Add a Comment Now - We Want to Hear From You
One of the things holding back the rollout of new applications (like VoIP, Video, and Unified Communications) is the fear that the new applications will cause network performance problems; according to Network World’s Denise Dubie, citing a survey from Apparent Networks.
Nearly 61% said that they had delayed a VoIP implementation due to network performance concerns. Some 35% postponed a video rollout for the same reasons and 26% put a unified communications project on hold. The survey also showed that network managers can’t always validate their service-level agreements (SLA) with external service providers. More than one-quarter of respondents don’t have the capability to validate SLAs.
It would be instructive to know if decision makers are “concerned” that new apps will reduce their performance because they have baselined performance and know that the network cannot handle new application rollouts… or if they’re concerned because they have no idea whether the network can handle it or not.
It’s the difference between being stopped by practicality and being paralyzed by fear.
And if you’re being paralyzed by fear, it’s costing you money.
For example, Cisco decided to “eat it’s own dogfood” and estimated that they saved $277M from bringing in their own virtual office telecommuting technology – a new application (based on their “Cisco Virtual Office”) for the network that leads to cost savings. If Cisco didn’t know that their network was capable of supporting the CVO application, they would have been out $277M.
Of course, the reason you don’t roll out an application that might save you millions when you don’t know whether those applications will negatively affect network performance is that poor network performance can cost more than whatever you’d save by the rollout.
You can know, or you can be paralyzed by fear of the unknown. I know which I’d rather be.

Comments
My thoughts:
Adding voice and video to a network will almost certainly smoke out any performance or availability problems that a network might have tucked away in it's dark corners. I'd suspect that fear of finding out how bad it really is might be a roadblock to building a converged network.
Also - networks that don't have voice & video tend to be rather forgiving of minor technical problems, as most protocols recover from network errors pretty well. If you thrown a few packets away, the client server or web app will probably still work, albeit not as well, and the user will probably blame the the application or database anyway.
Voice and video are not at all forgiving, so by adding them to the mix, a network manager is assuming a whole lot more responsibility for availability and performance than on an ordinary network. The network manager will have to build a network that actually works, not one that sort of works.
Some people are afraid of that, sometimes for very good reasons.
--Mike
Posted by: Michael Janke | July 7, 2009 07:36 PM