The hardware has matured but more importantly we’ve learned some lessons and our thinking has changed. Many readers have seen obsolete or even current video conferencing technology collecting dust in the corner of an office or conference room. Unfortunately for some the idea of video conferencing is synonymous with “choppy webcam”. It can be valuable to reflect on those deployments when building a video strategy today. Consider the following for a moment:
• What were the reasons for those earlier deployments?
• Who made the decision to invest in earlier generations of video?
• How were those deployments executed?
• Why were those solutions under-utilized?
• What can we improve on this time around?
I have always loved new technologies. Gaming systems, DVDs, computers, the Internet, Unified Communications… the list never ends. Most of my gadgets have been splurges because the technology was “shiny and new”. All of the technology that has become integral in my life has solved a problem, made me more efficient and/or changed my life for the better. Video conferencing lets me work from home, it allows me to minimize travel time and it helps me communicate my intent in a way that isn’t really possible over email or the phone. Sometimes I look at a new piece of video conferencing technology and the “shiny and new” kid in me gets excited but the reason it has the potential to work for me is that I work in an environment where video conferencing is understood, encouraged, well supported and deployed in a way that optimizes usability. In other words, it isn’t the end solution that makes it work; it is the environment the solution is deployed in. There are strong parallels here with vehicles and transportation infrastructure.
Sometimes, maybe too often, video conferencing is deployed because an executive or technologist saw video conferencing as “shiny and new.” That isn’t a bad thing but often ends there and nobody thinks about who is going to use the technology, what they’re going to use it for and what they’ll need to use it well. All too often boxes were shipped to remote offices, network was installed and then users either steered clear of the scary new technology in the corner of the conference room or worse; tried it and walked away with a negative impression. I’m not suggesting users need to be hand held. I’m suggesting we need to build the solution around their needs instead of extending a “shiny and new” solution to them. Sports cars can only go fast on roads that are properly thought out and maintained.
Video conferencing technology needs to be deployed in a way that maximizes the chances a business user will see a positive impact on their productivity, efficiency and/or quality of life. If we as technologists put something shiny and new in front of a business user, and they find it frustrating, then we have merely spent time and money to move the business’ progress clock backward. We need to start with what the end scenario should look like and build that solution.
Manufacturers are constantly moving toward making a product that minimizes the frustration potential by refining features. Recent advancements in calendar, address book and scheduling integration all help in this endeavor. We need to build strategies that leverage these features as best as possible in the environment but perhaps more importantly; we need to build an environment that allows the features to be understood and implemented correctly.
It is a very subtle difference in thinking but the shift from “hoping technology will solve a problem” to “how technology might solve specific problems” is the biggest difference I’ve seen in failed and successful video deployments. Also, most large organizations I’ve worked with are going through or have yet to go through the process of tying their end points in to their management platforms. In other words, they bought a bunch of end points over time and now they have to go through and conform them to standards and management. This effort is worthwhile because it reduces the cost of management per end point dramatically over time and allows for reporting on end point uptime, utilization, etc… so that better decisions can be made in the future. In hind sight, thought it seemed like overkill at the start, an investment in a management platform early on would have saved these organizations a lot of time and improved their rate of return on investment (probably many times over) by now. Unfortunately the applications for endpoints are much more tangible for end users and often the specific short term application for a video end point wouldn’t benefit from the unit being tied to video infrastructure so the topic may not have ever come up. It isn’t until we step back and examine the overall environment or look at how usage changes over time that the advantages of mature infrastructure become clear.
Ultimately [and full disclosure here - TI does offer professional services!] the investment in planning, network analysis, ROI projections and study of the different types of users throughout the business including their applications and collaboration needs is probably always the best investment that can be made. This investment:
• Leads to the proper timing of infrastructure investments
• Helps justify endpoint rollouts and upgrades
• Minimizes the likelihood of negatives like bad call experiences and network saturation
• Improves compatibility with other tools and that makes this a Unified Communications investment
• Increases the likelihood of adoption which accelerates ROI through improved efficiency, productivity, etc
In summary, there is nothing at all wrong with “shiny and new” end points; I assure you I get more excited about new video conferencing end point announcements than just about anyone. But just like sports cars can’t be impressive without good roads to drive them on, video end points can’t be at their best without a mature environment to operate within.
