Results of a survey relating to Siemens Enterprise Communications at the CeBIT 2007 exhibition in...

Results of a survey relating to Siemens Enterprise Communications at

the CeBIT 2007 exhibition in Hanover

Results of a market research survey

Produced on behalf of Siemens Enterprise Communications, Munich

Munich, 20/4/2007

Project 4739

http://enterprise.siemens.com/open/de/default.aspx

2

Academic staff

Patrick Rudloff (Economics degree)

Tansu Reichler (Economics degree)

Stefanie Reindl (Sociology degree)

Schwanthalerstr. 91 80336 Munich

Tel.: (089) 544617-0 Fax: (089) 544617-12

email: [email protected]

www.facit-mafo.de

3

Pro

ject

473

9

1. Methodological aspects

4

1.1 Details of the survey

5

1.2 Presentation of results

6

2. Satisfaction in the area of ITC

7

3. Profile of those taking part in the survey

17

Contents

4. Management summary

37

4

Pro

ject

473

9





5

Pro

ject

473

9

Methodological aspects: details of the survey

Form of interview Face-to-face interviews (lasting ca. 5 minutes)

ScalingRatings on a 4-point scale from 4 (“is completely untrue") to 1 (“is

completely true")

Carrying out of surveyDirectly by the exhibition stand belonging to Siemens Enterprise Communications

Sample N = 382 exhibition visitors

Survey location/period CeBIT Hanover from 15.3.2007 to 21.3.2007

6

Pro

ject

473

9

Methodological aspects: presentation of results

“Results in percentages”The results for individual questions are presented as charts and

tables. The results are shown as percentages of the base.

Base

The information “base” or sample size indicates how many people

were asked per question. Generally there are 382 respondents. A

smaller base or sample size is shown when only a sub-group of

the respondents is interviewed.

“Without predefined responses”

The reference “without predefined responses” is shown where the

question is open-ended and without predefined response

categories. The respondent answers the question in his/her own

words.

“With predefined responses”

The reference “with predefined responses” shows that this

question is a closed question. The interviewee can choose one or

more responses.

7

Pro

ject

473

9





8

Pro

ject

473

9

Satisfaction in the area of ITC: overview of topics

3Certainty of recourse to the best and most

reasonably priced communications infrastructure

4 Reliability of the communications infrastructure

1Access to information that is independent of

the location

2“Easing the burden” function of

communications end devices

5 Openness in the communications infrastructure

6 Flexibility of service provider

“I can access all my messages (speech, fax, email, SMS…) at any location with my preferred end device.”

“The communications end devices I currently use enrich my daily working life with regard to features and functionality.”

“My communications infrastructure can take the strain. In the past 6 months, no breakdown in communications has

negatively affected my business.”

“My organisation’s communications infrastructure is based on open standards, and it supports the collaboration of various

providers and the integration of IT processes.”

“My communications service provider supports changes in my organisation just as rapidly as best suits our business.”

“I’m certain that my communications end devices always use the most suitable and most reasonably priced

infrastructure.”

9

Pro

ject

473

9

Satisfaction in the area of ITC: total overview

54

43

35

51

27

34

15

32

20

15

47

50

Base:

Question 1

With predefined responsesIn percent

382 respondents * = 1 / is completely true 4 / is completely untrue

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

16

6

27

23

17

20

6

4

4

3

3

5

Access to information that is independent of

the location

“Easing the burden” function of communications end

devices

Certainty of recourse to the best and most reasonably priced

communications infrastructure

Reliability of communications infrastructure

Openness in the communications

infrastructure

Flexibility of service provider

Score 1Score 2Score 3Score 4

1= is completely true, 2= is partially true, 3= isn’t true, 4= is completely untrue

10

Pro

ject

473

9

4

2

5

-

Top/bottom score: sector

Target group differentiation:“Access to information that is independent of the location”

Base:

Question 1


“I can access all my messages (speech, fax, email, SMS…) at any location with my preferred end device.”

Top/bottom score: ability to decide Top/bottom score: employees

Sole decision-makers

Joint decision-makers

1

3 100 - 500

IT

500+

Government, administration

20 - 100

1 - 20

19

38

27

28

28

32

Industry, technology

Computer

33

19

33

25

29

2

15

4

-

-

Banks, consultancy

Top ScoreBottom Score

382 respondents * = Top score = 1 / is completely true Bottom score = 4 / is completely untrue

Base: 233/ 94 Base: 109/ 68/ 52/ 123 Base: 142/ 30/ 27/ 49/ 28

11

Pro

ject

473

9

Target group differentiation:“Easing the burden” function of communications end devices

Base:

Question 1


“The communications end devices I currently use enrich my daily working life with regard to features and functionality.”

1

1

4

-




3

2 100 - 500

500+

20 - 100

1 - 20

36

3237

42

30

36


IT



Computer

33

30

33

35

36

1

3

7

2

4

Banks, consultancy


382 respondents in total * = Top score = 1 / is completely true Bottom score = 4 / is completely untrue


Base: 233/ 94 Base: 109/ 68/ 52/ 123 Base: 142/ 30/ 27/ 49/ 28

12

Pro

ject

473

9

Target group differentiation :“Certainty of recourse to the best and most reasonably priced communications infrastructure”

Base:

Question 1


“I’m certain that my communications end devices always use the most suitable and most reasonably priced infrastructure.”

3

4

8

8




6

6 100 - 500

500+

20 - 100

1 - 20

9

19

15

17

14

17


IT



Computer

10

15

14

13

21

6

11

8

4

-

Banks, consultancy




Base: 233/ 94 Base: 109/ 68/ 52/ 123 Base: 142/ 30/ 27/ 49/ 28

13

Pro

ject

473

9

Target group differentiation :“Reliability of the communications infrastructure”

Base:

Question 1


“My communications infrastructure can take the strain. In the past 6 months, no breakdown in communications has negatively affected my business.”

1

4

6

7




2

5 100 - 500

500+

20 - 100

1 - 20

22

27

36

38

34

31


IT



Computer

33

26

39

31

43

3

1

2

5

2

Banks, consultancy




Base: 233/ 94 Base: 109/ 68/ 52/ 123 Base: 142/ 30/ 27/ 49/ 28

14

Pro

ject

473

9

Target group differentiation :“Openness in the communications infrastructure”

Base:

Question 1


“My organisation’s communications infrastructure is based on open standards, and it supports the collaboration of various providers and the integration of IT processes.”

6

7

4

5




7

5 100 - 500

500+

20 - 100

1 - 20

29

13

26

17

21

23


IT



Computer

27

19

29

19

21

6

3

4

4

-

Banks, consultancy



Base: 233/ 94 Base: 109/ 68/ 52/ 123 Base: 142/ 30/ 27/ 49/ 28

15

Pro

ject

473

9

Target group differentiation:“Flexibility of service providers”

Base:

Question 1


“My communications service provider supports changes in my organisation just as rapidly as best suits our business.”

5

3

8

2

Top/bottom score: Ability to decide Top/bottom score: employees



5

3 100 - 500

500+

20 - 100

1 - 20

10

15

18

17

17

12


IT



Computer

7

19

20

13

14

5

4

6

-

-

Banks, consultancy



Base: 233/ 94 Base: 109/ 68/ 52/ 123 Base: 142/ 30/ 27/ 49/ 28

16

Pro

ject

473

9

Respondents’ comments/remarks/wishes

Base: 382 respondents

Question 2

Just one mention “Communication is the future”

17

Pro

ject

473

9





18

Pro

ject

473

9

Profile of those taking part in the survey: decision-making role when buying information and communications technologies

Base:

Question 3


61

25

14

The decision-making role

… I’m a joint decision-maker

… I’m the sole decision-maker

… neither one nor the other

What role do you play when buying information and communications

technologies?

382 respondents

19

Pro

ject

473

9

7

4

4

2

2

85

Joint decision-makersSole decision-makersTotal

Profile of those taking part in the survey: company’s main markets (1)

Base:

Question 4

Without predefined responsesIn percent

382 respondents

Europe

Latin America

North America

Asia

Near East

South America

82

6

2

5

2

-

92

7

6

3

3

3

Multiple responses were possible

20

Pro

ject

473

9

87

6

7

3

-

-

88

10

6

2

4

4

4

1

1

2

1

92

100-50020-1001-20

Profile of those taking part in the survey: company’s main markets (2) – Global number of employees split -

Base:

Question 4


382 respondents


500+

Europe

Latin America

North America

Asia

Near East

South America

86

11

7

8

4

4

21

Pro

ject

473

9

73

10

3

7

-

-

81

4

4

-

-

-

9

7

5

3

4

87

Banks, consultancyGovernment, administration

IT, telecommunications

Profile of those taking part in the survey: company’s main markets (3) – Sectors split -

Base:

Question 4


382 respondents



Europe

Latin America

North America

Asia

Near East

South America

92

6

2

4

4

-

22

Pro

ject

473

9

94

4

4

2

2

-

11

11

-

-

-

93

OtherComputer

Profile of those taking part in the survey: company’s main markets (4) – Sectors split -

Base:

Question 4


382 respondents


Europe

Latin America

North America

Asia

Near East

South America

23

Pro

ject

473

9

61

4

2

2

30

Joint decision-makersSole decision-makers

Germany

Other (individual mentions)

Taiwan

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Total

Profile of those taking part in the survey: company's base (1)

Base:

Question 5


382 respondents

49

7

3

4

36

70

3

2

24

-

24

Pro

ject

473

9

4

1

18

77

-

100-50020-1001-20

Profile of those taking part in the survey: company's base (2) – Global number of employees split -

Germany


Taiwan

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Base:

Question 5


382 respondents

44

9

9

4

34

52

8

40

-

-

500+

63

2

2

2

30

25

Pro

ject

473

9

61

6

1

2

29



Profile of those taking part in the survey: company's base (3)– Sectors split -

Germany


Taiwan

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Base:

Question 5


382 respondents

73

3

23

-

-

74

26

-

-

-


88

12

-

-

-

26

Pro

ject

473

9

61

4

18

4

14

OtherComputer

Profile of those taking part in the survey: company's base (4) – Sectors split -

Germany


Taiwan

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Base:

Question 5


382 respondents

56

12

6

27

-

27

Pro

ject

473

9

37

13

8

7

7

14

14


Profile of those taking part in the survey: company’s sector (1)

Base:

Question 6


382 respondents

IT and telecommunications

Banks, consultancy



Computer

Other

No information

38

10

10

11

5

15

12

41

15

6

6

8

15

9

28

Pro

ject

473

9

46

6

7

11

8

13

8

100-50020-1001-20

Profile of those taking part in the survey: company’s sector (2)– Global number of employees split -

Base:

Question 6


382 respondents

38

16

12

6

15

13

-

35

10

12

2

2

25

15

500+

37

20

10

4

11

11

8

IT and telecommunications

Banks, consultancy



Computer

Other

No information

29

Pro

ject

473

9

Profile of those taking part in the survey: number of phone and fax numbers on the business card (1)

Base:

Question 7


382 respondents

1 Phone or fax number

5 Phone or fax numbers





30

34

3

2

1

10


9

30

37

1

2

-

11

33

35

3

3

-

30

Pro

ject

473

9

13

31

38

1

-

-

8

31

29

2

2

2

33

31

5

3

2

15

100-50020-1001-20

Profile of those taking part in the survey: number of phone and fax numbers on the business card (2) – Global number of employees split -

Base:

Question 7


382 respondents

500+

6

29

41

2

3

-







31

Pro

ject

473

9

7

37

27

-

-

-

15

30

26

4

7

-

28

44

1

3

1

11



Profile of those taking part in the survey: number of phone and fax numbers on the business card (3) – Sectors split -

Base:

Question 7


382 respondents


14

29

39

2

2

2







32

Pro

ject

473

9

12

40

23

10

2

-

7

39

29

4

-

-

OtherComputer

Profile of those taking part in the survey: number of phone- and fax numbers on the business card (4) – Sectors split -

Base:

Question 7


382 respondents







33

Pro

ject

473

9

46

29

8

2

1

1


Profile of those taking part in the survey: number of end devices that respondents carry with them (1)

Base:

Question 8


382 respondents

No device

Four devices

Two devices

One device

Three devices

Five devices

2

36

27

14

2

4

53

30

6

3

-

-

34

Pro

ject

473

9

51

24

10

1

-

- 2

42

29

8

2

-

51

30

6

3

4

1

100-50020-1001-20

Profile of those taking part in the survey: number of end devices that respondents carry with them (2) – Global number of employees split -

Base:

Question 8


382 respondents

500+

46

33

7

2

-

-No device

Four devices

Two devices

One device

Three devices

Five devices

35

Pro

ject

473

9

3

30

47

10

-

-

56

26

4

4

-

-

52

31

8

1

1

1



Profile of those taking part in the survey: number of end devices that respondents carry with them (3) – Sectors split -

Base:

Question 8


382 respondents


65

14

6

6

2

-No device

Four devices

Two devices

One device

Three devices

Five devices

36

Pro

ject

473

9

2

40

31

8

4

2

43

32

11

4

-

-

OtherComputer

Profile of those taking part in the survey: number of end devices that respondents carry with them (4) – Sectors split -

Base:

Question 8


382 respondents

No device

Four devices

Two devices

One device

Three devices

Five devices

37

Pro

ject

473

9





38

Pro

ject

473

9

In numerous aspects, satisfaction with the communications infrastructure and the communications end equipment

used still manifests a not inconsiderable potential for optimisation.

While the benefits of the latest generation of communications end equipment are undisputed, and these devices

clearly take some of the strain and enrich people’s working lives (and access to messages and information that is

independent of one’s location is broadly problem-free), shortcomings are apparent when it comes to the following

aspects:

Certainty of recourse to the best and most reasonably priced communications infrastructure:

There still seems to be considerable uncertainty among one third of respondents (33%) concerning the

transparency of performance and efficiency of the communications infrastructure that is deployed. This appears to

be particularly pronounced in companies with over 500 employees as well as in the area of financial services and

consulting.

Reliability and resilience of the communications infrastructure:

We also still seem to be a very long way away from a situation where the communications infrastructure can be

described as highly reliable. 27% of respondents are still of the opinion that the communications infrastructure

deployed in the company does not come off optimally in this regard. There don’t appear to be any differences in

relation to this that are size or sector specific.

39

Pro

ject

473

9

Openness of the communications infrastructure

When it comes to the openness of the communications infrastructure (in the sense of open standards and their

supportive effect with regard to collaboration among various providers and the integration of IT processes), 20% of

respondents think this doesn’t apply – and this is a pretty high figure. There don’t appear to be any differences in

relation to this that are size or sector specific.

Flexibility of service provider

A quarter of respondents consider the support and speed of reaction of the communications service provider when

adjusting to changes within the organisation to be inadequate. There don’t appear to be any differences in relation

to this that are size or sector specific.

Results of a survey relating to Siemens Enterprise Communications at the CeBIT 2007 exhibition in...

Documents

Transcript of Results of a survey relating to Siemens Enterprise Communications at the CeBIT 2007 exhibition in...