For Kennedy & Coe, based in Salina, Kan., videoconferencing was implemented a few years ago when the firm had 15 offices, since reduced to eight offices spread across most of Kansas and a good chunk of Colorado. But it’s still an important tool for use within the firm.
“A lot of the board meetings are done via videoconferencing,” says Greg Davis, principal in charge of technology. Generally, the system gets used for meetings that are scheduled to last less than half a day. Many committee meetings are also held this way.
The accounting firm has a classic videoconferencing system, meaning out of the range of what many firms can afford. There are 16 or 17 conference rooms outitted with the system, since having just one per location became a scheduling problem. The Tandburg equipment used to handle the audio and video feeds cost about $8,000 to $10,000 per room. The firm has not purchased higher-end systems that can provide multi-site service. Instead, it buys equipment that can link two sites and then conference the others in. The caveat is this required purchased of a bridge. Davis says bridges can cost from $30,000 to $120,000.
“They [bridges] are well worth it because they manage all the complexity,” says Davis.
Besides providing service in the conference rooms, the firm also has outfitted most partners' desks for such communication. That eliminates the need for them to tie up conference rooms for meetings with few participants.
But cost is a relative thing, especially if it’s balanced out against avoiding other expenses. And consultant Gary Boomer of Boomer Consulting says that’s a point that gets overlooked by many firms.
“The people that have it [videoconferencing], say it’s worthwhile and it’s a good investment. The people who don’t have it complain about how much it costs,” he says, although agreeing that for firms that need a bridge, the equipment can get expense.
And beyond the expense, technology issues have limited the process to internal use. It's difficult for most firms to hold video conferences with clients who often don’t have the same equipment as their firms.
However, all is changing. While Skype’s quality didn’t fit all needs, for Simi Valley, Calif.-based Arxis Technology, it’s good enough for many needs, according to partner David Cieslak. And he expects videoconferencing to boom as more mobile telephones are equipped with the capability.
“None of these [phone-based systems] are going to be like a dedicated system,” he says. But for many users, a Webcam and computer connected to the Internet produce acceptable quality. However, these low-priced systems won’t challenge instances where high-quality is needed, such as communicating with an overseas office.
Nevertheless, Cieslak notes Skype has just introduced video conferencing that can serve multiple sites, which will be available as a premium service. Google has a six-way service for $20 a month, which works for most purposes, “as long as you’ve got decent connectivity.”
Certainly, there is demand for less-expensive desktop systems. Davis says Kennedy & Coe is introducing desktop video conference with a system that costs less than $400, utilizing Polycom software and a Logitech Webcam.
And Boomer agrees with Cieslak’s belief that the properly-equipped phones will spur useage because it puts teleconferencing in the hands of consumers.
“Consumers drive the technology today, not the business. When people do it independently, businesses will start doing it,” he says. Boomer continues that Skype has had an impact on the popularity of videoconferencing, as did the volcanic explosion which forced the lengthy closure of European airports in May, causing many stranded executives to use Skype.
Boomer has also used Skype for a Webinar delivered to an Australia audience and found the service “worked great. I could see them and they could see me.” Where he has found problems, it’s been the result of the users’ Web connection, not Skype. He also anticipates that the latest version of the iPhone, which has videoconferencing capabilities, will attract many business users.
However, Cieslak disagrees with that assessment. He notes videoconferencing is only available on iPhone 4 and then only iPhone to iPhone, with the additional restriction of being limited to the use of AT&T as a carrier.
“I would call it an advanced proof of concept. It’s pretty limited,” he says.
