Specialist Vendors For File-Based Workflow?

For many broadcasters, working with big name companies can appear the sensible, safe solution. But is this always the case? 4RFV heard from Phillip A. Eade, Managing Director, The VAR Network Ltd.
Does the broadcast sector contain too many small specialist vendors? As large parts of the technology move towards a file-based environment, with software solutions operating on off-the-shelf IT hardware, will the sector consolidate to only few big players? Anecdotal evidence still points to more success being achieved, even in MAM and Archive projects, through the adoption of best of breed solutions from smaller specialised vendors. Why is this?
Some broadcasters do seem too ready to align themselves to specific big brand vendors, loyally adopting their latest technologies and end-to-end solutions almost without question. The reasons for such alignments are of course different in each case, but often include the logic that (1) these big broadcast brands are seemingly too big to fail, (2) they have previously successful technologies and will continue to do so, or (3) the belief that implementing file-based environments with a multitude of vendor systems is too complex and high risk.
To address the first point, big is not necessarily beautiful. Big brands often acquire companies for the technologies that they have developed, their customer portfolio, and their specialist staff. History has shown though that, more often than not, integrating an acquired technology into a wider product family and existing architecture is almost impossible; Customers do not tend to blindly transfer brand loyalty to the acquiring company; Specialist staff either leaves after a few years or loses their enthusiasm once in the bigger corporation.
For example, look at what has happened to MAM vendors that have been acquired by larger brands over the years. Innovation and sales sharply fall, the best staff leave, and what you are left with are aging solutions that no longer have the motivated team focused on them to push the products forward.
By contrast, if you work with leading specialist MAM vendors, like Media Alliance in Italy, you soon sense their passion for, and focus on MAM and media workflow solutions. You can see them continually driving MAM forward. Most recently, they have implemented the AMWA FIMS standard, use HTML5 for frame accurate media handling on their web clients, have their central processing on Hyper-V, and continue to offer a host of first to the market MAM features.
With regards to the second point, because a big brand has historically been successful in one part of the broadcast value chain, it does not follow that this success can be replicated in another, or even be continued in that same area. Look at the automated playout sector for example. Many vendors who have historically had great traditional playout solutions have now launched Channel in a Box (CiaB) solutions. But they have brought architectural baggage into their CiaB solutions that introduces limitations. By contrast, CiaB specialist vendors, like OASYS, who have been focused on software based playout for over 20 years, have solutions free of such limitations. Their technology is significantly more reliable and capable, now going beyond the “CiaB” label to be “optimised playout solutions”.
Finally, managing the complexity of systems integrating best of breed multi-vendor solutions is all about how you specify your requirement and then manage its implementation. Bad RFPs read like a SMPTE shopping lists, and/or describe solutions and operational practices that the broadcaster is already familiar with. Good RFPs describe what workflows need to be achieved, with a minimum of technical specifications or predefined architectural design. This empowers vendors to respond with a variety of solutions to achieve the stated workflows, rather than each having to try to fit their solution to meet mostly irrelevant specifications or the architectural design of another vendor’s solution.
Consider broadcast Archiving solutions as an example. A requirement specification based on the traditional LTO tape library and HSM system approach will preclude vendors of alternative and potentially superior solutions bidding, such as the ALTO Content Library from Disk Archive Corporation. This uses MAID architecture and a disk management approach that results in disks being spun down and turned off when not being accessed. The total cost of ownership of an ALTO solution is significantly lower than the LTO tape approach, and is greener, with many significant performance advantages.
In conclusion, rather than the broadcast sector consolidating into a few big brands, it will only flourish through the continuation of the small specialist vendor culture. It is up to the broadcaster to be open to these companies and prepare workflow based RFPs to ensure that new innovation and solution interoperability is encouraged, thereby bringing benefits to their own broadcast businesses.
Phil Eade is the owner and managing director of The VAR Network, a small consultancy with offices in the UK and the Netherlands that assists broadcasters in the preparation of workflow based tender documents.
Read the online edition of Regional Film and Video here.