Our Case: Dla Piper, Metlife, Pepsico, and Others: Telepresence Is Finally Coming of Age.
Our case: DLA Piper, MetLife, PepsiCo, and Others: Telepresence is Finally Coming of Age.
Question 1
Implementing Telepresence seems to have other, less tangible, advantages beyond travel cost savings. What are some of those? How do you quantify them to make the case for investing in the technology? Provide at least two fully developed examples.
Aside from the obvious cost savings detailed in the passage, we will discuss 2 less tangible advantages to implementing Telepresence over the travel option. These 2 items are employee quality of life and the environmental footprint. Since these are not easily weighted or priced, conservative estimates will be given based on research that will be cited below. Keep in mind that these types of technologies are only possible due to the functionality of networks: specifically telecommunications.
Implementing Telepresence solutions for a company can save quite a bit of money given certain parameters such as existing travel, etc. There would be some upfront costs, but these are rendered inconsequential when measured alongside the intangible benefits discussed above. Presently, being a networked enterprise is not a choice, it is a requisite and Telepresence is the new item up for bids that can assist in not only securing a competitive advantage, but also paving the way for a new chapter in employee well being as well as a lowered carbon footprint.
Question 2
DLA Piper, MetLife, and the other companies features in the case re very optimistic about the technology. However, other than its cost, what are some potential disadvantages of implementing Telepresence in organizations? Many of our conference rooms at work have great video conference systems (it is not quite Telepresence because it does not consist of 50 inch TVs). Even though we have these systems, upper management continues to travel to our office, which is remote from the head office in Arkansas. This is because no quantifiable cost can compete with
Question 1
Implementing Telepresence seems to have other, less tangible, advantages beyond travel cost savings. What are some of those? How do you quantify them to make the case for investing in the technology? Provide at least two fully developed examples.
Aside from the obvious cost savings detailed in the passage, we will discuss 2 less tangible advantages to implementing Telepresence over the travel option. These 2 items are employee quality of life and the environmental footprint. Since these are not easily weighted or priced, conservative estimates will be given based on research that will be cited below. Keep in mind that these types of technologies are only possible due to the functionality of networks: specifically telecommunications.
Implementing Telepresence solutions for a company can save quite a bit of money given certain parameters such as existing travel, etc. There would be some upfront costs, but these are rendered inconsequential when measured alongside the intangible benefits discussed above. Presently, being a networked enterprise is not a choice, it is a requisite and Telepresence is the new item up for bids that can assist in not only securing a competitive advantage, but also paving the way for a new chapter in employee well being as well as a lowered carbon footprint.
Question 2
DLA Piper, MetLife, and the other companies features in the case re very optimistic about the technology. However, other than its cost, what are some potential disadvantages of implementing Telepresence in organizations? Many of our conference rooms at work have great video conference systems (it is not quite Telepresence because it does not consist of 50 inch TVs). Even though we have these systems, upper management continues to travel to our office, which is remote from the head office in Arkansas. This is because no quantifiable cost can compete with