Better than “Being There” Intel Research Collaboratory

1. Better than “Being There”Intel Research Collaboratory Charles H. House Director Research Collaboratory Intel Corporation MLMI Meeting Archives Workshop July 13, 2006

2. Vision Long-term Goal • We believe that team collaboration tools that improve team productivity by an order of magnitudeare possible to describe, define, and develop • We believe that team collaboration tools that make it “BETTER THAN BEING THERE”are possible to describe, define, and develop

3. Short-term MISSION Establish an Intel Collaboration Lab that will become both a Catalyst and aMagnetic Attraction for the best large-scale collaboration capabilities available Long-term MISSION Make Intel a key player in the realization of the next generation collaboration paradigm, by defining, specifying requirements and demonstrating the use of leading-edge technology and behavior solutions and driving their global acceptance.

4. Strategic Objectives • Research, prototype, and design virtual team collaboration solutions that comprehend future business needs and emerging technologies • Make virtual team productivity a strategic advantage for Operational Excellence and competitiveness • Become an industry leader for global virtual collaboration solution approaches • Energize the marketplace by promoting our collaboration vision • Proactively partner with Intel product groups to influence platforms architectures, and ISV’s in support of joint collaboration initiatives (e.g., Digital Office 2010 Vision) • Align with and “prepare” downstream development and implementation teams

5. Intel Research Collaboratory • New idea at Intel – more experimentalists than true researchers • Born of frustration w company IT backbone • Loose federation of individuals • Created a Virtuality Index, identified some key problems, and created a “Concept Car” for the company with a Flash Demo • Obtained some (modest) funding • “Underway” a few months now

6. Ecosystem Relationships Digital OfficeDPG UCD Innov Strat Digital Office CollabLab CTG, e.g.,Planet Lab ISTG EmployeeProductivity CAM PELab eWorkForce IBM Xerox HP Labs Applied Innov & Arch Boeing VirtualCollaboratory ISTG ESTS Panasonic StanfordMediaX BetaSI Arch TD MIT MIT Media Lab Europe CollabLab CollabLab TMG HVMRC/KLSOffice Computing SCS UC Berkeley USC UC Irvine University of Reading UC Santa B CMU UC San Diego PNWRL UIUC IDIAP NIST ISTG Innovation Group FolsomInnovation Center Oregon*Innovation Center ShanghaiInnovation Center MalaysiaInnovation Center IT Research Arizona* Innovation Center IsraelInnovation Center Ireland Innovation Center Edinburgh? *new

7. Collaboration & Workstyles Different Place Source: 1 Collaboration Needs Finding Research 2004, 2: Boeing, 3: Forrester, 4 Yankee Group, July 2004. “Lack of Secure Interoperable Protocols Hinders Enterprise IM and Online Collaboration”, 5: IDC • Collaboration is not an application, it is an attribute of an application • Integrated experience required in business applications • Global collaboration is a business necessity that has significant gaps

8. Collaboration barriers • Synchronous Meetings • Connection times and Ease-of-Use • Time zone spans • Language, culture differences • Disparity of hub vs. remote participant • Especially difficult for Mobile participant • Especially difficult for particular communication modes • Asynchronous • Interactivity often key to effective communications • ~ All PEOPLE are ~ASYNCHRONOUS to their TeamMates • Lexicon • We communicate lots of things • We collaborate about HARD PROBLEMS • HARD PROBLEMS are usually sophisticated

9. User Research Conclusions • Less willing to embrace new technology • While half are “Txperts, NEARLY ALL prefer seamless, reliable, easy to use tools won’t mess with technology while on the road • Positive attitude towards IT and IT services • Work style makes the segment harder . to train in new technology • Opportunity to deploy remote access and wireless productivity / enhancements • Slowing pace of available external hotspots impacts ability of segment to connect to Intel • Segment is often frustrated since wireless connectivity today is not simple or seamless

10. Better than “Being There”? • Collaboration Tools (especially ROI analyses) are often defended on two bases • Saving of Travel $$$ • Saving of Travel Time • Seldom defended on basis that it is truly better • 30 years experimentation with Stanford  BETTER GRADES (by a WHOLE LOT) Gibbons, JSB, House • 2 years experimentation at Dialogic  BETTER DECISIONS (by a WHOLE LOT) House • 4 years study at Intel  MORE EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATION (by a WHOLE LOT) Bless / Wynn

11. Collaboratory Research Agenda Areas • Comprehensive virtual collaboration environment • Asynchronous Meetings and Teaming • Real-time Collaboration using Converged Multi-media Communications • Team member Expressivity, Identity, Location, Presence • Mobile Collaboration • Immersive Collaboration Physical Environments • Team Relationships and Productivity • Collaborative Decision Making

12. What are we actually doing? • Metrics, esp. Activity-based assessments • Time-zones and meeting structures re effectiveness • Archiving materials – • Exploring dynamic video correlations • Scene reconstruction • Simulated Scene immersion • Multi-team, multi-plexed gaming • Kinesthetic comparisons • Exploring Complex Data Set Analysis

13. Activity Based Performance Measurement VALUE TO INTEL • Methodology to estimate benefits/costs of important IT implementation(s) at Intel • BV Justification of internal IT implementation, e.g., Intel SMG Smart Device Pilot • External case study for IA based Smart Devices • Unified Business Value Research Model: MIT Process Handbook ABPM Collection Process Represents a unifying model for Task Analysis information collected across a range of business settings and environments Task Analysis and ABPM Case Study P4/XP Case Study CMT CaseStudy PDA Productivity Context Variables Timeframe = + + The Intel ITBV program lacks an approach to unify the case specific work done to date, even through the measurement task is similar Isolated Studies for high impact segments using Intel IT BV measurement framework – pre and post intervention data used to determine the effect and BV HFE/Business Value Knowledge Information learned from supporting ITBV programs HFE has substantial expertise in this area Core skills in accurately defining and measuring business value within a defined framework MIT Sloan School; IT Research; IT BV Program • Overall Research Objective • Develop a methodology and tools to measure value creation and costs at the activity level and link those measurements to firm-level metrics • Importance • Enable firms to assess future value of IT and other investments • Challenges • Difficult to assess and measure value of IT and other investments; costs are typically well known • Managers face investment decisions at the activity level, but must justify them at unit or firm level

14. TIME SEPARATION RESEARCH RESULTS • 5 configurations affect how teams coordinate and challenges • Co-located • North-South – same or close time zone • East-West - substantial time zone difference • Dispersed-balanced – team widely scattered across time zones • Dispersed-imbalanced – hub team site with a few scattered members • Very little difference in coordination success among geographic configurationsbut more effort required to achieve success in widely time separated teams • Time separation reduces the range of team coordination mechanisms; options narrow rapidly and severely as more time zones added • Distance separation alone is no longer a critical factor due to collaboration tools adoption • Cognitive mechanisms are most important in distributed and time-separated work (knowing who knows what, who has done what and when) Impacts of Time Separation onGlobal Team Coordination American University; IT Research; ICG Flash Group • Time Separation • The difference in time zones among distributed team members • Overall Research Objectives • Investigate how global teams can work more effectively when they are separated by time • Understand how time separation affects team coordination • Identify which processes, mechanisms, and tools help overcome the difficulties of time separation • Inform the design of the OGA collaboration environment

15. Intel needs Collaboration Tools that areOne Generation Ahead • No tools on the market meet the criteria* • Interoperable integrated application environment with synchronous to asynchronous continuity • Coordination of all an individual’s team activities & commitments from one portal • Expressive, interactive, “sticky” environment that invites regular use and provides encounters with others — “place-like” Eight of us “banded together” in 2003 . (no one within 500 miles of another; 3 continents) * established in VCRT

16. Collaboration Elements Value to me My TeamsTeam Productivity = Value to Intel = T1 T2 T3 T4 SynchSame Time AsynchDiff Time Team Tools: Visualization, Sharing, LanguageTranslation, etc. Integrated Collaboration Environment + MeMy Productivity Who I am What I’mDoing Personal Tools: Office, PDA, etc.

17. OGA Global Team Collaboration Environment Virtual Collaboration Research Team USAGE SCENARIOS Meet in real time across space • Know who is participating • Know where they are • Know their time zone Work asynchronously • Track time & team progress Coordinate responsibilities • Combined project timelines • Manage diverse AR’s VALUE TO INTEL • Increases Intel’s global teams’ productivity • Influenced ISTG Roadmaps to address upward global trending • 64% Intel employees on 3+ teams* • 70% on teams with different tracking methods* • 80% employees on multi-cultural teams* • 73% working across time zones* • Faster time to market and better product quality • Cost avoidance thru reduced travel, real estate • Supports Global Intel Culture • Creates pull for Intel platforms and products • Generation of IP / Patent Application / Industry Influence *Intel Virtuality Index Research Study 2004-2005 – Wynn, Lu UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS & BENEFITS • See all my multi-team activities in one place • Work without time & location boundaries • Interact expressively with remote collaborators • Move effortlessly among applications and team work • First design of an integrated global team environment! We built this in a Flash Demo, with a few DVDs for managers Download Demo at http://immersive.intel.com/collaboration_tool/120_VERSION_06.zip

18. 3D Environment “Place” INTEL Navigation and Manipulation System • Derived from Intel Miramar architecture • “Information Savannah”: tools and methods to arrange and organize 2d workspaces in 3D environment

19. Peer Network with Interaction Objects HP Croquet Vision • Construction of live worlds as easy as web page construction • Pure P2P: no scaleability limits • “HIVE on the desktop”

20. Current Research: Prototype of 3D Immersive User Interface for OGA Collaboration Shared 3-D Graph of spreadsheet data These integrated objects will greatly facilitate Data-Driven Decision-making Visualization and shared simulationof complex data

21. Research Differentiation • Collaboration system built on replicated computation • Variable bandwidth • True peer-to-peer collaboration system • Highly scalable • System will share simulations, not documents • Interactive what-if scenarios • Built-in data visualization • System will provide a comprehensive personal multi-team environment

22. In conclusion • We are tackling Group Communication • We are trying to become allied with a consortium of Academic and Industrial research teams • We fully expect that whether for Learning, Innovation, or Meeting Performance Goals, our eventual environments will be BETTER THAN BEING THERE