What is Telepresence?

If we look at communication and collaboration industry buzzwords, “Telepresence” is clearly the king of them all.  Tossed out more often then yesterdays trash, the word has a very confused meaning, with every marketing professional using it to meet their current need, whatever it is at the time.

It is therefore fair to ask, what really is telepresence?

The answer is either a specific type of visual communications, or all types of visual communications, depending upon your perspective and how strict within it you choose to be. 

One camp involved in the industry says that If modern society accepts Kleenex as a generic description of a facial tissue, or Jell-o as the name for all flavored gelatins – even though these are really only a single type or brand - then we have to allow some flexibility in the use of Telepresence to describe a space when not all systems truly fit the technical description.  Add to that two additional complicating factors:

• Video Conferencing (six syllables) has often had a poor reputation  - historically due to manufacturers overselling the capabilities of the products in the space.  Most of the bigger manufacturers’ were all ready to jump at the chance of changing the name of the space to disassociate themselves from the poor performing products of the past.  Telepresence (four syllables) gave them the chance to give something old a new name.
• About five years ago Cisco chose to name their entire suite of products TelePresence (note the big “P”) – originally to differentiate themselves from the legacy types of products and features on the market before them, but now just representing their brand for all video.  No other video firm had the marketing might or budget to challenge them, so all firms adopted a “we have telepresence too” stance.

Clearly most of the people in the industry have accepted this generic “telepresence” as the description for “new, good video systems.”   Most that is, but not all…

The other camp can’t wait to vehemently protest everything I’ve written above.  Telepresence, they say, is all about the experience – an “immersive” experience.  (Notice that we are defining an amorphous term with another amorphous term.)  Many people have different beliefs about what makes this experience immersive – usually falling in line with whatever product they sell, support or use.  Any one of a number of differentiators (possibly including high definition video, spatial audio, large screen displays, images projected or reflected in front of a camera’s eye line, full concierge services to make your connections and/or other features) can be identified as the reason a product in the first person (your product) is truly telepresence, and the lack of any or all such differentiators can be identified as the reason a product in the third person (their product) is not truly telepresence.

In January 2008 I authored an article in the World Commerce Review for the IMCCA where we settled upon a specific definition for Telepresence:

Telepresence represents the use of a number of technologies, aesthetics and acoustics that together allow a person or people in one location to meet and collaborate with a person or people in another location (or locations) where the experience simulates all people being in the same location. Implied in this experience is the understanding that the technologies, aesthetics and acoustics involved in the simulation are, or should be, practically invisible to the users.

By this strict definition, the only truly immersive products on the market today are Polycom’s RPX system and DVE’s TeleImmerison room.  I understand many will debate the selection of only these two systems, but in my opinion one can’t call it an immersive experience if you have mullions between displays that take up approximately two inches, have visible cameras the size of a breadbox, or most importantly don’t allow your face to be seen when you stand-up to make a point.  All of these qualities would break the illusion of natural communications between people in the same room and therefore can’t be Telepresence by the strict definition. 

But it is completely wrong to get involved in the minutiae of this debate.  It misses the point entirely.   Because “what is Telepresence” is the wrong question to be asking we will always receive the wrong answer.  What we really want to know (with thanks to The Hitchhiker’s Guide) is what is the right question.  The question should be how can you or your firm or organization gain the most value from visual communications and collaboration.  The answer is by utilizing a broad array of tools and systems to achieve ubiquitous and pervasive video.  This is what I have called “The Collaborative Conferencing Continuum.”  If you have a meeting where six people need to negotiate with six other people in two different cities for multiple hours then the generally accepted immersive telepresence systems are perfect for your use case.  If however you have a team meeting for 12 people and only 10 can show up in person, the more traditional video conference system/room is the right choice for you (as you can’t have that meeting in most immersive telepresence rooms.)  Finally, if you’re one of the two people who can’t make that last meeting then the use of a desktop or portable system is the ideal choice for you – as it is when you just want to have a one-on-one conversation over video.  None of these solutions are “wrong” and none of them by themselves are “right.”  You have to look at all of the tools available in your tool box and use the correct one for the job in each case. 

So as communications professionals we have to wade through the confusing claims, machete down the contradictory marketing buzz, and identify the best solutions to meet our real needs.  99% of the time the answer is to create a communication and collaboration ecosystem using multiple types of systems all working together to meet your actual needs. 

If any sales or marketing guy tries to tell you otherwise … tell them to come see me.  Or even better, just call me first and I’ll help you put together a successfully blended plan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This article was written by David Danto and contains solely his own, personal opinions. David has over 30 years of experience providing problem solving leadership and innovation in media and unified communications technologies for various firms in the corporate, broadcasting and academic worlds including  AT&T, Bloomberg LP, FNN, Morgan Stanley, NYU, Lehman Brothers and JP Morgan Chase. He recently joined Dimension Data as their Principal Consultant for the collaboration, multimedia, video and AV disciplines.  He is also the  IMCCA’s Director of Emerging Technology. David can be reached at David.Danto@Dimensiondata.com