaking does because it lacks the spotlight effect.
Empowerment is important because it enables attendees to communicate and continue to
participate in the meeting even when they do not have an immediate opportunity to speak.

Dr. Tony ODriscolls landmark paper Escape from Flatland dramatically compared the same
content being discussed in two virtual meetings, one using WebEx and the other in an
immersive 3D modality. The attendees using the 3D tool were moving about, breaking into
groups for sidebar conversations, gesturing actively and using their laser pointers to note

7
various sections of the content being displayed. The 2D WebEx attendees were sitting
passively watching slides change periodically on their computer screens. They had almost no
degrees of control in their virtual meeting and several had even minimized the WebEx screen
sharing window and were now looking at their local email and other applications. The WebEx
attendees may have been covering the same content but they were far less engaged.
Unfortunately this scene is all too often the norm when a lack of individual empowerment stifles
engagement.

Workers and learners today are very comfortable multi-tasking. We even have to be told not to
text while driving! Attendees need ways to participate or they will disengage from the task at
hand to begin to do other unrelated things. Empowerment gives attendees the ability to do
things that keep them actively involved in the meeting. Keeping attendees active helps to keep
them engaged and their brains turned on. And, a brain that remains on can be sparked to
creative insight especially when dynamically mixed with the ideation of other brains that are
equally engaged.

Presence

Presence is an attendees ability to easily know who is in their meeting and who is speaking. It
involves how we see and hear the people with which we engage. When there is no sense of
presence it becomes much more difficult to foster engagement.

In physical meetings we enjoy a full sense of presence. We hear someone speaking to our
right, turn our head and immediately recognize Bob, the guy from HR. We know where we are
sitting and our positional relationship to others in the meeting. There are several audio and
visual factors that work together to create a full sense of presence.

We are conditioned when we hear a person speak to associate the sound with their location. A
single spoken word can instantly communicate that its creator is sitting to our left at the other
end of the conference table. This is important because it gives us immediate clues as to where
to train our focus. If focus is indeed one of the primary elements necessary for engagement
then anything that improves our ability to quickly focus or express attention also improves
engagement.

Imagine once again a physical meeting where all of the participants are not only blindfolded but
when they speak, they can only be heard through a single speaker box in the middle of the
table. This experiment will quickly demonstrate that it is much harder to focus on what is being
said when spatial clues are removed. Most peoples brains engage in a similar way when we
hear someone start to speak in a meeting. We first determine where the speaker is physically
located. We then look at the person to confirm who they are. Only then, do we begin to focus
on the meaning of what is being said. When the spatial and facial information is removed, our
brains struggle to jump straight to the meaning of their words. This is not how we have done it
since birth and our brains keep grasping for the missing information. This is referred to as audio
fatigue and helps to explain why we feel so tired after a long audio-only call in comparison to a
physical meeting of the same length of time.

Engagement is fostered by anything that helps to free up all of the attendees mental resources
to focus as quickly as possible on what is being communicated. When facial images are
missing and directional sound is unavailable there is a major obstacle to engagement. This is
why manufacturers of tele-presence facilities have spared no expense to have camera angles

8
and speakers strategically placed in connected locations so that the virtual attendees on the
screens see and hear each other spatially.

Photo-created avatars and the integration of positional sound/VoIP have allowed the most
sophisticated of immersive 3D environments to also create a genuine sense of presence in a
more cost-effective and scalable way than tele-presence.

Intimacy

Professionalism, respect and congeniality all play an important role in team productivity. Just a
couple of team members that do not like or respect each other can create an atmosphere that is
toxic to engagement. Sometimes these relationships get damaged while the team is under
stress engaged in solving difficult problems and meeting deadlines. An important part of
fostering engagement is creating an atmosphere that helps to minimize such conflicts.

Folk wisdom states that if you have something unpleasant or difficult to say to another person
you should wait to do it in-person. In other words we are much more congenial face-to-face
than we are at a distance. Most people can recall at least a few email messages they would like
to be able to retract. The problem is, when we cannot see another persons face, we have a
tendency to dehumanize him. We are less likely to remember that he, like us, sometimes is in
need of forgiveness, patience and the occasional do-over. When we cannot see anothers face
we are much more likely to jump to negative conclusions about intent or motive. We see this in
the phenomenon called road rage and we see it in virtual meetings that do not communicate the
human dimension.

Intimacy is the ability to communicate the human element creating a more personal environment
and atmosphere. Effective managers today talk about the importance of getting face-time with
the people they manage. They know that face-time leads to greater awareness of others
humanity and our similarities making it easier to overlook offenses and to assume right motives.

Physical meetings tend to have less negativity than virtual meetings. Everyones humanity is
visible and misunderstandings can be quickly clarified. Video conferencing and photo-realistic
3D immersive environments can foster intimacy similar to physical presence. 3D immersion
also affords a unique perspective. It enables us to see ourselves in the third person allowing us
to take a step back and see ourselves the way others see us. Seeing yourself having a
conversation with someone else is a unique perspective that tends to make us acutely aware of
our demeanor. In his writing, ROI in Virtual Worlds Anatomy of an Avatar, Caleb Brooker
referenced his impression of how people engage within immersive 3D environments.

People speak with a combination of enhanced politeness and

honesty. A rare combination! Theres an increased tendency to
volunteer new ideas. It seems to be easier for people to grapple
with new ideas and take feedback graciously. In general,
people just tend to relax and have more fun, enjoying each
others company; something many find difficult elsewhere.

9
Engagement and Productivity
Nonsocial gatherings whether virtual or physical have intended goals or purpose. The goal for a
gathering might be knowledge transfer, problem solving, ideation, etc. Time is valuable so we
want to know if our meetings are successful. Did we solve the problem, develop the plan or
learn the material? But there are many degrees of success. Did we solve the problem
efficiently? For how long was the learned material retained? Were the ideas put forward the
best that could be conceived? We sometimes use various metrics and criteria to rate the
success of our gatherings and this is where we enter the elusive world of productivity
measuring.

Productivity is exceedingly hard to measure. The students may pass the test but will they
remember the lessons in the future or be able to practically apply them in real-world situations?
A team may devise a quick and cost-effective solution to a problem but if that solution ultimately
fails then the collaborative effort was not successful. These failures can cost organizations
millions of dollars, lost market share and sometime even lives.

The process of ideation has an almost mystical origin. What if one of the team members had
been more engaged during a particular meeting? What if he decided to go ahead and interject
that comment or express that doubt? What if that comment had sparked an idea or new way of
thinking in someones mind who then suggested an entirely new way to approach the problem?

Much has been written and many studies conducted on how to measure productivity but in the
final analysis the metrics we use can rarely tell us if our meetings are truly productive. One
thing, however, is certain. The more engaged a team is the more likely it is to achieve its goals.
Ultimately we cannot manage goals, only the activities in support of those goals. When we
create environments that foster engagement we have given our teams the best statistical
chance possible of achieving real productivity. Productivity is the byproduct of engagement.
We know what engagement looks like; high energy, creativity, participation, ideation, etc. but we
cannot create engagement. All we can do is foster environments that are conducive to
engagement.

Distance Modalities Described

It is much more difficult to achieve engagement in virtual gatherings than in physical events, but
we can choose modalities, technologies and tools that foster the most engaging virtual
atmospheres possible. To the degree that a given virtual meeting platform supports focus,
empowerment, presence and intimacy, it will foster similar degrees of engagement leading to
productivity.

Before we compare modalities it is important to establish nomenclature. Following is a brief

description of the various meeting modalities in use today.

10
Physical Meetings
An in-person meeting that requires
travel for some or all of the
participants to attend

Tele-presence
A virtual meeting conducted between
specially designed conference rooms
that use multiple cameras, screens
and speakers to simulate presence
with attendees virtually sitting across
a table from each other. Examples:
Ciscos Tandberg and Polycom

3D Immersion
Browser-based software that enables
attendees to create and control an
avatar within a 3D meeting
environment. Examples:
VenueGen and TelePlace

11
Video Conferencing
Software that enables small groups
to meet virtually via webcams on
each remote attendees computer.
Examples: Skype and Intercall

Web Conferencing
Software that enables screen sharing
of content and VoIP or dial-in
capabilities. Example: WebEx and
GoToMeeting

These five categories represent the modalities generally used today to conduct distance
meetings. It is important to note that Web Conferencing and Video Conferencing are beginning
to share a common feature set i.e. merge into one category. They are treated here as two
separate categories because scalability and immediacy are dramatically affected when video
capabilities are included. Likewise immersive 3D tools are also beginning to incorporate screen
sharing and real-time video. For simplicity this comparison will focus on the core modality in
each category. 3D-looking tools like InExpo and Unisfair are considered part of the web
conferencing category here because they do not, in fact, provide a 3D engine or immersive
environment. They are 2D tools using 3D still shots as backdrops which places them squarely
in the 2D conferencing arena when it comes to matters of engagement.

12
Engagement Effectiveness of Each Distance Modality

With a working definition of engagement and an understanding of the factors that foster
engagement, it now becomes possible to rank the various distance meeting modalities as to
how effective each is at fostering an engaging atmosphere.

A Comparison of How Effectively Distance Meeting Modalities Create Engagement

Engagement
Empowerment

Presence

Intimacy
Focus

Total
Modality

Physical Meeting 5 5 5 5 20

Tele-presence 4 4 4 5 17

3D Immersion 4 4 5 4 17
Video
Conferencing 0 3 0 4 7

Web Conferencing 0 1 0 1 2

1= (Not Very Effective) 5 = (Extremely Effective)

Focus

Physical Meetings (5) allow for the best communication of focus but Tele-presence (4) and the
best 3D Immersion (4) platforms also do an excellent job of communicating where attendees are
looking, eye contact, etc. Video (0) and Web Conferencing (0) make no attempt to
communicate focus.

Empowerment

Tele-presence (4) and 3D Immersion (4) can offer a level of empowerment close to that of
Physical Meetings (5). Attendees can choose to look at various content or individuals,
communicate via facial expression and gesture, etc. which keeps them from becoming passive
bystanders especially while not speaking. Although difficult to view content and other attendees
at the same time, Video Conferencing (3) does allow for the communication of expression and
gesture but not directionally i.e. one is unable to make a facial expression at a specific attendee.

13
Web Conferencing (1) is completely host-controlled allowing almost no degree of empowerment
for attendees other than the ability to communicate a raised hand.

Presence

Tele-presence (4) and 3D Immersion (5) can also create a sense of presence that is very similar
to that of Physical Meetings (5). 3D Immersion scores slightly higher here because unlike the
fixed physical room required for Tele-presence 3D venues can vary widely in the atmosphere
and shared experience they create including alternative furniture and prop configurations.
Video (0) and Web (0) Conferencing offer no shared sense of presence. Sound is not heard
directionally and there is no pretense of occupying a shared space.

Intimacy

Tele-presence (5) is almost completely on par with Physical Meetings (5) in communicating
intimacy. Faces are instantly recognizable. The photo-created avatars of next-generation 3D
Immersion (4) platforms are approaching a level of realism and fidelity that is most often
associated only with real-time video. Video Conferencing (4) also scores high in intimacy but
without the ability to communicate directional eye contact, it is not as personal. Some Web
Conferencing (1) tools now allow attendees to project a static 2D picture but this creates only a
marginal level of intimacy.

Conclusion

When the important engagement factors are examined closely and totaled, it becomes clear that
Tele-presence (17) and 3D Immersion (17) are by far more effective at fostering engagement
than other virtual meeting modalities. It also becomes apparent that Tele-presence and 3D
Immersion are equally effective creating similar levels of engagement.

Efficiency of Each Distance Modality

If engagement were the only criteria and factor we had to consider then we would all meet in
person for every gathering. However, we live in the real-world with limitations on our time and
budgets. As with most business decisions, we make trade-offs searching for best value
inflection points. Real world meetings are often unpractical or dont meet other criteria. When
searching for the best virtual meeting modalities we want to find the most engagement possible
that still meets other important criteria. Following is an explanation of how each modality
compares as these factors are considered along with the ability to create engagement.

14
 A Comparison of How Efficiently Distance Meeting Modalities Create Engagement

Total Practical
Engagement

Effectiveness

Immediacy
Scalability

Efficiency
Reach
Cost-
Modality

Physical
Meeting 20 1 1 2 1 5
Tele-presence 17 3 2 1 2 8
3D Immersion 17 5 5 5 5 20
Video
Conferencing 7 4 3 1 4 12
Web
Conferencing 2 5 5 5 5 20
1= (Not Very Efficient) 5 = (Extremely Efficient)

Cost Effectiveness

Effectiveness
Engagement

Cost-
Modality
With the average overnight business trip now costing over $1500,
physical meetings (5) are by far the least cost effective modality.

Tele-presence (3) is much more cost effective than travel but still
requires a rather large upfront investment in equipment and Physical
Meeting
20 1
space.
Tele-presence 17 3
3D Immersion (5) and Web Conferencing (5) are the most cost
effective modalities because they require no upfront investment or
hardware other than a basic computer browser and internet 3D Immersion 17 5
access. Video
Conferencing
7 4
Video Conferencing (4) is slightly less cost effective because it
Web
requires greater bandwidth and the purchase of a web camera. 2 5
Conferencing

15
Reach

Engagement

Reach
Physical gatherings (1) are the least accessible. For every person Modality
that attends a physical event there are often hundreds of others
who would have attended had it not been for the time, cost and
logistical barriers.
Physical
Tele-presence (2) is only slightly better because attendees still Meeting
20 1
have to travel to a Tele-presence facility.
Tele-presence 17 2
3D Immersion (5) and Web Conferencing (5) offer the most reach
because these meetings can be attended by anyone, anywhere 3D Immersion 17 5
who has a computer and Internet access.
Video
Conferencing
7 3
Video conferencing (3) offers slightly less reach because only a
quarter of computer users today have web cameras. Web
Conferencing
2 5

Scalability

Engagement
Physical gatherings (2) do not scale up very well. As we add more

Scalability
attendees, space and other costs increase proportionately and
attendance is often capped by what space is available at a given Modality
time.

Tele-presence (1) is the least scalable because new facilities have

to be built to accommodate different geographies and this Physical
Meeting
20 2
technology is only designed for very small meetings.

The best 3D Immersion platforms (5) and Web Conferencing Tools

Tele-presence 17 1
(5) are by far the most scalable. These technologies work
basically the same with five or five thousand attendees. 3D Immersion 17 5
Video
Video conferencing (1) does not scale well. Its large bandwidth Conferencing
7 1
requirements and limited screen real estate limit its effective use to
Web
only a few simultaneous attendees. Conferencing
2 5

16
Immediacy

Engagement

Immediacy
Physical gatherings (1) provide the least ability to quickly meet
when required attendees do not work in the same building. Modality

Tele-presence (2) offers immediacy only if all required attendees

have instant access to a tele-presence facility.
Physical
3D Immersion platforms (5) and Web Conferencing Tools (5) offer Meeting
20 1
the best immediacy because meetings can be called on-the-fly i.e.
the meet now invitation. Tele-presence 17 2

Video conferencing (4) offer slightly less immediacy. It supports a 3D Immersion 17 5

meet now capability but only for attendees who have web
cameras installed. Video
Conferencing
7 4
Web
Conferencing
2 5

Total Efficiency Analysis

Physical gatherings create the most engagement but they are

Total Practical

also the least efficient (5) having the most limitations, barriers to
Engagement

Efficiency

use and cost.

Modality
3D Immersion platforms and Web Conferencing Tools are by far
the most efficient (20) providing the most scalability, reach,
accessibility and immediacy at the lowest cost. However, Web
Physical
Conferencing Tools create an engagement level of only (1) while
Meeting
20 5 3D Immersion Platforms create an Engagement level of (4).

Tele-presence 17 8 Although each modality may offer specific benefits over others in
limited use cases, overall:
3D Immersion 17 20
3D Immersion Platforms are by far the most efficient
Video way to create the highest level of engagement creating
Conferencing 7 12
the most value and least limitations of all distance
Web meeting modalities.
Conferencing 2 20

17
Limited Use Cases

For completeness, a note about limited use cases is required. There are justifications for the
use of less efficient modalities for special case uses. For example, if the dominate meeting use
case is a small team of attendees in one building meeting regularly with a small team of
attendees in another building then the limitations and inefficiencies of Tele-presence may not
matter so long as there are other modalities in place to cover any other use cases. Another
limited use case justification example might be the one-on-one distance meeting. The
limitations and inefficiencies of Video Conferencing are far less of a factor in this use case as
well.

In general, spot solutions can be used effectively for specific and limited use cases but 3D
Immersion covers the broadest use cases creating the most effective engagement value in the
most practical and efficient way.

Engagement, community,
and tapping creativity should
be the virtual world mantra
Forester

Conclusions
1. Studies have shown that 3D Immersion significantly increases success metrics and
outcomes of distance training and collaborative meetings.

2. Engagement is the most important factor contributing to successful virtual meetings.

3. Engagement is fostered best by modalities that enable focus, empowerment, a sense of

presence and intimacy.

4. Different distance meeting modalities create varying degrees of engagement.

5. Physical meetings, Tele-presence and 3D Immersion are best at creating engagement.

6. 3D Immersion is the single most practical and efficient modality for creating engagement
covering the broadest use cases with the least limitations, barriers to use and costs.

18
About VenueGen
VenueGen is a browser-based 3D immersive internet meeting platform that enables professionals to
meet, train, collaborate, share and present information quickly and cost effectively via virtual venues such
as boardrooms, classrooms and social halls. VenueGen customers simply select a meeting room, upload
any type of content, and instantly enter a high fidelity virtual room with directional VoIP. VenueGen
enables users to start realistic and immersive virtual meetings that are more personal and engaging than
typical web conferencing and more practical and scalable than video-based solutions. With VenueGen,
attendees communicate more fluently, make decisions and learn faster, and are more productive than
with other online virtual meeting technologies. No more boring conference calls, complex and expensive
video equipment or time consuming travel. VenueGen is Business Ready. Based in Research Triangle
Park, NC, VenueGen offers a 30-day free trial. If you have three minutes and an internet browser, you
have all you need to see the future of virtual meeting technology.

venuegen.com 919.228.4997 info@venuegen.com

19
Appendix

Shaw, M. (1981) "Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior", McGraw-Hill
Vol. 3d ed. New York

Brooker, Caleb (2009) ROI in Virtual Worlds Anatomy of an Avatar

Forester Report (2008) Consumer Engagement In Virtual Worlds

Reeves, Byron & Read (2009) Total Engagement, Harvard Business Press

Aldrich, Clark, (2009) Learning Online with Games, Simulators and Virtual Worlds, Jossey-Bass

Nunamaker, J. F. et al. (1997) "Lessons from a Dozen Years of Group Support Systems
Research: A Discussion of Lab and Field Findings", Journal of Management Information
Systems Vol. 13

Verhallen Jeroen, (2009) Studying in a Virtual World: the effective use of business meetings

Orrego, Molina (2004) Collaborative Virtual Environments for Group Support Systems:
Studying the effect of space on group support systems

Genuchten, M. Van, Vogel, D., Bemelmans, T. M. A., and Rutkowski, A.-F. (2002) "Group
Support Systems and Virtual Collaboration: The HKNET Project", Group Decision and
Negotiation Vol. 11

Kerr, D. (2004) "Divergent and Convergent Idea Generation in Teams: A Comparison of

Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Communication", Group Decision and
Negotiation Vol. 13

Qvortrup, L. (2002) "Virtual Space: Spatiality in Virtual Inhabited 3D Worlds"

Bailenson, J.; Beall, A.; Loomis, J.; Blascovich, J. and Turk, M. (2004) "Transformed Social
Interaction: Decoupling Representation from Behavior and Form in Collaborative Virtual
Environments", Presence Vol. 13

ODriscoll, Tony, (2007) Escape from Flatland

Fitzpatrick, G.; Kaplan, S.; and Mansfield, T. (1996) "Physical Spaces, Virtual Places and
Social Worlds: A study of work in the virtual", ACM Computer Supported Cooperative Work

Rutkowski, Saunders, Vogel, and Genuchten (2007) "Is It Already 4 a.m.

in Your Time Zone? Focus Immersion and Temporal Dissociation in Virtual Teams",
Small Group Research Vol. 38, issue 1

Waite, Steve; Tuttle, Kris (2009) Research 2.0 Report: Enterprise Applications of 3D Virtual
Worlds

20
Lu, M.; Watson-Manheim, M.; Chudoba, K. and Wynn, E. (2006) "Virtuality and Team
Performance: Understanding the Impact of Variety of Practices", Journal of Global
Information Technology Management Vol. 9

Driver, E. and Jackson, P. (2008) "Getting Real Work Done In Virtual Worlds", Forrester

Helquist, J.H., Kruse, J. and Adkins, M. (2008) Participant-Driven Collaborative

ConvergenceHawaii International Conference on System Sciences

Lent, M. 2008. The Future Is Virtually Here. Computer 41, 8 (Aug. 2008)

Liu, Ying; Chieh & Burn, Janice M (2007) Improving the Performance of Online Learning
Teams - A Discourse analysis, Journal of Information Systems Education, Fall 2007

McFadzean, E. (2000), Techniques to enhance creative thinking, Team Performance

Management, Vol. 6 No. 3

Benford, S.; Greenhalgh, C.; Rodden, T.; and Pycock, J. (2001) "Collaborative Virtual
Enironments", Communications of the ACM Vol. 44, issue 7

Churchill, E. F. and Snowdon, D. (1998) "Collaborative Virtual Environments: An introductory

Review of Issues and Systems", Virtual Reality Vol. 3,

Harrison, S. and Dourish, P. (1996) "Re-Place-ing Space: The Roles of Place and Space in
Collaborative Systems", Computer Supported Cooperative Work '96

Jorissen, P. and Wijnants, M. (2005). Dynamic Interactions in Physically Realistic Collaborative

Virtual Environments, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 11, 6 (Nov.
2005)

Bailenson, J. (2007) "Transformed Social Interaction in Collaborative Virtual Environments",

Stanford University, Department of Communication

Wallace, Paul and Maryott, James, (2009) The Impact of Avatar Self-Representation on
Collaboration in Virtual Worlds

Bailenson, J.; Beall, A. and Blascovich, J. (2002) "Gaze and task performance in shared virtual
environments", The journal of visualization and computer animation Vol. 13

Bowers, J.; Pycock, J, and O'Brien, J. (1996) "Talk and Embodiment in Collaborative Virtual
Environments", Chi '96

Brna, P. and Aspin, R. (1998) "Collaboration in a virtual world: support for conceptual
learning?", Education and Information Technologies Vol. 3

Bochenek, G. and Ragusa, J. (2003) "Virtual (3D) Collaborative Environments: An Improved

Environment for Integrated Product Team Interaction?"

Billinghurst, M. and Kato, H. (2002) "Collaborative Augmented Reality", Communications of

the ACM Vol. 45, issue 7

21
Sia et al. (2002) "Group Polarization and Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of
Communication Cues, Social Presence, and Anonymity", Information Systems
Research. Vol. 13, No. 1.

Piccoli, G. and Ives, B. (2000) Virtual teams: managerial behavior control's impact on team
effectiveness. ICIS 2000

Robey, D.; Khoo, H.M., and Powers, C. (2000) Situated Learning in Cross-Functional Virtual
Teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 43(1)

Hobbs, M.; Gordon, M. and Brown, E. (2006) A Virtual World Environment for Group Work
Anglia Ruskin University, Computing Department, Cambridge.

Swaminathan, K. S. (2007) On the Edge, Virtual worlds, real business? Accenture. Outlook,
September. No. 3.

22