Cisco Conference Connection Pilot Results
Contents
Conference usage for the 90 day period
Total conference owners: 22
Total conferences requested: 96
Total conferences used: 68
Total conference minutes requested: 6740
Total participants: 229
Total conference minutes used by all participants: 7340
User Survey Demographics
In total, there were 17 respondents, from UIS, GSD, HSPH, and KSG. The respondents classified their computer experience between average (35%), above average (30%), and very (35%) experienced, with a large majority accessing the web using Windows and already using VoIP phones at Harvard. Only 12 of the respondents actually used the Conference Connection, and most those that did not use it found that they just had no occasion to use it or did not have time to use it.
Conferencing Needs and Comparison
A majority (15) of the respondents normally attended meetings that require at least 10 minutes of travel time for some of the participants. Almost half had already used a Harvard Telecom conferencing service, and most of them use teleconferencing from 5-10 times a year. Four said that Harvard's conferencing service was worse than the pilot product, one said it was better, and one said it was about the same.
Thirteen had used an external conferencing service (AT&T, Sprint, WorldCom, and Verizon), with 7 using it less than 5 times in the last year, 5 using it 5-15 times, and 1 person using it more than 15 times in the last year. Four said that the external conference service was worse than the pilot product, two said it was better, and four said it was about the same.
For those who invited guests to teleconferences, 5 used more than 90 minutes a month, and 7 used less than 90 minutes a month. For those who attended other teleconferences, 4 spent more than 90 minutes a month, and 5 spend less than 90 minutes a month attending. Most agreed the maximum time for a productive conference all was about an hour, with the maximum number of respondents at 8.
Twelve persons answered that they would continue to use the service in production if the charge was significantly less than outside vendor charges. Three persons were undecided in their response, and no one answered no.
Usage
Usage was varied. Some scheduled conferences and some attended conferences someone else scheduled. Those who scheduled conferences usually also used the email notification wizard and looked up conference information. Those who attended conferences also entered using passwords and some used a VoIP phone interface to access the conference.
Problems
Almost one third of the respondents (5) said they or guests experienced one or more problems with the pilot product. Anyone who reported problems during the pilot was encouraged to try again and to make comments on the experience when the user survey began. The reports of problems included three persons who could not dial into the access number, one had poor audio, one could not obtain conferencing resources for a desired schedule, and one found the scheduling program did not work.
Of the reports regarding those who could not dial the access number, all were off-campus and calling through other central offices. This was reported this to our Telecom Repair. It's a possibility that the telephone exchange (998) was not being routed correctly out of remote central offices. Unfortunately this remains a mystery due to lack of information from those who experienced the problem.
Of the reports regarding calls for help into the Telecom operators and Telecom helpdesk, most gave rave reviews of the service. One person reported that “remote users contacted the number given for help in the Conference Connection automated notification email, and were told that the Cisco conference connection service was not in use at Harvard.”
Application Ratings
Survey respondents were questioned about features that were not available with the pilot product. The most popular missing features were toll-free number access, conference recording, conference transcription, selective muting, operator-scheduled meetings, attendance reports, and operator dial conference attendees, in that order. Most respondents didn't consider any of the features very important, except for toll-free number access.
Everyone was satisfied with the range of features available, though a small minority (1) was not satisfied with the appearance and usability of the web application.
Everyone was satisfied with the ease of adding/modifying/deleting conferences, the speed of the web application, and the availability of conference resources. A few (2) were not satisfied with the audio features, email notification, access from off-campus, and reliability, though half (6) of the respondents mentioned that the reliability exceeded their expectations.
Service Ratings
Everyone was satisfied with the time it took to register for the pilot, the time it took to find, login, and learn to use the web application. A small minority (1) was not satisfied with the documentation and training classes offered.
Everyone was satisfied with the website in general, and a few respondents mentioned that some aspects exceeded their expectations.
Everyone was satisfied with the personal support and ability to access operators. One person was not satisfied with phone/email troubleshooting response, and one person was not satisfied with the amount of help he/she needed to use the pilot product, the speed of troubleshooting response, and an inability to find help on the web site.
Most respondents (67%) expect to pay less than traditional conferencing and would prefer one flat rate for unlimited monthly usage (41%) rather than by the minute per conference attendee (17%). Many respondents (58%) would use it for work at home and/or to avoid cross-campus trips as well as reduce travel costs for their organization.
Respondent Comments
Ways it might allow you to do your job more efficiently or make you more productive?
- “The most important aspect of the service to me is the self-service aspect. I can quickly schedule a conf. call and send out the information to my guests. I would like to see a better way to display all scheduled conferences on the VoIP phone ahead of time (i.e. for the day) rather than when the conference is in session. I also think pricing should be based on a flat rate, per conf. call (based on a standard 1 hour call with 8 participants).”
- “Yes, this is a much more streamlined way for me to set up a conference call for multiple attendees.”
- “Access from home to schedule conferences off hours and/or hold conf calls off hours.”
- “Have many conf. meetings that usually others need to set up. Being part of the largest academic institutions, I think this should be a professional service that is available (hence the 1-800 number) as I have several int'l and long distance attendees that now need to call long distance rates.”
- “Would cut down on time going from meeting to meeting”
Would you recommend to others?
- “I would recommend it to others for ease of use, and ease of looking up scheduled conferences, and ease of modifying existing scheduled conferences”
- “yes absolutely. It is easy to use, fast and reliable”
- “Yes, it was much more simple than trying to schedule something via phone with the Harvard operators or outside vendor. It is particularly useful to have the email wizard and to change/update the conference call via the website at any time.”
- “very much. Found it very easy to use, email notify is great especially with external folks.”
- “Yes - very flexible”
- “Yes”
- “It has not worked the two times I've scheduled conferences so, at this point, I wouldn't recommend it!”
- “Very useful tool, would recommend it to others.”
- “Yes. Very easy to use.”
Additional Comments
- “If you are thinking about offering some kind of recording, that would be great, I have to type up minutes of both types of conferences that I set up, this takes 1/2 to 1 hr after each call”
- “do not shut it down….”
- “The email notification is way too complicated. There is too much information and it is not clear. Also, a password was given, but never asked of the attendees.”
|
