David Maldow and I have been cooking up The AI Chefs for more than 90 episodes. Each one serves a practical, bite-sized way to get more real work out of AI. We’ve now organized the best of them into one menu: The AI Chefs Bistro at aichefsshow.com. The goal is simple: find what you’re hungry for, watch a short episode and use the technique the same day. No hype; just recipes that work across the tools people actually use, including Microsoft 365 Copilot, ChatGPT, Google Gemini, NotebookLM, Claude and Zoom AI Companion. The menu is organized by effort and appetite: Appetizers: five-minute tips. Examples are “Short Order Grill” for cutting AI chatter down to bullet points, and “Twice Baked Potatoes” for asking AI to check its own work. Soups & Salads: foundational concepts, such as why AI gives dramatically better answers when it can see your email, calendar and documents. Entrées: full workflows. These include a Teams Channel Agent that writes weekly status reports, and “Obstacle Omelette”: a pre-mortem prompt that tells you how your project failed before it starts. Chef’s Specials: signature techniques. “Doggy Bag” packs a messy conversation into a reusable system prompt, and “Deconstructed Dish” captures your writing voice. Sides: platform-specific tips, from the Microsoft 365 Admin Agent to keeping Copilot Researcher from citing your own drafts back to you. Desserts: fun experiments, because AI should be enjoyable too. Each dish is also tagged by business outcome, so you can filter by what you need. The tags are Prompt Craft, Writing & Content, Research & Analysis, Workflow Automation, Meetings & Comms, Data & Documents, Learning & Upskilling and IT & Admin. If your organization is rolling out AI and wondering why adoption is stalling, start here. Tools don’t drive adoption; habits do. These recipes are designed to build them. Pull up a chair: The AI Chefs Bistro.

2026 may be remembered as the year AI agents moved from impressive demos to real business interactions. The technology is advancing quickly; the business models, operating practices, and expectations around it are struggling to keep up. In a recent BCStrategies podcast, five of our analysts and consultants, Tom Brannen, Blair Pleasant, Kevin Kieller, Chuck Vondra, and Steve Leaden, compared notes on what stood out most this year across customer experience, unified communications, enterprise strategy, and hands-on consulting. The common thread: AI's potential is enormous, but realizing it takes far more than deploying another agent. Tom Brannen: When AI Agents Become the Customers Personal AI agents are starting to research, book, buy, and request support on behalf of consumers. This is no longer theoretical: a major hotel brand is already fielding contact center calls initiated by AI agents. That raises questions traditional CX models were never built to answer. How do you authenticate an agent acting for a customer? Does it get the same service priority as a human caller? How do upselling, loyalty, and sentiment measurement work when the immediate participant is software? The takeaway: businesses will need to design experiences for both human customers and the AI agents representing them. Blair Pleasant: CX Is About Outcomes, Not Interactions The focus is shifting from handling and routing interactions to the complete customer journey and relationship, and from answering questions to completing workflows and resolving problems. Blair pointed to Zoom's "conversation to completion" message and Cisco's emphasis on relationship management as examples. If AI agents are digital workers, they need to be supervised, governed, and measured like workers. And with personal agents on one side and business agents on the other, agent-to-agent interaction looks set to be one of the defining CX challenges of 2027. The takeaway: the differentiator is moving from efficiently managing interactions to delivering meaningful outcomes across the whole customer relationship. Kevin Kieller: AI Has Thrown Enterprise Pricing Into Disarray Subscription licensing was predictable; consumption pricing, AI credits, and usage-based models are not, and customers often have no reliable way to forecast usage before they deploy. Kevin described the market moving from "token maxing" to "token axing" as organizations shift from encouraging experimentation to controlling costs. If an agent is positioned as a digital employee, what happens when its monthly allowance runs out mid-month? Which department pays when one agent serves several? Outcome-based pricing sounds appealing, but defining a successful outcome (was the issue really resolved if the customer calls back?) is far from simple. The takeaway: AI pricing must become more predictable, transparent, and outcome-aligned before organizations can build critical workflows on it. Chuck Vondra: The Problem Isn't Hype; It's Unrealistic Expectations Many organizations are enthusiastic about AI but haven't defined what they want it to accomplish. Chuck described a credit union that bought an intelligent virtual assistant and expected it designed and live within two months, overlooking the substantial requirements, integration, and testing work involved. As Kevin put it during the discussion: "No one wants AI. They want the magic that they think AI brings." AI isn't necessarily overhyped; it is often misapplied. The takeaway: successful adoption starts with the business problem and measurable success criteria, not with selecting the technology. Steve Leaden: Test AI to Fail, Not Just to Succeed In a healthcare deployment covering prescription refills and appointment confirmations, planned across 120 groups, pilot testing exposed long silences before transfers and repeated "do you want to be transferred?" prompts. Minor in a demo; damaging in a real patient interaction. The team recommended more testing rather than launching, including scenarios outside the scripted workflows, such as a patient describing a medication informally. The economics can still be compelling: one model compared roughly $1.2 million in annual staffing cost against about $200,000 in annual AI usage, though real results depend on resolution rates, implementation costs, and workforce decisions. The takeaway: try to break your AI before your customers do. ROI depends on disciplined implementation and testing against real-world scenarios. Five Lessons Heading Into 2027 Prepare for agent-to-agent interactions. Engagement models, security, authentication, and service policies will need to evolve. Measure business outcomes, not AI activity. Completed workflows and resolved problems matter more than interaction counts. Understand the economics before scaling. Consumption pricing introduces real budgeting risk. Start with clearly defined, achievable use cases. Executive enthusiasm cannot substitute for requirements, realistic timelines, and readiness. Test aggressively before deployment. A successful demo is not proof of production readiness, especially in high-stakes environments. Looking ahead, the panel expects context and orchestration to get much more attention as agents multiply across applications and departments. The winners won't be the organizations deploying the most agents; they will be the ones that understand where AI creates value, manage its costs, and implement it in ways that reliably deliver better outcomes. This post summarizes the original BCStrategies article. Read the full piece and join the discussion in the comments on LinkedIn.

For years, the meeting room industry has measured interoperability with one question: how easily can a room join a meeting hosted on another platform? If your organization runs Microsoft Teams Rooms (MTR), joining Teams meetings is easy. Ideally, users should also be able to walk in, tap a button, and join a Zoom, Webex, or Google Meet meeting. In my latest article, I argue we may be asking the wrong question. Rather than "How easily can I join the meeting?" we should be asking, "How easily can I accomplish everything I came to the meeting to do?" As meeting platforms evolve well beyond audio, video, and screen sharing, that distinction matters more and more. Direct Guest Join: Simple, But Limited Microsoft's Direct Guest Join (DGJ) delivers a genuinely simple experience: find the meeting on the room controller, tap Join, and you're connected. For organizations standardized on MTR, joining other platforms without changing equipment or requiring a laptop is genuinely useful. For attendees who mainly need to listen, speak, and view a presentation, DGJ may be all they need. The limitations surface when users need to do more, and they can become critical when you are hosting. Microsoft's current DGJ implementation does not support sharing content through the room's HDMI input, interactive whiteboarding, or controlling the meeting lobby. It also carries restrictions on video resolution, display configurations, and access to certain collaboration features. Enhanced SIP connectivity closes some of the gap, supporting 1080p video, two displays, and HDMI content sharing. However, it is a paid interoperability service that requires a SIP dialing plan plus additional Exchange and tenant configuration. Neither DGJ nor SIP interoperability offers the complete functionality of the meeting platform's native application. An Interesting Alternative From Barco This is why I believe organizations evaluating Teams Rooms should take a serious look at Barco's ClickShare Hub. Barco's approach doesn't require abandoning an investment in Microsoft Teams Rooms. The Hub Core and Hub Pro provide a native, certified MTR experience when deployed with supported peripherals, so Teams meetings work with the familiar room controller and management capabilities. When someone needs to run a Zoom, Webex, or Google Meet meeting, they plug a ClickShare Button into their laptop, connect wirelessly to the room's camera, microphones, speakers, and display, and use their normal conferencing application. The important nuance: Zoom or Webex isn't running natively on the MTR. The meeting runs on the user's laptop, using the room's professional AV equipment. Employees use the platform exactly the way they already know how. The Experience Beyond Joining Consider an employee hosting a customer meeting on Zoom. With DGJ, they can join from the Teams Room, but may still need their laptop for host controls, content sharing, chat, or other features DGJ doesn't expose. Many end up joining the same meeting twice: once from the room for audio and video, and once from the laptop to collaborate and manage the meeting. That works, provided laptop audio is handled correctly, but it adds complexity. With ClickShare, the host uses the familiar Zoom application, with whatever host controls and collaboration capabilities their account and meeting settings permit, while the room handles the AV. There is no juggling two separate conferencing endpoints. The benefit extends beyond the meeting itself. Using a personal, authenticated client keeps recordings, transcripts, summaries, and follow-up activities connected across scheduling, conducting, and following up. DGJ doesn't prevent access to those materials afterward, but the room's guest experience sits apart from the user's own meeting account, which adds friction. The key differentiator isn't that joining is easier. It's that employees use the platform the way they already do on their laptops, while benefiting from the room's professional AV. That consistency has value. Can Direct Guest Join Ever Keep Up? Meeting platforms are evolving rapidly as AI becomes embedded in the experience: meeting assistants, transcription, translation, summaries, intelligent content, and automated actions. Each platform has its own implementation, identity requirements, licensing, and approach to exposing those capabilities to other applications. For DGJ to keep pace, that functionality must be available through the interoperability mechanism and supported by the room system. Because DGJ relies on the host platform's WebRTC experience, some improvements can arrive through the meeting provider's own updates. Still, there are architectural limits; features that work beautifully in a native client may not reach an interoperable room experience. And even native room systems don't support every capability of their desktop counterparts. My view: DGJ will likely always be playing some degree of catch-up. Not because Microsoft isn't investing, but because interoperability and native application functionality are fundamentally different propositions. As conferencing platforms become intelligent collaboration environments, that difference may become increasingly significant. ClickShare Isn't Without Compromises None of this makes ClickShare automatically the better choice. DGJ is excellent for straightforward meetings, especially when users simply want to walk in and join without opening a laptop. ClickShare requires a compatible laptop, adds another device to the workflow, and depends on the wireless connection and room peripherals working correctly. In practice, though, most employees already run meetings from their laptops when they aren't in a meeting room, so it is a familiar workflow rather than a new one. For organizations that primarily use Teams and only occasionally join meetings hosted elsewhere, DGJ may be perfectly adequate. Other options are also worth evaluating, including enhanced SIP interoperability services, wired laptop connectivity, and room systems that support more than one native meeting platform. The point isn't that ClickShare is universally superior; it's that it represents a different, viable approach to the interoperability problem. It's Time to Rethink How We Measure Interoperability Today we tend to judge room interoperability by which platforms a room can join, whether one-touch join is supported, and whether audio, video, and content sharing work. Those measures are important but increasingly insufficient. Organizations should evaluate the complete meeting workflow: scheduling, joining, presenting, collaborating, hosting, and following up. Can employees accomplish what they need without workarounds? Can they use the platform's features? Can they run the meeting with tools they already know? A room that joins every platform but restricts what people can accomplish isn't necessarily better than one that requires an extra step to connect. Successful meeting room interoperability shouldn't be measured by whether users can quickly join a meeting. It should be measured by whether they can accomplish everything they came to the meeting to do. As AI continues to reshape meetings, I suspect that distinction will only grow in importance. Update: Microsoft Cross-Platform Meeting Connect On the day I planned to publish the original article, Microsoft announced Cross-Platform Meeting Connect, which in the future intends to address some of these interoperability issues. Key points for now: it is not yet available; Zoom currently says it will arrive before the second half of 2027; and Microsoft hopes other vendors will announce participation soon. I think it's a great initiative, and I'll provide updates as features become generally available. My analysis focuses on what is available today. And the question I asked about DGJ, whether it can ever keep up, applies equally to Cross-Platform Meeting Connect. This post summarizes my original LinkedIn article. Read the full piece and join the discussion in the comments on LinkedIn.

Terms & Conditions BC Strategies Expert analysis, insights, and opinions Terms & Conditions 1. Acceptance of Terms By accessing and using this website (the "Site"), you agree to be bound by these Terms and Conditions ("Terms"). If you do not agree with any part of these Terms, you must not use the Site. 2. Use of the Site You agree to use the Site only for lawful purposes. You agree not to engage in any conduct that restricts or inhibits any other user from using or enjoying the Site. You agree not to transmit any unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, profane, hateful, racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable4 material of any kind. You are responsible for ensuring that all information you provide to us is accurate and complete. 3. Intellectual Property All content on this Site, including but not limited to text, graphics, logos, images, and software, is the property of BCStrategies and/or EnableUC Inc. or its licensors and is protected by Canadian and international copyright laws. You may not reproduce, distribute, or modify any content from this Site without our express written permission. 4. Limitation of Liability This Site is provided on an "as is" and "as available" basis. BCStrategies and EnableUC Inc. makes no warranties or representations about the accuracy or completeness of the content on this Site. To the fullest extent permitted by law, BCStrategies and/or EnableUC Inc. shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or punitive damages arising out of your use of or inability to use this Site. 5. Governing Law These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein. Any disputes arising under these Terms shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Ontario. 6. Changes to Terms BCStrategies and/or EnableUC Inc. reserves the right to modify these Terms at any time. We will post any changes on this page, and your continued use of the Site after such changes have been posted will constitute your acceptance of the revised Terms. 7. Privacy Policy Your use of this Site is also subject to our Privacy Policy, which is incorporated by reference into these Terms. Please review our Privacy Policy . 8. Contact Information If you have any questions about these Terms, please contact us at: BCStrategies c/o EnableUC Inc. 1235 Priory Court Oakville, Ontario L6M 1B5 Canada contactus@enableuc.com (647) 258-7460 Effective Date: April 4, 2025

Latest Podcasts BC Strategies Expert analysis, insights, and opinions Podcasts

Upcoming Events BC Strategies Expert analysis, insights, and opinions We hope to see you at these events November 2026 Today Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6