Posted by Rob Gilfillan on Mon, Feb 01, 2010 @ 06:22 PM
ROI, H.323, H.320, IP, ISDN, SIP, Codec, blah, blah, blah. Over the years organizations been inundated with acronyms and geek speak that quite frankly, has done more injustice than good to the potential video conferencing user base. I'll never forget my first video conferencing experience with a fortune 1000 company back in the early 1990's. The executives of this organization outlined a goal to cut travel costs between four national offices. The project was then assigned to a local IT director in the Baltimore/Washington area who initiated due diligence with all of the video conferencing industry's major manufacturers. A technical scope of work was developed which outlined all the technical specifications of the proposed system. System capabilities included 30 FPS video, full duplex audio, 384 kbps ISDN, 36" CRT (remeber those things!!), etc. After the IT Director spent a few weeks reviewing pertinent information, the company I worked for at the time was selected to help with the system integration. The total cost was about $100,000 per location for a rather large "portable (not so much) system". After the project installation was completed, we setup training with the IT staff to run through the 'system operation'. This included basics such as how to power up the system, place a call, adjust camera, push a scan-converted computer image to a far end site, troubleshoot technical issues, etc. I remember trying to reserve some time with the executives, but was told that training would be accomplished internally by the IT department. When we finished the IT folks had a thorough understanding of the system capabilities and functionality, so I considered our project a raving success.
About 2 months later, I received a call from one of the Executive Assistants to see if I could make some time to visit the site and review the system with the team. I agreed and expected to be showered with thanks for all the money and time the organization had saved from their 'technology investment'. To my amazement, I was greeted by an unhappy executive that felt he had been sold an unsubstatiated ROI and inappropriate bill of goods. Upon further review, I found that the system functioned as intended, but usage was very low. I asked why the executive team did not use the system more often and found that it was essentially used as a picture telephone and offered no real tangible value from a basic telephone call. What's the lesson here? In addition to identifying the technical needs of the organization, it is imperative that the solutions provider help the client understand the key applications that help drive adoption and eventually migration. The technology will evenutally fall in place, but only after an action plan has been developed to help leverage the 'technology' as a productive tool.