Whenever new technology enters a production environment, the first concern is what it means for the people involved. The assumption tends to be that roles will disappear. In more than 35 years in this industry, that assumption has rarely played out the way people expected.
Understanding the human side of change, including what happens to people and roles, is just as important as understanding the technology. That’s true whether you’re building Pro AV systems, broadcast facilities, or environments where those worlds meet.
Resisting the Shiny Ball
In all kinds of business, change is difficult to manage. In our business, where change is continuous, the real difficulty isn't accepting change—It's recognizing necessity while getting the timing right. I've seen top-of-their-game companies disrupted because they responded too late, and others struggle because they moved too early on technology that wasn't ready. Both are costly, one driven by being too entrenched, the other by chasing what I call the "shiny ball."
There is always a shiny ball, some new technology or methodology that attracts attention because it sounds impressive. People become like moths around a flame.
But very few stop to ask: What is the real use case? How does it affect our customers' business and our industry? How does it mesh with what we actually do? Sometimes a technology won't mesh until other factors come into play—financial, political, or otherwise. Recognizing that takes discipline.
Integrators and consultants sometimes push new systems before they're proven, either to show they’re current or to stand out in a competitive market. While the pressure is understandable, more often than not, it ends with problems for the customer, and the cost of moving too soon can be very high. The instinct should be to stay with what works until the new technology has demonstrated real value, not just shown promise.
In my experience, very few people have the real vision to see when change is actually necessary, rather than merely promising. That distinction is where leadership lives.
Consider robotic cameras. The concern was job losses. For broadcasters, the real motivation was not reducing headcount but getting the same shot, the same way, every time.
When robotics took over, operators didn't disappear. They moved into graphics, editorial roles, and other areas of production. In many cases, automation accelerated career paths rather than ending them.
The same pattern emerged with media asset management. As archives moved from physical vaults to searchable digital systems, the roles changed entirely. Broadcasters needed people who understood data management and file-based workflows. Some even built their own systems, hiring computer science graduates for jobs that had previously been clerical.
Technology didn't necessarily shrink the headcount. It redistributed roles and raised the skill requirements, and the industry had to adapt.
Institutional Knowledge
Most organizations have pockets of knowledge and experience across departments and across individuals. Information exists in people's heads, in databases, and in different systems, but it isn't necessarily stored consistently or connected. When I ask where to find something, the answer often depends on what it is and who I ask.
Very few people have the real vision to see when change is actually necessary, rather than merely promising.
As organizations grow and adopt more systems—ERP platforms and customer management tools—the fragmentation increases. Identifying what knowledge is essential, deciding how to preserve it, and making it accessible across the organization is difficult. No one has fully solved this, but in a fast-moving environment, you can't afford to ignore it.
One space worth watching is internal AI tools trained on an organization’s own data. Recently, I asked one of these tools a question and got an answer sourced from a completely different department. If AI can bridge knowledge that exists in silos, the implications for how organizations retain and share institutional knowledge are significant.
An agile culture depends on teams collaborating in the moment, whether that's your own team or your clients. That kind of exchange used to happen naturally: swiveling your chair, bouncing an idea off someone nearby. Hybrid work has made it harder. You schedule a call instead, and by the time you connect, the moment has passed.
The instinct now is to schedule a meeting. The better instinct is to just hit the call button. Spontaneous exchange has to be created intentionally. It doesn't happen by accident anymore.
Technology will keep changing. It always has. What matters is the judgment to know when a change is meaningful, the willingness to bring people along with you, and the discipline not to chase the shiny ball. Those are human problems, not technical ones, and getting them right matters as much as the systems themselves.
For a long time, this has been an industry that skews older. We need new blood, not just to teach them but to let them teach us. The younger professionals I've seen coming in lately give me real confidence. They are enthusiastic, willing, and want to do the work. In a dynamic technical environment, that matters.
