I read David Danto’s recent piece, “I’ll Have What She’s Having: AV and Building Management May Finally Click,” with great interest. David makes several good points, but when it comes to a multi-building college campus, I disagree with the idea that AV and building management systems must or inevitably will merge. Let me tell you why.

My college was an early adopter of putting AV equipment online. This goes back to the days when you had to order a NIC card separately and install it yourself. Even then, I recognized the value of readily available data and remote access. Like most AV designers and programmers, we’ve been controlling lights and shades from the touch panel for years. We’ve also integrated occupancy sensors in some projects to detect when a room is in use. I understand the value of a managed environment.

But when a major AV company once asked me, during a building project, to introduce them to our facilities staff so they could demo their environmental controls, my answer was quick and firm: Absolutely not.

Why? Because I respect the HVAC and security teams and the work they do every day. Sure, to the average person, the room is either too hot, too cold or just right — but behind the scenes, it’s far more complex. There are real safety and financial consequences tied to those systems. I don’t know how to manage heating and cooling for a single building, let alone an entire campus with hundreds of them. I don’t want the systems I manage to accidentally shut off the heat during a subzero night, or misfire and create an oven during a humid summer. And I certainly don’t want the lecture-capture cameras in my classrooms used to surveil or respond to incidents.

Part of this may sound like someone who already has enough on his plate — and that’s not entirely wrong. But it’s also the perspective of an experienced technology support professional who knows how quickly things can go sideways and how essential it is to have experts involved in restoring order. I don’t want to be responsible for fixing a heating unit, just like I wouldn’t want the HVAC team deciding when to power down an AV rack. What’s often missing in these conversations is mutual respect.

These systems don’t need to be merged; they just need to communicate — and only when necessary. Could it help environmental systems to know a room is occupied? Maybe. But they don’t need that info from the AV system. Inexpensive occupancy sensors are readily available. The sensor I need may not be the one they need, so why should either of us compromise when both systems are mission-critical to the user experience?

For technology to succeed, it must improve the experience of the people using it — the end users. The idea of a fully integrated environment might thrill tech lovers, but it’s not always what’s best for users. Over the years, I’ve learned that some functions should be automated. When the projector turns on, the screen should drop, and the volume should reset. But I’ve also learned faculty don’t appreciate when the lights dim and blinds drop automatically. The “wow” factor is fun — but not always functional.

Controlling a room’s temperature from the AV system? That’s a solution looking for a problem. Sharing occupancy data with HVAC might be useful — say, when a classroom camera detects 75 people and the system can prepare for a rise in temperature — but that’s about data sharing, not control. Only building professionals should decide what to do with that data. They know the full picture. They manage the broader consequences.

Now, I’m not saying David is wrong in every case. I don’t know how environmental controls work in large city office buildings. Maybe those environments already have blended teams or operational needs that justify convergence. But I do know higher education. And I can say with confidence that most AV and building management teams in colleges and universities are not in favor of combining these two worlds.