How we got a wireless presentation system approved for use inside a secure judicial network — and why that took months, while installing it took days.
This client is a Scottish justice-sector body that runs professional training for members of the judiciary, in a secure working court environment. Its teaching space had an ageing, unsupported wireless presentation system: presenters were tied to a cable, there was no straightforward way to bring the room’s own camera and microphones into a Teams call, and the audio processor was at end of life.
EIS was already the maintenance provider for a separate conference system in the same building, so the relationship and the site knowledge were in place before this project started.
Replace the wireless presentation system, bridge the room’s camera and microphones into Teams, replace the audio processor, add a display — on paper, a straightforward refresh. The real requirement was different: get a wireless device approved for use on a network built for a secure judicial estate.
That last point governed everything else. In most buildings, network approval for a new device is a form. In a secure judicial estate, it’s a process — and the process is the project.
Everything with no security dependency — the USB bridge, the audio processor, the display — was progressed in parallel while the wireless device went through assessment. That meant that when approval landed, most of the room was already in place and commissioning was a day’s work rather than a fresh mobilisation.
The approval itself needed more than a submission. Casting was disabled across the client’s managed laptops by group policy — a sensible default for a judicial estate, and a hard stop for a wireless presentation system. Resolving it meant working directly with the client’s own network architects on how the device would sit within their design, rather than asking for an exception.
“In a building like this the question is never just whether the kit works. It is whether it belongs on that network at all, and who is prepared to sign that off. We scoped the approval as its own workstream, kept everything that did not depend on it moving, and worked with their architects rather than asking them to make an exception for us.”
Karl O’Connor · Head of Sales · Efficient IS
A supported wireless presentation system replaced the unsupported original, letting a presenter share from their own device without a cable and without a dongle to lose.
A separate bridge device brings the room’s existing cameras and microphones into a laptop as a single connection, so a hosted Teams session sounds and looks like the room, not like a laptop.
The end-of-life processor was replaced and reconfigured, carrying both the USB audio path for Teams and the networked audio to the ceiling microphones.
A further display was added to improve sightlines across the teaching space.
The wireless presentation system and audio processor were configured and tested at our own facility before anyone went near the building, so on-site time was commissioning, not problem-solving.
The two headline devices are easy to confuse — one sends a laptop’s screen to the room, the other sends the room to a laptop — so staff were handed over with that distinction made explicit.
Access to a working court building is controlled, and visits were scheduled around the training programme’s own timetable. Pre-staging mattered more than usual here: with configuration and testing done off-site first, on-site time was kept to commissioning. The room is now commissioned and in daily use, with the wireless presentation system live on the client’s network.
Cleared through cyber security and network design, and working on managed devices.
The room’s own cameras and microphones now feed hybrid sessions, rather than a laptop on the table.
End-of-life processor swapped and reconfigured, carrying both the Teams audio path and the ceiling microphones.
An additional display was added to the space.
The project opened a direct route to the client’s own IT architecture function, beyond a single room.
Other public bodies have since asked to see this system running as part of their own due diligence before appointing a supplier.
Longer than the installation itself, in most cases — it depends entirely on the client’s own security assessment process. Scoping the approval as its own workstream, with its own owner and timeline, means the rest of the project isn’t held hostage to it: everything with no security dependency can proceed in parallel.
Yes, but the device has to be assessed and approved through the client’s own security process first — that typically means engaging with their network architects on how it fits their design, rather than requesting a blanket exception.
Yes — we’re comfortable in restricted environments where the approval process outlasts the installation, and where site access, timetabling and confidentiality all need to be worked around rather than assumed.
Tell us what you’re trying to add and what governs your network — we’ll tell you honestly what the approval path looks like.
Find our work useful? Add us as a preferred source on Google.