The cost you are showing for videoconferencing is wrong. Since you need a system at each site it would be more like $10,000 so 10 trips and that is if you only have the one site to visit each site adds 5 trips to the payoff BUT it does save money in the longrun not to mention the time lost due to the trip.
|
Does Verizon's Voyager stack up to the iPhone? |
|
|
5 IT skills that won't boost your salary 
[1,407]
Women 4 times more likely than men to cough up personal info [589]
Japan's 10 funniest tech-related commercials [Videos] [407]
Throwing away a promo CD is "unauthorized distribution"? [1,265]
Adults too quick to dismiss educational video games [682]
Attack of the iPhone clones [Slideshow] [578]
10 things IT needs to know about AJAX [1,258]
This Year's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries [Slideshow] [409]
|
|
eDiscovery costs
Yes and no. You would need one system at each site, so there would be a total of 10 trips required to justify the cost of both systems, or just five trips for each site. A system like this would not provide cost savings in a lot of circumstances, but there are many trips that are repeated -- quality assurance visiting a supplier once a week, consultants visiting clients on a long term project, etc. -- that would lend themselves well to this type of system.
Cost of Videoconferencing
Put another way, the monthly cost per site would be less than $200 per month on a 36 month lease with a FMV buyout option.
IMHO videoconferencing is best positioned as another communication tool. When used properly it yields great PRODUCTIVITY gains within an organization. Example: We don't cost justify MS Exchange servers with a reduction in postage. We invest in them because they are an effective communication tool in the enterprise. jim
Post new comment