Creating a High-Tech Meeting/Conference Room?

papaia asks: "As the network geek in my company, I have been tasked with defining a high-end, fully connected and extremely easy to use conference room, for our CEO, who is your classic non-computer-using person. The requirements are to accommodate 'local' (to the conference room) meetings, as well as interactive sessions with people in other locations, allowing him to discuss/debate various product solutions, on files being opened and available to him to pinpoint issues, without the knowledge of the underlying software used to create them (e.g. CAD drawings where he could make annotations, etc). Do any of you have recommendations for building the 'meeting room of the 21st century'?"

"The solutions I have been looking into, so far, range from various types of whiteboards (Panasonic's interactive whiteboard, or SMART board one), to interactive displays, and software such as Netmeeting, or Cisco's meeting place.

I obviously need to combine any or all of the above with some capability of video (of course), thus I am looking into various webcams, and conferencing capabilities in some equipment - the latter is yet another challenge (VoIP or not?!?). I have also looked at meeting room suggestions, and I cannot really make up my mind."

Skip it.

[HillaryWBush]

Just get a big whiteboard. Those computerized canvas devices are expensive toys, like buying a tablet PC when you need a notepad and pencil...they steal productivity, not enhance it. If you really want to get the whiteboard online, then point a very good digital camera at the whiteboard, hooked up to an iBook. Then you can output the shot to an AIM window, or whatever you want! I challenge you to find a "custom solution" that will have less problems.

A real suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

Hire a bloody contractor with EXPERIENCE in this area!!!!

You're going to be spending a LOT of money. Don't base those spending decisions on "what sounded good to folks on Slashdot."

There are experts in this area. Find them. Hire them.

If that's too expensive, with due respect, then this isn't a project you should be contemplating....

Hire a professionial

[maggard]

I've got a cousin who does this, works exclusively for big companies, puts in meeting rooms for teleconferencing.

It's a pretty complex process involving getting all of the wiring in, the lighting rigged, cameras speced & set, sound adjusted, matching conferencing systems, etc. There's a lot of art to it, figuring out room layout & microphone placement so folks sound natural, nobody has to shout or whisper, noisy equipment is muffled, lighting works for cameras while not leaving everyone dazzled, etc.

Could you do it? Sure, with lots of trial & error.

However hire someone who does this all of the time & they'll keep you from going down dead-ends, give you real numbers to work with, know the vendors and their offerings. Almost none of this overlaps with networking, nor with consumer product experience you might have had, so really a pro is probably best.

So, in other words...

[stinkwinkerton]

Your CEO doesn't want to learn the technology, but wants the best technology.

What he needs is not only a room, but someone to facilitate it's operation. You can get the best equipment in the world, but if he from the get go has basically said he doesn't want to know how to operate it (which I interpret from the original post,) Then it is just going to be dead weight to him and a waste of money.

Long story short: Remember when you were the AV guy in high school? Welcome back.

Netmeeting and phone conferncing

[jageryager]

I've been involved in many meetings involving two or more sites spread around the country. These are either working meetings or presentations, but any graphics were always presented via PowerPoint or some other on-screen way, no whiteboard or posters or anything. We use PC's with netmeeting. Each conference room needs to have a high res digital projector for the PC display. Ideally the resolutions of the projectors will match. This way you know that all parties are seeing the same stuff.

MS netmeeting has always worked well for MS Apps and stuff like that not sure how it would all work out with CAD type applications.

We always use phone teleconferencing for the voice part of it. Seems like this started in order to save bandwidth, but it probably has something to do with the fact that I'm in a facility that is not used to keeping microphones and speakers working well on PCs.

We have video teleconferencing equipment that seldom/never gets used even though it works well and is not hard to use.

Not sure what kind of network infrastructure this all requires. I'm suspicous of people that say you need a "T?" Line. My experience is that you'll never be able to install a dedicated network. Even if you could you probably wouldn't want to. And if it's not dedicated, then you'll be sharing it with other people. So what you really need is a "big enough" network. Big/Fast enough for your gear, and everything else..

Also, we have some rooms with special whiteboards that have special markers and can be "be" the "mouse pointer" for the PC that has the projector. I've never seen these used by anybody and can only assume they are junk and should be avoided.

my $.02.

Kevin

Do you need it?

[barzok]

Execs want all this stuff to impress people with their high-tech toys and the "he must be important, look at this stuff" factor. Will he ever understand how to use it (both the operation of the equipment, and effective application of it)? Likely not.

I think I've been in maybe 2 video conferences over the span of 6 years that were better than a plain telephone conference call. The video usually adds nothing, or even detracts. We don't even attempt to integrate computers into the process, it'd just be more confusion (we tried to add a VGA feed once to a video conference, it did not end well, we ended up having the remote site refere to paper handouts of the PPT I'd made).

Keep it real simple. Wasting 30 minutes of an hour-long meeting making the electronics work right is no way to run things.

Don't bother

[under_score]

You might want to point out to your CEO that face-to-face meetings are far better and that the expense of using the high-tech "airplane". Will be more than offset by the cost of a high-tech meeting room and the costs associated with poor communication.

Getting people physically into the same room for meetings should always be considered close to non-negotiable. The exceptions? People who truly have nothing to contribute, or those who due to emergencies or other serious physical limitations cannot travel to be in the same room.

Re:jedi council

[phorm]

Well... I've often wondered what "force pranks" would be like. You know... cause somebody a leg cramp by force-pinching a nerve... or perhaps pinch the butt of the cute secretary from across the room.

Yup

[dynoman7]

"Do any of you have recommendations for building the 'meeting room of the 21st century'?"

Yeah. Hire someone else (it sounds like you are in over your head).

Re:You may want to consider...

[Anonymous Coward]

Horrible suggestion. The OP mentioned this is targetted towards the CEO. Typically this means a high-quality, reliable product is required. The last thing you want when the CEO is in high-level meetings is for him/her to get frustrated by the "static", network latency etc. This is a sure way of getting noticed in the wrong way!

Re:Best solution

[x-caiver]

Because having deep techinicaly understanding of computer software & telepresense systems is necessary for the president of a mechnical manufacturing company? for the president of a fertilizer company? for the president of an automotive company? Even though auto companies use CAD programs extensively doesn't mean the president needs to know how to use it, maybe he used to make car models out of clay (which they still do), maybe he is best at knowing what customers want and analyzing business stuff, maybe he is a negotiator - none of those require technical skills in every field.

I know some network engineers who can't make a decent "powerpoint-style" presentation to save their lives - but the management at their companies have never fired them because they 'don't know their ass from a hole in the ground', they continue to employ them becuase they are good at the specific stuff their job is about.

This is the wrong place to ask

[Johnboi Waltune]

The building I work in is full of very bright engineers, IT folks, and PhDs. For our main conference room, we just outsourced everything to a professional design firm. For a substantial fee, they did a bang-up job.

It sounds like we would have been able to leverage some of the technical genius we have around here, but putting together a world-class conference room is much, much more about usability and interior design than technology. So much so, that Slashdot isn't even the right place to be asking about it.

First part of the problem is usability. Engineers do not typically understand how to make things easy to use, because they have a much higher tolerance for complexity than the average person. An engineer figures stuff out and gets the job done no matter what. They hardly even notice when something is hard to use or a user interface is clunky. A difficulty that would be a showstopper for a regular user is just background static to an engineer.

Then there is the other side of the problem: the interior design and looks. The average engineer has a superior IQ, but can barely match his belt with his shoes. There is no way they could pick out a color scheme, lighting, furniture, chairs, podiums, desks, etc., and have it all look professional and attractive. People go to school for years to learn how to do that successfully; it is such an intricate and intuitive discipline that most of us cannot even appreciate how difficult it is. We tend to think of interior designers as non-essential and trivial people, but they are very skilled and valuable when needed. I know people who are so technologically inept they cannot send an email even with extensive coaching, yet their house looks straight out of an interior design magazine.

If you want a good conference room, you do need nerds for the equipment selection, installation, and configuration, but they must be kept on a tight leash, subordinate to the interior designers. Engineers are a curious, helpful folk and probably won't be able to understand why they're a liability to the rest of the project.

Re:jedi council

[doormat]

Yea, but you have to remember the distance required. They were chatting in real time, with no noticable lag over a very long distance (from the near center of the galaxy to planets on the outer rim). I suppose that they had to sacrafice high-resolution holographic images to get them to transmit with such low latency.

Very difficult problem...

[cr0sh]

I would first off like to "second" the opinions of those here who say "hire someone", but I would also like to throw my ideas out as well...

First off, plan for the number and type of users: how many (maximum) and whether these will be meeting attendees, training attendees, roundtable discussion attendees, etc. Knowing this information is vital to determining which room you will be situating the system in, the size of the room, the size of the table(s), the layout of everything, and the audio/visual/network requirements.

If you are planning on running meetings or rountables, mainly, then a standard long "boardroom" approach might work, but consider other options which might be more flexible. At one place I worked at, we had a room that worked well for training and large meetings which was set up as a "stadium" style raised platform workstations (that is, four tiered rows of "tables") with a rear-projected screen and surround sound system. It worked rather well for both meetings and training. There were identically configured PCs for all of the users (ghosted systems), and the trainer could "take over" one or all the machines for training purposes. With the raised platforms, everybody could see the screen without people's heads blocking it, and rear projection eliminated the "hairdo" blocking problem as well. Wires were hidden, and everything looked nice. However, it wasn't conducive to a "roundtable" meeting, because of the "straight" layout (you need a more circular layout for this) - the best compromise, if you have the space, then, is to use a "horseshoe" shaped, tiered layout for the users, with a central (or off to the side, or moveable) presentation podium/dais for the presenter, and a rear projected screen or large plasma screen.

Audio needs also should be thought of - for most uses, I would say ditch the idea of a stereo or surround system, and go for a clear sounding monophonic PA system, with wireless microphones (handheld, lapel, and perhaps headset). Mount several speakers in the ceiling and up front (near or behind the screen) so that everyone can hear equally well.

If you must use a front projection system, keep colors in mind, as well as the brightness of the projector. If the projector is overly bright, and you use light wall coloring, there might be glare issues. Perhaps, use a darker paint for the wall surrounding the screen...

Remember to have adjustable (dimmable) lights for the general room, perhaps with a spotlight or two for the front (to illuminate the presenter), as well as perhaps lights on the podium, and maybe individual lights for each user.

Give users enough room to be comfortable and actually work. In a "working meeting" this is doubly important. For network access, provide wireless connectivity. Try to eliminate wires as much as is practical and possible. Where it isn't, try to hide the wires. Also note that for video conferencing, you may want to have the PC grabbing the video be on a dedicated wired connection. You may also want this machine to be wholly separate from the machine doing the presentation (not always necessary, though - and sometimes, you will want both integrated together for collaboration).

Remember to set up for a wireless presentation mouse, and train your users how to use it. Get one with an integrated laser pointer. Something that I thought of, but I haven't seen (and I have too many projects to try to build one) is the idea of a "laser marker" for the screen - how often have you seen someone use a laser pointer to "circle" or "draw" around areas on a powerpoint presentation? Imagine if you could actually leave a "line" on the screen (a virtual marker)? A laser pointer, with the mouse button, with a camera focused on the screen and software tracking the dot of light...this kind of application has to already exist - if it doesn't, think of the possibilities...?

Provide comfortable chairs (they don't have to be expensive, but they should be fairly nice looking and comfortable to sit in and work in for 1-2 hour periods),

Re:jedi council

[Knara]

I never really understood (yes, I understand it was ultimately a stylistic choice to retain the FX that were in place 20 years ago) why a galactic society would have such a problem with video and audio quality in their communications.