The terms “use case” and “usage and adoption” are at risk of becoming relegated to buzzword status as the term telepresence succumbed to some years ago. In its defense the term telepresence was great for the sales of video. In a nut shell telepresence was video conferencing with a greater focus on the environment, same technology more focus on the room. So what will be the legacy of the current fascination with “use case” and “usage and adoption”?
Fundamentally usage and adoption comes down to understanding the use case, If you don’t articulate and understand the use case, you can’t have a high expectation of adoption and return on your investment, let alone a net positive impact to the bottom line.
Often when use case is discussed we hear terms such as, persona and actors but when it’s boiled down use case equates to who, where, what and how.
- Who are the participants?
- Where are they located?
- What differentiates the participants?
- What platform will each participant use to participate?
- What information will be shared before and during the interaction and by whom?
- What constraints are imposed in order to adhere with governance and regulatory compliance?
- How many participants will participate?
- How often will this interaction occur?
This is not the be all and end all of what’s required to understand the use cases and the appropriate use of video but it goes a long way to increasing the probability of adoption.
If we take the time to consider these questions before deploying video we may see “use case” having a similar impact on the use of video as telepresence had on the sales of video. Same technology more focus on its use.