November 2022

The Total Economic Impact™ Of Microsoft Teams Rooms For Small And Midsize Businesses

Cost Savings And Business Benefits Enabled By Microsoft Teams Rooms

Microsoft logo

A Forrester Total Economic Impact™ Study Commissioned By Microsoft, November 2022

Table Of Contents

With Microsoft Teams Rooms devices, small and midsize businesses (SMBs) can make hybrid meetings seamless, easy, and inclusive. The devices can help improve employee productivity and enhance collaboration during meetings. And because the devices are often easier to use than legacy technologies, IT teams save time as well. Microsoft Teams Rooms devices can help SMBs embrace hybrid work.

Microsoft Teams Rooms are meeting spaces with hardware — cameras, microphones, displays, and other devices — optimized for Microsoft Teams. Microsoft Teams Rooms can create inclusive and interactive hybrid meetings that bridge the gap between in-person and remote attendees. The devices support meeting rooms of any size — from large conference rooms to small focus or huddle rooms.

Small and midsize businesses must successfully manage many of the same collaboration challenges that face larger enterprises. Recent Forrester survey data reports that more than 70% of knowledge workers at SMBs collaborate daily with colleagues in different locations.1 The data also shows that almost half of all meetings at SMBs are either fully virtual or hybrid with both in-person and remote attendees.2

Microsoft commissioned Forrester Consulting to conduct a Total Economic Impact™ (TEI) study and examine the potential return on investment (ROI) organizations may realize by deploying Microsoft Teams Rooms.3 The purpose of this study is to provide readers with a framework to evaluate the potential financial impact of Microsoft Teams Rooms on their organizations.

To better understand the benefits, costs, and risks associated with this investment, Forrester interviewed four representatives at organizations with experience using Microsoft Teams Rooms. For the purposes of this study, Forrester aggregated the interviewees’ experiences and combined the results into a single composite organization with 200 employees.

According to the interviewees, before their organizations installed Microsoft Teams Rooms, hybrid meetings were plagued by problems. Meeting attendees often lost time to technical issues, and they struggled to collaborate. Meeting hosts were frustrated by myriad conference room technologies, and attendees who were remote were often second- class participants. The organizations sought to implement an easy-to-use solution that would improve the hybrid meeting experience.

The interviewees said that after their organizations invested in Microsoft Teams Rooms, the number of meetings disrupted or delayed by technical issues fell by 30%. Because remote participants were successfully included in Microsoft Teams Rooms meetings, the investment supported hybrid work at the organizations. Finally, IT also saved hours per week because Microsoft Teams Rooms were easier to use and support than the organizations’ prior technologies.

Consulting Team: Jeffrey Yozwiak, Zahra Azzaoui

Key Statistics

  • icon
    ROI
    222%
  • icon
    Benefits PV
    $134K
  • icon
    NPV
    $93K
  • icon
    Payback
    10 months

Key Findings

Quantified benefits.
Three-year, risk-adjusted present value (PV) quantified benefits for the composite organization include:

  • Employees save time during meetings due to fewer delays and disruptions.

    Microsoft Teams Rooms prevent up to 30% of the technical issues that interrupt meetings — e.g., delays due confusing conference room technology. Thus, meetings start on time and remain high-quality for their duration.

  • Hybrid employees’ productivity increases because they travel 50% less frequently.

    Microsoft Teams Rooms help remote attendees feel included and allow them to fully participate in meetings. In Microsoft Teams Rooms, hybrid meetings are as effective, collaborative, and productive as meetings that used to require in- person attendance. As a result, hybrid employees commute to the office less frequently, saving time that they use to be more productive at work.

  • IT spends 93% less time supporting Microsoft Teams Rooms, saving tens of hours per week.

    With Microsoft Teams Rooms, IT support technicians receive far fewer calls to help employees with the technology in meeting rooms. IT is also able to remotely monitor some devices, reducing administration and maintenance time.

Unquantified benefits.
Benefits that provide value for the composite organization but are not quantified in this study include:

  • Built-in security.

    Because Microsoft Teams Rooms use Microsoft’s security solutions, securing meetings is easy.

  • Inclusivity.

    Microsoft Teams Rooms help to equalize participants — whether in person or remote.

  • Professionalism.

    Microsoft Teams Rooms offer SMBs a hybrid meeting experience previously available only at larger companies.

Costs.
Three-year, risk-adjusted PV costs for the composite organization include:

  • Microsoft Teams Rooms devices for four meeting rooms — one large room, one medium room, and two focus rooms — total an estimated $21,000.

    A large room supports 20 in-person attendees; a medium room supports 10 in-person attendees; and a focus room support 5 in-person attendees. Microsoft Teams Rooms devices include video displays, microphones, cameras, etc., as appropriate to each room.

  • Installation of devices totals $18,000.

    The organization hires a service provider to professionally mount and set up the devices in the meeting rooms.

  • IT setup time totals $3,000.

    IT spends time configuring the devices to the organization’s needs (e.g., permissions, security, etc.). This is a relatively light one-time cost.

The representative interviews and financial analysis found that a composite organization experiences benefits of $134,000 over three years versus costs of $42,000, adding up to a net present value (NPV) of $93,000 and an ROI of 222%.

“[Microsoft Teams Rooms] seamlessly bring the team together. Everyone can jump into the same room and be together — either physically or virtually. The real power of [Microsoft] Teams Rooms is that you don’t have be in that room to be in that room.”

CTO and EVP of operations, technology

Benefits (Three-Year)

Employee productivity during meetings Travel time saved after embracing hybrid work IT team productivity

TEI Framework And Methodology

From the information provided in the interviews, Forrester constructed a Total Economic Impact™ framework for those organizations considering an investment in Microsoft Teams Rooms.

The objective of the framework is to identify the cost, benefit, flexibility, and risk factors that affect the investment decision. Forrester took a multistep approach to evaluate the impact that Microsoft Teams Rooms can have on an organization.

  • icon
    DUE DILIGENCE

    Interviewed Microsoft stakeholders and Forrester analysts to gather data relative to Microsoft Teams Rooms.

  • icon
    INTERVIEWS

    Interviewed four representatives at organizations using Microsoft Teams Rooms to obtain data with respect to costs, benefits, and risks.

  • icon
    COMPOSITE ORGANIZATION

    Designed a composite organization based on characteristics of the interviewees’ organizations.

  • icon
    FINANCIAL MODEL FRAMEWORK

    Constructed a financial model representative of the interviews using the TEI methodology and risk-adjusted the financial model based on issues and concerns of the interviewees.

  • icon
    CASE STUDY

    Employed four fundamental elements of TEI in modeling the investment impact: benefits, costs, flexibility, and risks. Given the increasing sophistication of ROI analyses related to IT investments, Forrester’s TEI methodology provides a complete picture of the total economic impact of purchase decisions. Please see Appendix A or additional information on the TEI methodology.

DISCLOSURES

Readers should be aware of the following:

This study is commissioned by Microsoft and delivered by Forrester Consulting. It is not meant to be used as a competitive analysis.

Forrester makes no assumptions as to the potential ROI that other organizations will receive. Forrester strongly advises that readers use their own estimates within the framework provided in the study to determine the appropriateness of an investment in Microsoft Teams Rooms.

Microsoft reviewed and provided feedback to Forrester, but Forrester maintains editorial control over the study and its findings and does not accept changes to the study that contradict Forrester’s findings or obscure the meaning of the study.

Microsoft did not participate in the interviews.

NEXT SECTION: The Microsoft Teams Rooms Customer Journey

Interviews

Role Industry Region Employees Rooms With Microsoft Teams Rooms Devices Time Implemented
Executive director Professional services Headquartered in North America with global operations 210 2 large conference rooms 3+ years
Chief technology officer and executive vice president of operations Professional services Headquartered in North America with regional operations 225 2 large conference rooms 1 to 2 years
Chief technology officer Technology Headquartered in North America with global operations 200 1 large conference room, 1 medium conference room, and 4 focus rooms 1 to 2 years
Chief information security officer and senior vice president of IT Finance Headquartered in North America with global operations 150 to 200 1 large conference room and 2 focus rooms 3+ years

Key Challenges

Before they invested in Microsoft Teams rooms, interviewees’ organizations expected employees to bring their laptops to connect to in-room displays and peripherals. The organizations also used multiple videoconferencing platforms. These varied setups were confusing for attendees and challenging for IT to support.

Interviewees reported the following:

  • Frequent technical issues were frustrating and time-consuming — for both meeting attendees and IT.

    Meeting participants struggled to start and run their meetings. An executive director in the professional services industry said: “Prior to the Microsoft Teams Rooms setups, [our meeting room technology] was very cumbersome and very difficult to figure out. ... There was always confusion and chaos. ... [And] when COVID started, [the technology] was a big challenge: half the people not being able to join the meetings, connectivity issues, Internet problems at home....”

    Similarly, the organizations’ small IT teams struggled to support the wide variety of technologies. For example, the chief information security officer (CISO) and senior vice president (SVP) of IT in finance said: “[In terms of] meeting [technology], we had everything. ... It was impossible to manage ... and supporting [users] was always a pain in the keister.”

  • Poor audio/video (A/V) quality reduced the efficacy of both internal and external meetings.

    Before the COVID-19 pandemic, some meetings — such as high-bandwidth collaboration sessions or meetings with clients — were only held in person. This was true even at organizations that permitted remote work because their prior meeting technology did not support high levels of engagement from remote attendees.

    After the COVID-19 pandemic had begun, the organizations tried to replicate the efficacy of in- person meetings in new remote and hybrid formats. They tested multiple technologies before Microsoft Teams Rooms, but they found that the other platforms did not meet their needs.

    For example, the executive director said: "When we started and didn’t have [Microsoft Teams] Rooms, we received a lot of escalations [and complaints] from clients that meetings with them were not working, and we needed to find another way."

    Similarly, the chief technology officer (CTO) and executive vice president (EVP) of operations said: “Quality was important for us — and not necessarily for board meetings (although that was true), but also for customer meetings. ... We started with [other devices], but we pretty quickly realized that [the quality] was not sufficient for my board nor even really for my executive team to interact with employees.”

Investment Objectives

The COVID-19 pandemic spurred the interviewees’ organizations to find ways to better support hybrid and remote work. The organizations searched for a solution that could:

  • Increase collaboration and productivity during meetings.

    The executive director said: “We needed more collaborative sessions between teams. ... We do a lot of work upfront with our clients — design, vision mapping, roadmapping — we have sessions with the leadership team and a lot of people from business. So we ventured into [Teams Rooms] to make those sessions more productive [when hybrid].”

    In the same vein, the CTO and EVP of operations said: “[Microsoft Teams Rooms] is a much better collaboration platform. The full duplex [sound] is better with Teams. ... The audio is clear, and the video is clear. The quality of the video and audio has always been exceptional, and it is especially good with [these devices].”

    The CTO in the technology industry said: “We went through an era of people bringing their own laptops and then just [sharing] their screens to the displays. There was also a lot of shoulder surfing going on. ... Then, at one point, we took a step back and [decided to] professionalize our spaces.”

  • Be deployed and used easily.

    The CISO and SVP of IT said: “[Employees would be] comfortable [with Microsoft Teams Rooms] from a technology perspective [because] we’re a Windows shop. ... And [the devices] had to be easy from a user’s standpoint to set up and get to work. ... The chief sales officer was my pilot user. He set up the [first Microsoft Teams Rooms device] himself. So that was another big criteria — that IT could support [the devices] remotely, and that they wouldn’t be so complicated that local users couldn’t make them work quickly and easily.”

    The CISO and SVP of IT also explained: “Cost was on my list of requirements, but it wasn’t at the top. ... If any hardware solutions didn’t meet my must-have requirements, we just crossed them off our list.”

After trialing multiple meeting room technologies, the organizations decided to invest in Microsoft Teams Rooms. They all deployed Microsoft Teams Rooms devices in one or more large conference rooms — rooms that could accommodate 20 people or more. These spaces could be used for team meetings (large and small), companywide meetings, board meetings, and client meetings. Two organizations also installed Microsoft Teams Rooms devices in smaller rooms that could accommodate about five people. These breakout or huddle rooms were to be used for smaller collaborative sessions.

“[The devices] are all optimized for and compatible with Teams as the de facto. [So] it’s a lot easier to manage them. ... They just all work with Teams very well. ... It was an easy investment. It was an easy decision to make.”

CTO and EVP of operations, professional services

Composite Organization

Based on the interviews, Forrester constructed a TEI framework, a composite company, and an ROI analysis that illustrates the areas financially affected. The composite organization is representative of the four interviewees’ organizations, and it is used to present the aggregate financial analysis in the next section. The composite organization has the following characteristics:

  • Description of composite.

    The composite organization is an SMB with 200 employees. The organization’s headquarters are in North America, and it has several satellite offices. Headcount is growing by 5% per year.

    Before the COVID-19 pandemic, employees primarily worked in the organization’s headquarters or satellite offices. However, since the COVID-19 pandemic, employees have begun to request hybrid or remote work arrangements. This is especially true for new hires. Although many employees do use the offices full-time, a slight majority prefer hybrid work — i.e., a few days per week in the office. The organization wants to support these employees and increase productivity and engagement across its distributed workforce.

  • Deployment characteristics.

    The composite organization installs Microsoft Teams Rooms devices in four spaces: one large conference room for 20 or more people; one medium room for 10 people; and two focus rooms for up to five people. A third-party service provider delivers and installs the hardware in the rooms. Afterward, the composite organization’s small IT team configures and maintains the devices and supports users. On average, employees use each meeting room for 10 hours per week and for a variety of purposes: customer meetings, board meetings, team meetings, and collaborative huddle sessions.

Key Assumptions
  • 200 employees
  • 1 large room (20 people)
  • 1 medium room (10 people)
  • 2 focus rooms (5 people)
NEXT SECTION: Analysis Of Benefits

Total Benefits

Ref. Benefit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Present Value
Atr Employee productivity during meetings $18,304 $19,677 $21,050 $59,030 $48,717
Btr Travel time saved after embracing hybrid work $11,898 $12,538 $13,179 $37,615 $31,080
Ctr IT team productivity $21,902 $21,902 $21,902 $65,707 $54,468
Total benefits (risk-adjusted) $52,104 $54,117 $56,131 $162,352 $134,265
“[Microsoft Teams Rooms] just helped us be much more productive.”

Executive director, professional services

Employee Productivity During Meetings

  • Evidence and data.

    Interviewees reported that Microsoft Teams Rooms eliminated many of the technical issues that used to delay and disrupt their meetings. Interviewees estimated saving between 3 and 15 minutes per meeting — which added up to significant savings across their organizations. The interviewees noted two sources of time savings.

    First, meetings started on time. Before Microsoft Teams Rooms, meetings were often delayed for several minutes as participants struggled with conference room technology and waited for IT assistance. In contrast, using Microsoft Teams Rooms was — in the words of the CTO and EVP of operations — “seamless,” “elegant,” and “professional.”

    • The CTO in the technology industry said: “There has been a productivity lift because there [used to be] that 5-minute, ‘What am I doing in this room and how do I make it work?’ thing. And [Teams Rooms] has taken that down. ... So far, we haven’t really had those headaches with [Teams Rooms], so there’s been a slight productivity lift at the beginnings and ends of meetings.”
    • The executive director said: “We’d typically waste 5 to 10 minutes waiting for people to join the meetings. The hosts would have to chase them down. ... On a team of 10, there were typically two or three people running into [technical] issues. ... But I feel like [Microsoft Teams Rooms] have made that much better.”

  • Additionally, the interviewees said that there were fewer disruptions during the meetings themselves.

    • The CISO and SVP of IT said: “We haven’t seen any issues like performance degradation or people being locked out of calls. We haven’t had those issues. ... The equipment works — it’s much more stable — and the software works.”
    • The CTO and EVP of operations also said: “[Microsoft Teams Rooms] typically don’t have those [technical] issues. ... The quality is much better.”
  • Modeling and assumptions.

    Based on the interviewee data, Forrester assumes the following for the composite organization:

    • The composite organization has four meeting spaces with Microsoft Teams Rooms devices: one large room (seating 20 people), one medium room (seating 10 people), and two focus rooms (seating five people each).
    • On average, meetings are attended by the maximum number of people the space can hold. E.g., meetings in focus rooms have five people on average, although some participants may be in-person and some remote.
    • In Year 1, each room is occupied for an average of 10 hours per week. In Years 2 and 3, the large and medium rooms are used more as the composite organization uses them for activities other than meetings — e.g., team activities, group gatherings, events, presentations, and alternative workspaces.
    • An average meeting is 1 hour long.
    • Before Microsoft Teams Rooms, 30% of meetings are disrupted or delayed by technical issues that Microsoft Teams Rooms later prevents — e.g., trouble joining and hosting meetings, sharing content, etc.
    • The average meeting disruption is 8 minutes long.
    • Employees capture and productively use 50% of the time they save. (E.g., employees may spend some of the time saved discussing topics unrelated to the meetings. This is normal for knowledge workers.)
    • The average employee base salary is $84,000, with additional benefits worth 35% of base compensation.
    • There are 52 work weeks and 2,080 work hours in a year.
  • Risks.

    The assumptions with the greatest variability in Forrester’s model are:

    • Meeting room utilization (e.g., focus room utilization in particular is highly variable).
    • Percentage of meetings disrupted by technical issues.
    • Average time lost per technical issue.

    These factors are most likely to vary from organization to organization. For example, some organizations may lose more or less time to technical issues; some organizations may have more or fewer meetings; etc.

  • Results.

    To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 20%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of nearly $49,000.

“Microsoft Teams Rooms specifically have given us the ability to get back together face- to-face, and not just when we’re in the office.”

CTO and EVP of operations, professional services

“The simplicity: Somebody can go into a room, get a meeting up and cooking — with multiple people in the room and multiple people scattered around the world — all without worrying. ... That ability for self-service is huge and cannot be overstated. [Someone] can set up a call [and] get it up and running, all without needing to chase me down. It’s not complicated. Everybody can do it.”

CISO and SVP of IT, finance

figure

Employee Productivity During Meetings

Ref. Metric Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
A1 Number of large rooms Composite 1 1 1
A2 Large rooms: average employees per meeting Composite 20 20 20
A3 Large rooms: average utilization (hours per week) Composite 10 11 12
A4 Number of medium rooms Composite 1 1 1
A5 Medium rooms: average employees per meeting Composite 10 10 10
A6 Medium rooms: average utilization (hours per week) Composite 10 11 12
A7 Number of focus rooms Composite 2 2 2
A8 Focus rooms: average employees per meeting Composite 5 5 5
A9 Focus rooms: average utilization (hours per week) Composite 10 10 10
A10 Work weeks per year TEI standard 52 52 52
A11 Total meeting room utilization (hours per year) (A1*A2*A3+A4*A5*A6+A7*A8*A9)*A10 20,800 22,360 23,920
A12 Percentage of meeting time disrupted by issues prevented by Microsoft Teams Rooms Interviews 30% 30% 30%
A13 Average time lost per issue (minutes) Interviews 8 8 8
A14 Total employee time saved after Microsoft Teams Rooms (hours per year) A11*A12*A13/60 832 894 957
A15 Percentage of saved time used productively TEI standard 50% 50% 50%
A16 Average employee fully burdened hourly rate TEI standard $55 $55 $55
At Employee productivity during meetings A14*A15*A16 $22,880 $24,596 $26,312
Risk adjustment ↓20%
Atr Employee productivity during meetings (risk-adjusted) $18,304 $19,677 $21,050
Three-year total: $59,030 Three-year present value: $48,717
“[Teams Rooms] is a much more elegant solution to collaboration. ... It’s become a seamless platform for our people to collaborate.”

CTO and EVP of operations, professional services

Travel Time Saved After Embracing Hybrid Work

  • Evidence and data.

    Using Microsoft Teams Rooms, the interviewees’ organizations migrated meetings that previously had been in-person only to a hybrid format. The quality of Microsoft Teams Rooms meetings — e.g., the level of collaboration between attendees — was sufficiently high that leadership felt comfortable relaxing requirements for employees to attend meetings in person. Similarly, employees who were remote reported feeling like full participants. As the organizations embraced hybrid meetings, employees commuted less frequently and used the time saved to be more productive at work.

    According to interviewees, Microsoft Teams Rooms enabled a high degree of collaboration between in- person and remote employees.

    • The CTO and EVP of operations said: “With our implementation of Microsoft Teams Rooms and the [devices], we have an elegant solution to get together and sit in the same room. ... It’s easy to talk, we’re not talking over one another, it’s [on both displays], etc. I don’t think we could have gotten that experience with a different collaboration tool.”
    • The interviewee continued: “[Microsoft Teams Rooms] really is a full-circle or collaboration lifecycle tool for us. I can initiate an interaction with a simple chat and end up with a collaborative work plan that can get memorialized in a document that everyone can have access to. ... Those types of things increase productivity across the board, no matter who we’re looking at.”
    • The CTO in the technology industry said: “[Microsoft Teams Rooms] helps you go up from the level of a personal productivity session to a meeting session — just like that [snapping fingers]. I think that’s big. That workflow is killer.”

    Interviewees described Microsoft Teams Rooms meetings as inclusive, especially for remote employees.

    • The CTO in the technology industry said: “I’ve actually had people say, ‘It’s great that you built these Microsoft Teams Rooms. It shows that you care about us when we’re in our homes [because] we can still hear what’s going on.’ ... We’ve definitely gotten benefits that way — the cultural embracing of the hybrid workplace.”
    • The CISO and SVP of IT said: “It definitely increased our comfort level with hybrid work. ... From my perspective as an executive, the meetings feel cohesive. I don’t feel that major drop-off in connection with the [remote] folks. ... There’s definitely that feeling of having everybody engaged in that call. ... But also, from the [remote] employee’s perspective, they feel like they’re part of the meeting. They’re the same as everybody else. The look and feel is the same.”

    Finally, interviewees observed increased employee productivity once their organizations switched to hybrid work.

    • The executive director said: “We’re getting much more productive because we cut down on commute time.” In the executive director’s organization, 90% of employees were either hybrid or fully remote.
    • The CISO and SVP of IT said that 65% of employees now visited the office one to three times per week.

    Although the interviewees’ organizations embraced hybrid work for many reasons, the interviewees attributed part of hybrid work’s success to their investments in Microsoft Teams Rooms.

  • Modeling and assumptions.

    Based on the interviewee data, Forrester assumes the following for the composite organization:

    • The composite organization has 200 employees in Year 1, and headcount grows by 5% per year.
    • 65% of employees are either hybrid or fully remote.
    • Before the composite organization embraces hybrid work, employees are in the office four days per week on average.
    • After the composite organization embraces hybrid work, employees are in the office two days per week on average.
    • Employees’ average one-way travel time to the office is 30 minutes.4
    • Employees spend 10% of the avoided travel time on work tasks.5
    • Twenty percent of this benefit is attributable to Microsoft Teams Rooms. Many factors influence the organization’s decision to embrace hybrid work. However, knowing that Microsoft Teams Rooms meetings are as productive as in-person meetings helps persuade executives.
  • Risks.

    The assumptions with the greatest variability in Forrester’s model are:

    • Percentage of employees working remotely or hybrid.
    • Average days in the office before and after embracing hybrid work.
    • Average employee travel time to the office.

    These factors are most likely to vary from organization to organization. For example, remote or hybrid work may be more common in some industries and roles than others; average travel time to the office may vary by location; etc.

  • Results.

    To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 20%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV of $31,000.

“It helped give leadership the comfort level to say, ‘OK, we know [hybrid work] is going to work.’ Now we’re doing it, and we’ve been doing it for two years, and the experience has been positive.”

CISO and SVP of IT, finance

figure

Replacing In-Person Meetings With Hybrid Meetings In Microsoft Teams Rooms

At all the organizations, hybrid meetings in Microsoft Teams Rooms replaced important meetings that had previously only held in person.

The executive director said their organization used Microsoft Teams Rooms for multiday planning sessions with 150 or more attendees, including clients. The organization’s headquarters has two large conference rooms equipped with Microsoft Teams Rooms devices. The executive director said that before Microsoft Teams Rooms, the organization had booked hotels or other large spaces for these events. The executive director said, “With Microsoft Teams Rooms, you can have better personal connections [than you would with other technologies].” They added, “My clients are very happy because they see the output.”

The CTO and EVP of operations said that their organization used Microsoft Teams Rooms for board meetings: “My board was in a [Microsoft Teams Room] in Boston, and we were in a [Microsoft Teams Room] in Boulder, and that created a good, very elegant board meeting.”

The CTO and EVP of operations also described using Microsoft Teams Rooms with clients: “[The team lead] was able to be present [with clients] without being [physically] present. I could drive by and drop into the Room. [The Microsoft Teams Room] personalizes the experience, especially for the remote folks and for the customers. ... You’re able to do those things that create more personal experiences, which preserves relationships.”

Travel Time Saved After Embracing Hybrid Work

Ref. Metric Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
B1 Total employees Composite 200 210 221
B2 Percentage of employees working remotely or hybrid after Microsoft Teams Rooms Composite 65% 65% 65%
B3 Employees working remotely or hybrid after Microsoft Teams Rooms B1*B2 130 137 144
B4 Average employee time in the office before embracing hybrid work (days per week) Composite 4 4 4
B5 Average employee time in the office after embracing hybrid work (days per week) Interviews 2 2 2
B6 Average one-way travel time to the office (minutes per trip) Composite 30 30 30
B7 Work weeks per year TEI standard 52 52 52
B8 Total employee travel time avoided after embracing hybrid work (hours per year) B3*(B4-B5)*B6*2/60*B7 13,520 14,248 14,976
B9 Percentage of time saved spent on work tasks Composite 10% 10% 10%
B10 Percentage of benefit attributed to Microsoft Teams Rooms Interviews 20% 20% 20%
B11 Average employee fully burdened hourly rate A16 $55 $55 $55
Bt Travel time saved after embracing hybrid work B8*B9*B10*B11 $14,872 $15,673 $16,474
Risk adjustment ↓20%
Btr Travel time saved after embracing hybrid work (risk-adjusted) $11,898 $12,538 $13,179
Three-year total: $37,615 Three-year present value: $31,080
“It’s easy to create an ad hoc meeting. It’s easy to say, ‘Hey, who’s in headquarters right now? Let’s all meet in the conference room [with Microsoft Teams Rooms devices].’ It’s just easy.”

CTO and EVP of operations, professional services

IT Team Productivity

  • Evidence and data.

    Interviewees said that their IT teams spent less time supporting Microsoft Teams Rooms than their prior conference room technology. According to the interviewees, Microsoft Teams Rooms were both easier for IT to administer and easier for employees to use.

    • The CISO and SVP of IT said: “Simplicity was another soft benefit. [We have] a standard and simple set of instructions [in every Microsoft Teams Room]. People walk [into a Microsoft Teams Room] and know exactly what they’re dealing with.”

      he interviewee continued: “From a workload perspective, [supporting our old conference rooms] took about 4 hours per week in each of our three major sites around the world. So about 12 hours per week dropped down to under an hour [with Microsoft Teams Rooms].”

      The interviewee also said that even setting up the Microsoft Teams Rooms device was easy: “I was able to tell the head of sales in [another office], ‘Here’s the device I recommend. Go buy it. Plug it in.’ And boom! It worked. It’s a huge win when leadership can do that stuff on their own.”

  • Modeling and assumptions.

    The interviewee also said that even setting up the Microsoft Teams Rooms device was easy: “I was able to tell the head of sales in [another office], ‘Here’s the device I recommend. Go buy it. Plug it in.’ And boom! It worked. It’s a huge win when leadership can do that stuff on their own.”

    • Before Microsoft Teams Rooms, IT support technicians spend 3.5 hours per meeting room per week supporting the technology. Technicians help set up for meetings, troubleshoot, perform regular maintenance (e.g., check the rooms to ensure the technology is ready for upcoming meetings), etc.
    • After Microsoft Teams Rooms, IT support technicians spend 15 minutes per meeting room per week. Technicians help employees set up for meetings much less frequently, and they also save time with the devices’ remote-monitoring features.
    • The average IT support technician base salary is $55,000, with additional benefits worth 35% of base compensation.
    • IT support technicians capture and productively use 100% of the time they save. (Unlike other knowledge workers at the organization, IT technicians simply move onto the next tasks in their support queues.)
  • Risks.

    The assumption with the greatest variability in Forrester’s model is:

    • Time IT spends supporting old meeting room technology before Microsoft Teams Rooms. This is likely to vary from organization to organization depending on, e.g., the specific technology in place before Microsoft Teams Rooms.
  • Results.

    To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV of more than $54,000.

“The meeting startup is easy — you just tap the panel and go. ... That adds up pretty quickly, and the frustration has gone away.”

CTO, technology

figure

IT Team Productivity

Ref. Metric Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
C1 IT support time per meeting room before Microsoft Teams Rooms (hours per week) Interviews 3.50 3.50 3.50
C2 IT support time per meeting room after Microsoft Teams Rooms (hours per week) Interviews 0.25 0.25 0.25
C3 Number of meeting rooms with Microsoft Teams Rooms devices A1+A4+A7 4 4 4
C4 Work weeks per year TEI standard 52 52 52
C5 Total IT support time saved after Microsoft Teams Rooms (hours per year) (C1-C2)*C3*C4 676 676 676
C6 Average IT support technician fully-burdened hourly rate Composite $36 $36 $36
Ct IT team productivity C5*C6 $24,336 $24,336 $24,336
Risk adjustment ↓10%
Ctr IT team productivity (risk-adjusted) $21,902 $21,902 $21,902
Three-year total: $65,707 Three-year present value: $54,468

Unquantified Benefits

Interviewees mentioned the following additional benefits that their organizations experienced but were not able to quantify:

  • Built-in security.

    Interviewees appreciated that Microsoft Teams Rooms used Microsoft security solutions, removing a concern for IT.

    • The CISO and SVP of IT said: “Security was another aspect of it ... standard things like multifactor authentication, end- to-end encryption, group policies, and things like that. [Microsoft Teams Rooms] just made everything a lot easier, so that was really a driver from a security perspective.”
    • The CTO and EVP of operations said: “If you recall, when the pandemic started, there were all of these squatters on calls [on other platforms]. I haven’t seen or read about that with [Teams Rooms]. ... It is easy to share our screens in a secure fashion, and multifactor authentication is fully embedded. ... I just feel like [security] became easy.”
  • Inclusivity.

    The executive director said: “You always have the folks who are pretty shy ... who don’t want to speak up. These [Microsoft Teams] Rooms have given us an advantage to drive more participation from folks and make them more comfortable on these newer technologies. ... I’ve seen drastic changes in people.”

Flexibility

The value of flexibility is unique to each customer. There are multiple scenarios in which a customer might implement Microsoft Teams Rooms and later realize additional uses and business opportunities, including:

  • Increased professionalism.

    Interviewees felt that Microsoft Teams Rooms enhanced their organizations’ images during important meetings with customers and prospects. The CTO in the technology industry said: “[Microsoft Teams Rooms] professionalizes the approach to the meeting. It’s much better than shoulder surfing around a laptop or using a laptop camera. And it just shows that we’re professional when we’re on a call with some of the customers we have — who are definitely much bigger and more important than us.”

Flexibility would also be quantified when evaluated as part of a specific project (described in more detail in Appendix A).

“Teams quickly became our dominant internal collaboration platform due to its integration with SharePoint and other [software]. And Teams [is] now our externally facing collaboration vehicle as well. ... I wish I could tell you that we had a grand plan, but Teams [was] selected by our users due to its quality, integrations, ease of use, etc. ... It just evolved that way; there was no directive from management. [Teams] is just a better tool, at least for us.”

CTO and EVP of operations, professional services

NEXT SECTION: Analysis Of Costs

Total Costs

Ref. Costs Initial Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Present Value
Dtr Microsoft Teams Rooms devices $20,900 $0 $0 $0 $20,900 $20,900
Etr Installation of devices and other hardware $17,600 $0 $0 $0 $17,600 $17,600
Ftr IT setup and configuration time for rooms and devices $3,168 $0 $0 $0 $3,168 $3,168
Total costs (risk-adjusted) $41,668 $0 $0 $0 $41,668 $41,668
“It’s an investment, but it’s one that employees have recognized. [Microsoft Teams Rooms] up- levels the meeting.”

CTO, technology

Microsoft Teams Rooms Devices

  • Evidence and data.

    The interviewees noted that Microsoft Teams Rooms hardware was an investment, but they believed the investment was worthwhile because the devices created a premium meeting experience and were easy to administer.

    • The CISO and SVP of IT said: “From a hardware perspective, we had to have the right tools in place. We didn’t spare any expense.” The interviewee said that the Microsoft Teams Rooms devices had features that were unavailable with other hardware options. “Having the video on multiple screens [and] the whiteboard ability — those things were big wins.”
  • Modeling and assumptions.

    Based on the interviewee data, Forrester assumes the following for the composite organization:

    • The composite organization invests in Microsoft Teams Rooms devices — including video displays, cameras, microphones, etc. — as appropriate for each meeting room’s size and intended usage.
    • The composite organization pays around $8,000 for devices for its large room, around $5,000 for devices for its medium room, and around $3,000 for devices for each of its focus rooms.
    • The hardware costs do not include installation — e.g., mounting the video displays on walls, installing the cameras and microphones in appropriate locations, etc. This work is a separate cost.
    • The composite organization invests in all four rooms simultaneously (before Year 1 in the financial model).
  • Risks.

    The assumptions with the greatest variability in Forrester’s model are:

    • The size and number of Microsoft Teams Rooms.
    • The costs of Microsoft Teams Rooms devices.
    • The timing of the investment.

    These factors are likely to vary from organization to organization. For example, different combinations of Microsoft Teams Rooms will be appropriate for different organizations depending on the meeting spaces available, intended usage, etc.

    In addition, device costs will vary depending on the specific models and capabilities that organizations select as well as for other reasons such as local taxes, shipping costs, etc.

    Organizations may find it helpful to consult with a service provider or Microsoft partner before implementation.

  • Results.

    To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 10%, yielding a three- year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $21,000.

figure

Microsoft Teams Rooms Devices

Ref Metric Source Initial Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
D1 Number of large rooms A1 1 1 1 1
D2 Estimated cost of Microsoft Teams Rooms devices for one large room Composite $8,000 $0 $0 $0
D3 Number of medium rooms A4 1 1 1 1
D4 Estimated cost of Microsoft Teams Rooms devices for one medium room Composite $5,000 $0 $0 $0
D5 Number of focus rooms A7 2 2 2 2
D6 Estimated cost of Microsoft Teams Rooms devices for one focus room Composite $3,000 $0 $0 $0
Dt Microsoft Teams Rooms devices D1*D2+D3*D4+D5* D6 $19,000 $0 $0 $0
Risk adjustment ↑10%
Dtr Microsoft Teams Rooms devices (risk-adjusted) $20,900 $0 $0 $0
Three-year total: $20,900 Three-year present value: $20,900

Installation Of Devices And Other Hardware

  • Evidence and data.

    Three of the interviewees said that their organizations used third-party service providers to set up and install their Microsoft Teams Rooms hardware. All the interviewees said that their IT teams handled the software configuration themselves — e.g., setting up accounts, security, etc. However, most of the organizations preferred to hire specialists with more A/V experience to mount the devices in their meeting rooms.

    • The CTO and EVP of operations said, “We had a [service provider] come and mount the TVs on the walls, mount the speakers, and mount the cameras.”
    • The CTO said, “We did have an integrator who’s Microsoft-certified — who’s done tons and tons of [Microsoft Teams] Rooms. And they just set it up in a day.”
    • The CISO and SVP of IT said: “We do all of the IT support in-house, and then for anything related to the [A/V], we have a service contract with the final-choice [vendor] that built the [Microsoft Teams] Rooms. ... I’m not an A/V expert. I can block and tackle some basic stuff, but at the end of the day, if somebody says the sound is choppy — I don’t know how to fix [it]. So I leverage the vendor for that, and we do all the other stuff.”
  • Modeling and assumptions.

    Based on the interviewee data, Forrester assumes the following for the composite organization:

    • The composite organization hires a third-party service provider to deliver and set up the Microsoft Teams Rooms devices in each room. This includes mounting the devices, testing the A/V, etc.
    • The approximate installation costs are $7,000 for a large room, $5,000 for a medium room, and $2,000 for a focus room.
  • Risks.

    The assumptions with the greatest variability in Forrester’s model are:

    • Estimated installation costs for each room type.

    These are likely to vary from organization to organization. E.g., different service providers may offer different quotes for the work.

  • Results.

    To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 10%, yielding a three- year, risk-adjusted total PV of less than $18,000.

figure

Installation Of Devices And Other Hardware

Ref. Metric Source Initial Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
E1 Estimated installation costs for one large room Interviews $7,000 $0 $0 $0
E2 Estimated installation costs for one medium room Interviews $5,000 $0 $0 $0
E3 Estimated installation costs for one focus room Interviews $2,000 $0 $0 $0
Et Installation of devices and other hardware D1*E1+D3*E2+D5* E3 $16,000 $0 $0 $0
Risk adjustment ↑10%
Etr Installation of devices and other hardware (risk-adjusted) $17,600 $0 $0 $0
Three-year total: $17,600 Three-year present value: $17,600

IT Setup And Configuration Time For Rooms And Devices

  • Evidence and data.

    All the interviewees said that their internal IT teams configured the Microsoft Teams Rooms devices — e.g., settings for user permissions, security, etc. Their IT teams also trained users. According to the interviewees, the total commitment from IT was relatively minor compared to the other costs.

    • The CTO and EVP of operations said that after the organization’s service provider had installed the hardware: “I was just reading the book. It actually was pretty easy. ... The rest of it was easy. Anyone could do it.”

    • The CISO and SVP of IT in the technology industry said: “Setting it up wasn’t hard. ... User setup, security — we did all that stuff internally.”

      The CISO and SVP of IT estimated that the commitment from the organization’s IT team to set up three rooms totaled 60 hours over two weeks. The work was completed by a small group of three senior team members.

  • Modeling and assumptions.

    Based on the interviewee data, Forrester assumes the following for the composite organization:

    • IT spends 20 hours setting up and configuring each room. All rooms require the same investment.
    • The average annual IT support technician base salary is $55,000, with additional benefits worth 35% of base compensation.
  • Risks.

    The assumptions with the greatest variability in Forrester’s model are:

    • Average IT support technician hourly rate.

    The interviewees’ organizations all had small internal IT teams. Organizations without such a team may leverage service providers or Microsoft for support.

  • Results.

    To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 10%, yielding a three- year, risk-adjusted total PV of just over $3,000.

figure

IT Setup And Configuration Time For Rooms And Devices

Ref. Metric Source Initial Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
F1 Number of meeting rooms with Microsoft Teams Rooms devices D1+D3+D5 4 4 4 4
F2 IT setup and configuration time per room (hours) Interviews 20 0 0 0
F3 Average IT support technician fully burdened hourly rate C6 $36 $36 $36 $36
Ft IT setup and configuration time for rooms and devices F1*F2*F3 $2,880 $0 $0 $0
Risk adjustment ↑10%
Ftr IT setup and configuration time for rooms and devices (risk-adjusted) $3,168 $0 $0 $0
Three-year total: $3,168 Three-year present value: $3,168
NEXT SECTION: Financial Summary

  • icon

    These risk-adjusted ROI, NPV, and payback period values are determined by applying risk-adjustment factors to the unadjusted results in each Benefit and Cost section.

Cash Flow Chart (Risk-Adjusted)

Total costs Total benefits Cumulative net benefits

Cash Flow Analysis (Risk-Adjusted Estimates)

Initial Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Present Value
Total costs ($41,668) $0 $0 $0 ($41,668) ($41,668)
Total benefits $0 $52,104 $54,117 $56,131 $162,352 $134,265
Net benefits ($41,668) $52,104 $54,117 $56,131 $120,684 $92,597
ROI 222%
Payback period (months) 10

The financial results calculated in the Benefits and Costs sections can be used to determine the ROI, NPV, and payback period for the composite organization’s investment. Forrester assumes a yearly discount rate of 10% for this analysis.

NEXT SECTION: Appendixes

Appendix A: Total Economic Impact

Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists vendors in communicating the value proposition of their products and services to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of IT initiatives to both senior management and other key business stakeholders.

Total Economic Impact Approach

  • icon

    Benefits represent the value delivered to the business by the product. The TEI methodology places equal weight on the measure of benefits and the measure of costs, allowing for a full examination of the effect of the technology on the entire organization.

  • icon

    Costs consider all expenses necessary to deliver the proposed value, or benefits, of the product. The cost category within TEI captures incremental costs over the existing environment for ongoing costs associated with the solution.

  • icon

    Flexibility represents the strategic value that can be obtained for some future additional investment building on top of the initial investment already made. Having the ability to capture that benefit has a PV that can be estimated.

  • icon

    Risks measure the uncertainty of benefit and cost estimates given: 1) the likelihood that estimates will meet original projections and 2) the likelihood that estimates will be tracked over time. TEI risk factors are based on “triangular distribution.”

  • icon
    PRESENT VALUE (PV)

    The present or current value of (discounted) cost and benefit estimates given at an interest rate (the discount rate). The PV of costs and benefits feed into the total NPV of cash flows.

  • icon
    NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV)

    The present or current value of (discounted) future net cash flows given an interest rate (the discount rate). A positive project NPV normally indicates that the investment should be made unless other projects have higher NPVs.

  • icon
    RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI)

    A project’s expected return in percentage terms. ROI is calculated by dividing net benefits (benefits less costs) by costs.

  • icon
    DISCOUNT RATE

    The interest rate used in cash flow analysis to take into account the time value of money. Organizations typically use discount rates between 8% and 16%.

  • icon
    PAYBACK PERIOD

    The breakeven point for an investment. This is the point in time at which net benefits (benefits minus costs) equal initial investment or cost.

The initial investment column contains costs incurred at “time 0” or at the beginning of Year 1 that are not discounted. All other cash flows are discounted using the discount rate at the end of the year. PV calculations are calculated for each total cost and benefit estimate. NPV calculations in the summary tables are the sum of the initial investment and the discounted cash flows in each year. Sums and present value calculations of the Total Benefits, Total Costs, and Cash Flow tables may not exactly add up, as some rounding may occur.

Appendix B: Supplemental Material

Related Forrester Research

“The Future Of The Office,” Forrester Research, Inc., September 7, 2022.

Appendix C: Endnotes

1 Source: Forrester’s Workforce Survey, 2022.

2 Source: Forrester’s Future Of Work Survey, 2021.

3 Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists vendors in communicating the value proposition of their products and services to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of IT initiatives to both senior management and other key business stakeholders.

4 The average one-way commute time in the US in 2019 was 27.6 minutes. Source: “Census Bureau Estimates Show Average One-Way Travel Time to Work Rises to All-Time High,” U.S. Census Bureau, March 18, 2021.

5 Academic research suggests that employees are slightly more productive working from home. Source: “Are Workers More Productive at Home?,” Bloomberg, June 2, 2022.

About Forrester Consulting

Forrester Consulting provides independent and objective research-based consulting to help leaders succeed in their organizations. Ranging in scope from a short strategy session to custom projects, Forrester’s Consulting services connect you directly with research analysts who apply expert insight to your specific business challenges. For more information, visit forrester.com/consulting.

Forrester Research, Inc.© All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited. Information is based on best available resources. Opinions reflect judgment at the time and are subject to change. Forrester®, Technographics®, Forrester Wave, RoleView, TechRadar, and Total Economic Impact are trademarks of Forrester Research, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective companies. For additional information, go to forrester.com.

Cookie Settings

Cookie Preferences

Accept Cookies

A cookie is a small text file that a website saves on your computer or mobile device when you visit the site. It enables the website to remember your actions (data inputs, website navigation), so you don’t have to re-enter data when you come back to the site or browse from one page to another.

Behavioral information collected by our web analytics vendor is used to analyze data pertaining to visitor trends, plan website enhancements, and measure overall website effectiveness. We may also use cookies or web beacons to help us offer you products, programs, or services that may be of interest to you and to deliver relevant advertising. We may use third-party advertising companies to help tailor website content to users or to serve ads on our behalf. These companies may also employ cookies and web beacons to measure advertising effectiveness.

Please accept cookies and the collection of behavioral information to receive full functionality and enhance your experience. If you decline cookies, some features of the website may not function normally.

Please see our Privacy Policy for more information.