According to an old (August 2006) report from Bob Hafner of Gartner Research, "companies could waste upwards of $26 billion on useless IP screen phones during the next five years (2005-2011)."The argument to not buy the phones is that most users already have PCs equipped with a much bigger and better (higher resolution) screen. The more compelling argument is not to bother spending money on high-end IP phones when organizations should be concentrating on implementing Unified Communications solutions to improve employee productivity.
If many of you recall, during the past couple of years the sales motto in the industry has been "sell the sizzle." Also brought up in numerous past discussions is "a phone is just a phone." So, I have to ask, who is using these phones and does it benefit employees to have the high-end IP screen phones?
Once upon a time in corporate America, the managerial and executive teams worked out company policies that would dictate "status" for company users. Meaning, C-level executives got speakerphones with displays and a number of other phones/devices in their offices while directors and general managers (not board level) were allowed less of course and there were rules all the way down the ladder. Any user with a 2500 set could accomplish most of what the higher echelon failed to deal with: how to use feature codes since their mindsets were "I just want to push a button" and saving time for executives isn't unimportant. Today, time is valuable for all employees and hopefully the thinking has changed about who gets what.
The hospitality industry I think does stand to benefit because these phones may encourage guests to dial for dollars, and as NEC pointed out to me, a capture rate of just 1 or 2 percent of keeping guests on the property is very lucrative for the hotels. Then, the phones provide improved accessibility. There's also been talk about using the large screen phones in smart buildings to manage energy and other utilities. Panasonic is exploring the opportunity with SMBs and the residential market in office/home automation with Creston, one of their suppliers. In the SMB and residential sector a big screen phone that is IP based with the ability to receive the camera images from door phone cameras would, I think, be smashing.
In getting back to the Gartner report, is it too hard to sell Unified Communications? Of course, anytime productivity is mentioned, management may be tempted to leverage UC as an excuse to chop heads and some may fear that UC is more of the same, of something that just never quite materializes into quantifiable benefits. Is there a greater reluctance to implement UC because it seems to straddle a gray area--and yet it's still acceptable to spend a lot of cash on IP screen phones? Or could it be that large screen IP phones are capable of delivering a low cost solution to provide video by way of the phone? Then, properly applied, don't higher end large screen phones justify the mission of UC? On the surface I agree with Hafner, but I also think that waste is more defined as a selling opportunity or a snow job or used for perks for purchase to appease some egos. As for being useless, I think the phones are far from useless and instead present new opportunities and do enhance communications or at least have the potential of doing so. High-end IP screen phones have a place, perhaps more than what meets the eye at first glance.
