Qwaq 2.0 – Virtual Collaboration Re-invented?

By Peter Z.

Virtual collaboration has become very popular, and therefore, many collaboration portals have been introduced over the past few years. But what is the big difference among them? In general, most of them provide similar features. As I was looking for information about a collaboration provider that stands out, I came across following article at the BusinessWire website:

 “ Qwaq, Inc., a leading provider of application collaboration solutions, today released Qwaq Forums™ 2.0. The second-generation, secure virtual workspace platform delivers innovative new collaboration features such as Smart Rooms, which automatically collate reports from multiple applications, just in time for scheduled meetings. Forums 2.0 also provides Web browser access to workspace assets, as well as DVR functionality for recording and sharing virtual meetings. New Qwaq Forums customers include the U.S. Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) and Chevron…

…Qwaq Forums enables a rich environment for teams to share information, communicate, and execute real-time document editing and workflows. Qwaq vPresence™ technology securely combines multi-application sharing, presence, VoIP, text chat, and webcam video. Qwaq Enterprise Servers can be deployed behind the corporate firewall, or organizations can use the hosted SaaS version for rapid deployment and third-party collaboration. Qwaq supports a broad range of applications and document formats, and integrates closely with enterprise identity and security infrastructure.”

 

So why does it stand out? In my opinion, Qwaq offers a broad variety of features that enable business leaders to open a better way of virtual collaboration. Among these advanced features are:

·         Smart Rooms that allow users to collect information from various applications, and post them in an assigned site within the forum.

·         DVR function that allows recording, interaction, and fast-forward for selected meetings.

·         QRLs is a link that brings users directly to specified rooms or objects, and also allow the user to integrate Qwaq into accessible tools.

 

There is one quote from the Qwaq CEO, Greg Nuyens, that struck me most of the whole article:”With the new capabilities in Forums 2.0, customers are telling us that virtual meetings can now be more powerful than face-to-face meetings.”

Do you think that Qwaq Forums 2.0 allow virtual meetings to be more powerful than real life meetings?

If yes - why?

If no – What is Qwaq Forums 2.0 still missing to make it superior to life meetings?

Do you agree with me that Qwaq Forums 2.0 stands out among all other virtual collaboration provider, or are there others that have same or similar advanced features?
Source

Comments

[Susan Nguyen]

Qwaq 2.0 sounds like it can greatly improve the quality of a virtual meeting but I am not sure if the webcam feature is clear enough for people to notice non-verbal communication. Non-verbal communication can tell others volumes about what a person is truly feeling or thinking. It is a very important form of communication that is lost during virtual meetings.

[Mujtaba Safdar]

agreed that it’s cool, but, coming from the hallowed corporate world, people cringe if they have to go through the pain of setting up a webex meeting because that requires slide preparation. while i can appreciate their niche play, (and, it IS niche) i just really don’t see any practical aspects.

1) everyone knows powerpoint and it’s relatively quick and painless to setup. that being said, 99% of the conference calls i’ve participated in have been “phone only.” the rest are demos of “how to do something.”

2) business users in general aren’t tech savvy. and, the level of savviness rapidly falls the higher up in the food chain you go. (i currently work for a big, top 20 software company and i see people all the time who don’t know what tabbed browsing is or wonder things like why the “internet” button starts with “e.” i can’t imagine what it’s like in a non-tech company.)

3) during conference calls, inevitably most of the content is only focused for a few specific callers at a time. the rest of the time, people are on mute and working away at emails.

4) the crazy amount of preparation required (unless they have some killer import tools) is a serious putoff to the corporate worlds “gtd” methodologies. and, even with killer import tools, the information being shared is invariably going to be 2d information that would be faster, easier and more compatible to share in 2d. i mean, how many people just email docs rather than setup a virtual conference?

5) anything that is “3d enough” and important enough to merit the work involved in getting everyone setup with clients and whatnot at the same time to look at, would probably be something that would be better served with a “real” meatspace unveiling where you can back-slap and hand-shake.

6) it’s a very multi-participatory concept in an area where most of its uses would be broadcast only.

thus, i’m thinking it’s a niche application and not practical for the majority of users. just like 3d is only really for entertainment because it’s just not practical for most uses because there are easier, faster 2d ways to do the same thing.

[Charles Ansell]

Good article and good insights, Mutjaba. Mutjaba - what's a meatspace? Sounds like a disturbing perspective on reality.

I definitely agree that lots of the bells and whistles on Qwaq may be more distracting than useful for companies unprepared to properly use them, but if the relevance of this software depends on user abilities, there's every reason to believe savvy enough users exist and could put the tool to good use. I agree that, in my experience, the three traits picked out are differentiators. I've used collaborative tools with DVR, but would be curious to learn more about the Qwaq's import/export from outside software. I've worked on a few international calls where it was convenient to share documents and the users were savvy enough to do so - I imagine they would have benefited from a tool that could assemble multiple file types under one shared roof, instead of just Office files.

I agree with Mutjaba that, in my experience, WebEx, gotomeeting, etc have been employed mostly for PowerPoint's, desktop sharing and sales demonstrations, but, on occasion, in online classes, the technology facilitated exercises and other group work, and in committees some document sharing. All this is to say Qwaq will have a place within a small market of dispersed user groups within and between global enterprises that simply need to meet and discuss common documents, and record and archive that discussion. I don't think use will be widespread, and I bet Qwaq isn't expecting that either.

[E Knox]

Not so much a comment on Qwaq's functionality vs. any other tool out there, but I think these tools still have a little way to go before they will become mainstream and, eventually, ubiquitous. I agree with the previous comment about how many people (and I include many IT people) aren't even willing to go through the steps required to set up a regular web conference. The additional functionality offered by tools such as Qwaq, while they are cool, are worthless if users and/or customers refuse to play along.
In the future, I see this same type of functionality integrated into our computer desktops (which could be our literal desktops, too). We won't have to enter our virtual room, because we'll already be there. We'll have the ability to send files, chat, or video conference with others instantly just by selecting them. No complex setup tasks for the users would be required, and this would help speed adoption. The combination of ease of use, real-time access, and convenience would help to overcome the user barriers.

[Angelica Barrera]

Yes at first glance this application looks cool but Mujtaba makes some good points. There’s a lot of preparation work to switch to something like this and most business users don’t keep up with changing technology. There would be a big learning curve involved and perhaps a resistance to the change. Also, there’s a monthly cost per user between $30 - $80 depending on the number of users there are and an additional tech support fee. On top of that, you have to have up to date hardware, older machines are not compatible. For a company with a small amount of users there are plenty of cheaper tools out there that give you the same features separately (chat, video, desktop and desktop sharing) instead of all in one. In addition, the overall look is very cartoonish especially with the use of avatars. It does not project a serious business brand. On the other hand if that's the look your going for then it will work out just fine.

[Jeremy Newman]

Personally, I don’t think that virtual meetings will ever be more powerful than face-to-face meetings. However, I do not think they have to be. I think the purpose of a virtual meeting is to bridge the gap when a face-to-face meeting is not possible. In an ideal world, we would all be co-located and face-to-face meetings would be the only type that we had. I think the problems associated with virtual meetings are not ones that can be solved by any software innovations. While software (and the various applications that comprise a certain package) offer many bells and whistles that even face-to-face meetings can’t offer, they seem to be just that; things that attempt to solve the challenges of not being face-to-face. In today’s economy and in the global environment of co-location, the existence of virtual solutions are a much needed bridge. Some applications do a better job than others. I personally am a large proponent of the virtual brainstorming applications as I see this as being one of the hardest to accomplish virtually. A simple (yet powerful) GUI and the ability to archive everything replace sticky notes and markers. I can’t say as one is necessarily better than the other, but as the world changes, we need to embrace virtual technologies and work to change the way we approach meetings in general.

[Michael Lafferty]

I'm not all that familiar with enough collaboration apps to agree if this one is one of the best, but if it can do what it claims to be able to do then it has to be up there. while you will meet people that will swear by face to face meetings, but there are plenty of things that you can do online that you just can't do in person.
the most important thing is time, instead of having to switchout flash drives everytime someone wants to show something electronical. where as with the software it takes mere seconds to load it up and display it to everyone.
virtual meetings are the future. having virtual meetings while everyone is in the same building isn't that impossible to conceive. atleast you'd save on real estate, wouldn't need all those meeting rooms!

[Naraphong Apirutvarakul]

I don't have any experience in virtual collaboration which used collaboration apps before I take this class, so it's quite hard for me to compare which one is better. However, I think face-to-face meeting and virtual meeting has a different purpose.

Although the virtual meeting can include many fancy function, you still cannot sense the emotion and do the physical contact such as shake hand that may help the meeting smoothly.

And you're right, Angelica. After the first glance at Qwaq Forums 2.0, I feel like I'm playing "The Sim." Yes, it helps us feel more emotional, but this is unnecessary for a company to spend money for this function.

[Irwin W]

I have never used Qwaq Forums 2.0, but I question the belief of its users that said “With the new capabilities in Forums 2.0, customers are telling us that virtual meetings can now be more powerful than face-to-face meetings.” It may be good, and one of the better virtual collaboration programs, but I feel face to face communication provides a personal element that is missing in virtual collaboration. As we talked about in one of the first classes, face to face meetings provide social cues which include facial gestures, tone of voice prompts and body language lacking in virtual communication. In addition in face to face meetings there is an opportunity for side conversations, business breaks or food breaks where interaction occurs. These interchanges can create bonds of trust and pass information between the individuals. You can’t learn these things by virtual collaboration. Virtual collaboration is important because many teams can not meet in person because of globalization and outsourcing. As Susan mentioned, even though it does have a webcam, I doubt you can notice the non-verbal communication. Non-verbal communication can tell others a lot about what a person means.

Lastly Qwaq Forums 2.0 can be a challenge to set up or correct problems with if you lack a technical background. However this technology is important as discussed since it does provide a virtual face to face meeting which is important either due to globalization or the costs and time required to bring teams together. Thus it is a good concept which has many business applications. However I question those who feel it offers the same qualities as face to face meetings. For me it can be the next best thing but not the best thing.

[Yonel Larose]

I believe each company make decisions based on their needs and what they are willing to pay for it. There a lot of tools out there that can allow a business to do everything that Qwak are offering. Others may offer more but it all depends on what a business needs are and what their budget is allowing them to do. A company with a bigger budget may be able to afford CISCO; some could be raindance or the new Intercall. I think Qwak is also lack some other great features.

[Raj Luxmi]

I agree the technology in the field if virtual collaboration has done a vast development in last few year but I also believe no virtual collaboration portals is comparable to face to face communication. Virtual meetings are good way to communicate if meeting face to face is impossible but they fail to capture the non verbal expression of the people and sometimes loose their interest. Even portals like Qwaq 2.0 has so many features such as smart rooms, DVR and Qrl, one can never guarantee how beneficial this tool will be if a company decide to implement it. Moreover, most of the companies nowadays are using some sort of virtual collaboration portal. Implementing new portal could cost a lot of money and there is no assurance that a company will conduct virtual meeting flawlessly. Hence, I feel great that technology is developing day by day and making impossible things possible, but sometimes its better to stick to old ways of communications.

[Alcides Rodrigues]

Some interesting points have been raised about the usability and/or the need of collaboration tools. I believe the percentage of virtual meetings will continue to increase as companies look for ways to save money and help their employee balance work/personal time. All meetings that I currently attend are hosted thru some kind of virtual environment and I think they are very successful. Based on my personal experience, once participants adapt to the style of virtual meetings, and the tool used to conduct them, they can work as well as face-to-face meeting.

I understand that not everyone is comfortable with technology, but we must not forget that as the new tech savvy individuals enter the workplace, they will eventually be the participants of such meetings, and with time everyone will be understand virtual collaboration (as we are today with using a computer to write an email memo instead a using a typewriter to create a memo to be posted on some cork-board in a employee’s lunch room).

I did not try Qwaq 2.0; thus I am not very familiar with its capabilities. I do agree that the “video game” like interface is a little strange (maybe 10 years from now my kids will feel comfortable using this type of interface as part of a collaborative tool). But I think the most important parts of a collaborative tool are its learning curve and scalability. It should allow users with very little training to use only the functions they are important to them.

[Pathik]

I like the features that Qwaq has included as part of its software, but I'm just not sure if there are any amount of features that can replace a face-to-face meeting. I agree that the recording, playpack, fast forward features are not available for a face-to-face meeting, but it still doesn't replace a physical interaction with someone. There are certain aspects of a person's body language that cannot be seen through a camera. I work on a team that has the majority of it's members in India. I interact with them on a daily basis via phone and video conferencing. But once a year or once every two years, our Manager decides to bring some of the members to America. Why? Because he knows that you get to know a person a lot better when you shake hands with them and talk to them face-to-face. You feel more comfortable dealing with that person from that point forward.

[Oli Shields]

Given savings in time, energy use and so on, I believe that with this level of technology (3-D, virtual meeting rooms) distributed team meetings are close enough to the real thing that they could be generally preferable even for uses such that
require a lot of interaction.

But I think such sophisticated software will struggle to take off at the moment given the recession. I know from my current employer that they are not looking to make any investments at the moment, even if there should be a payoff over the longer term.

Although I'd say that if the product is easy to use thus reducing training costs, this might help to some extent when the economy starts to pick up. Just ten years ago technology such as email was not that common, so I believe habits can change fairly quickly with regard to new technologies.

[Yase Ge]

Qwaq Forums™ 2.0 sounds a great tool for virtual meeting, but I do not think it allow virtual meetings to be more powerful than real life meetings. Although Qwaq Forums™ 2.0 offers a 3-D environment provides stronger feedback that enhances teamwork and communication than traditional 2-D collaboration environments; I don’t think 3-D environment is a good way for a serious meeting.

I remember there are several updated lessons learned from leading virtual meetings on April 20 PM440 class. One lesson is virtual worlds do not add much value to real meetings and it mentions, in best practices, don’t use Second Life, think long and hard before using any virtual reality for a real meeting and be clear why you are using video. In today’s technology, virtual environment with 3-D virtual model has a big gap with the real environment. The 3-D virtual environment is more like a game but not a workplace.

I think Cisco TelePresence System is a better way for virtual meeting than Qwaq Forums. The latest product is the Cisco TelePresence System 1300 Series which can support meetings with up to six people in a regular conference room. All meeting participants are life-size and life-like in Cisco TelePresence calls -- and participation is effortless with automatic voice-activated switching. Built-in lighting produces high-quality, natural-looking video by eliminating facial shadows. You can see the Introduction by following this link:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10340/index.html

[Michael Howard]

As a former salesperson, I am biased to face-to-face meetings. I have used virtual collaboration tools in the past, and they are great when you are meeting with colleagues and management. However, I would be opposed to using virtual collaboration for sales meetings, as I believe the face-to-face meeting is very important for relationship building. This is especially important when you are showing tangible products, which customers like to hold and play with.

However, the Qwaq 2.0 tool is powerful, and would be great to use to conduct internal meetings. This is great for worldwide companies, which require frequent meetings with offices around the country and world.

[Mohammad Bin Hussien]

Recently, collaboration software & tools are being introduced at a faster rate due to the need in the market for such services. More and more companies are relying heavily on virtual collaboration specially that many companies are operating on a global basis.

Qwaq’s features sound powerful and really important in a virtual collaboration setting in the enterprise. However, I can’t think any company can completely rely on virtual meetings no matter how powerful the tools they’re using are. The best approach in my opinion is to have a mix of real and virtual meetings depending on how critical the meetings are and what are the issues addressed.

I think new Virtual Collaboration software will continue to enhance and add more and more features that meets the demands and needs of the business world.

[Thaddeus White]

Virtual meetings in my opinions are more productive than live meetings. There are more interruptions during live meetings than virtual meetings. Also the meeting is more mental. Everyone's ideas and opinions have equal power and access to the floor. In other words, an introverted genius may lack social skills in person, but his contributions to a virtual meeting will not suffer because of an "image" issue because it could be disguised or hidden. You will have a more consolidated effort from the attendees as long as you have good leadership during the meeting.