Conversationware

You’d be forgiven for thinking that telephony lives in a vacuum. Considering that a bunch of ‘communications’ companies were in a big room for two days, I haven’t seen any blogging on the subject at all.

Our stand was busy enough that I had no time to go and see what else was of interest - so I was looking around on blog searches….nothing, nada!

Please feel free to point anything out I shouldn’t have missed!

So by most recent standards the show it was pretty good, and Olympia avoided the normal trade show tumbleweed, although Andy did have time to be on the phone occasionally.

Although we have a lot of solutions these days, Fax Over IP has really taken off in the last 12 months so we concentrated on that message - it went down really well for a mixture of channel and end users.

This one might even pay for itself

Perhaps this is old news already

A sale has been on the cards since they went completely indirect and the manufacture was outsourced (if memory serves).

I remember when the big UK PBX’s in the old days consisted of

• Siemens ISDX
• Mitel SX2000
• Nortel Meridian Option 11
• Alcatel 4400
• Lucent Definity
• Ericsson MD110

A bit crowded when certain other companies joined the fray I suppose.

Obviously there are no announcements from Aastra about futures yet, as this won’t be concluded until April 2008.

The MD110 had a superb installed base in the UK. Back in the day they had a very innovative and reliable distributed solution. It was kind of the Ford Granada of the comms world.  

I’m sure this won’t happen soon, and I feel a bit like an ambulance chaser - but if MD110 customers were to consider change, they should keep hold of their Unified Messaging Onebox system, as it is an AVST CallXpress system in disguise - and that fits onto any IPT PBX. (drop me a note).

I’m telling myself that it’s just being helpful really

There’s far too much of it about and I’ve just read some more here. Sorry Art, I have to call it like I see it

The clue is in the first paragraph, where it says;

“What was most interesting about this piece was that it quoted several different definitions of UC promoted by leading industry technology developers and analysts”

We can’t let people off with describing the technology just how they would like to see it at some far off distant point can we? Those leading developers and the pet analysts, with their own interests at heart, are currently spinning off each other into a dustcloud that nobody can see into.

I really don’t have a problem with people who disagree about a definition -if they would only come up with a definition that people can understand. Yes it can be complex, which is why a clear explanation is required….apply more rigor. If people can’t understand what you’re saying, stop talking.

Personally, I don’t think the following should be mixed up.

• Unified Messaging
• Real Time Communications (The real Unified Communications can stand up)
• Fixed Mobile Convergence
• Communications enabled business processes.

That’s because Unified Communications is about the person, the user - people communicate, companies don’t.

So, what exactly is being unified for the user? - Answer: GUI client software.

The whole point is that instead of installing ten types of client software and teaching the user to work each one, for the telephone, instant messaging, conferencing, video conferencing, web conferencing, for example - a user just has one interface and a single address book for the lot. Multimodal. By combining client software, we make it easier for the user to use - and therefore to understand.

You wouldn’t/couldn’t have a single interface for messaging and real time communications because they would have different buttons. I also can’t see people using GUI software on a mobile device, pie in the sky…but perhaps that’s just personal opinion.

UC will generate sales - but only when they show it fully working to the end users.

/end rant.

If anyone else wants to agree or disagree, feel free to join in.

When I looked for free web based email, I knew Gmail was going to be the best option.

With huge amounts of storage, accessible from my various PC’s, Spam filters and desktop notifications (so I don’t have to check for new mail, which is the most important), plus Gtalk Instant Messaging on the same login - so it proved.

Thus, when I wanted to have separate ‘blog’ email, I took a look at Google Apps (it’s free, so why not).

Google Apps is Gmail, but with your own domain - (e.g. mail is sent to name@company.com) but with all the above benefits, and more. Being free, I think it’s great value, and even at the premier edition at $50 per user per year - compared to the cost of running premises based equivalents is a no brainer.

Setting it up does mean you need your own domain, and access to the control panel to follow google’s instructions in moving the Email MX records…..it’s easier than it sounds though, and knowing someone who can help is useful.

On first impressions, it was good. But last year…..

I had the problem of trying to access two separate Gmail accounts from the same machine - it turned out to be very unwieldy flicking from account to account and notifications weren’t as timely if I wasn’t logged in.

It’s amazing how the little things prevent you from using and being completely happy with software.

Recently however, Google Apps and Gmail have both moved to supporting IMAP, and my problems have been solved. It’s brilliant!

One of the most useful additional applications is Docs - great for sharing information between boundaries….accessible from anywhere. I haven’t worked out my three different calendars yet, but there are apparently synching apps available.

I’m now using Thunderbird to receive and send mail from multiple gmail accounts (as well as a separate email account for work!). I can still be logged in to my primary gmail account (personal) for most of the day.

With all the above facilities, Google Apps is aimed at companies - but I always wondered whether companies would get over the trust issue. That is, trusting Google to look after their email.

I figured for my own part that if Google let any information go, their share price would slide, and therefore they had more to lose than I did.

There is an extremely interesting article here, showing a Legal company have made exactly the same decision.

Email server, Software, support, Spam software, archiving, the list of savings just goes on.

If you don’t need to support a LAN to run documents and email (with failover support), this tends to help free up both funds and the staff from looking after it, not to mention users who can literally work anywhere with mobile broadband.

It has to be worth most small companies time in having a look at this, and if Legal companies are happy to trust their customer’s information, then that shouldn’t stop anyone.

Something is wrong with Presence.

I harp on about this technology, and I keep looking around to see whether I can be proved wrong.

So, I was grateful to Mike Gotta (again) for pointing to this audio interview (48MB, 50 Min) with one of the founding fathers of Presence, Peter St-Andre with Lee Dryburgh, who happens to be organising a Unified Communications event in the spring, Ecomm2008

I do like being proved wrong, although friends and family may disagree, but my problem with Presence is still that it doesn’t seem scalable beyond immediate and close relationships.

Although very entertaining, and well worth the (your) time, I’m not sure the interview answered all my questions.

Ok, here’s the beef.

The more people I know, the more likely I am to be interrupted at someone elses convenience. 

On the basis that I don’t want to micro-manage my availability between constantly changing relationships with all the people I know, I just can’t make it work.

I initially equated Presence with ‘Busy Lamp Field’.

This was a quaint term used to describe the lights on a key telephone system handset, that lit when someone lifted their phone handset. As an early key system evangelist I thought this ‘Presence’ was going to be great.

Of course, the supposition turned out to be wrong. Despite people desperately wanting it to work (including me). Busy Lamp Fields are possibly why ‘phone’ people are very keen on this tech, but BLF and IM are not the same!

Whilst a ‘lit lamp’ told someone I was on the phone, and helped them know ‘not to try calling me’ (note, try) - when the lamp wasn’t lit, it DID NOT mean I was definitely at my desk and available to talk.

Whereas, the blinking IM message says that until you reply, you’re being ignorant. The refusal to communicate is in broad daylight.

Thus, there is an emotional blackmail being set, and to my mind that is exactly why people don’t buy into it.

It almost pains me to say it, but telephone presence is more useful to the recipient than desk based presence, in that there is no obligation to interact.

Another problem exists and it is this.

As a real time communication, there are also less facilities than asynchronous communication. This question of synchronous vs asynchronous came up in the podcast also, but indirectly.

So, the time to compose a considered and consultative response just isn’t there in real time conversation.

You can’t forward an IM for consideration by someone to contribute (with any certainty someone is going to be there right now!)

And, unlike other web based communication, the conversation isn’t discoverable (indexed) and won’t contribute to the knowledge base of the rest of the community. 

I find it interesting that the chap who first got me thinking on the Presence subject, Alec Saunders, has his company, Iotum, pioneering another communications medium - the multiparty conference call. 

Interesting because the conference call, whosoever has one, is booked in advance, and has a subject. It is a viable alternative to Presence . The permission factor is key for me. I’m not yet sure whether this has a significance on Alec’s thoughts on his New Presence…dot dot dot.

So, let’s have an invite…and acceptance….to talk about a subject….at a particular time, or joint circumstance.

If we have agreed to talk on a subject, and we’ve both concurrently indicated we’re in free mode, THEN let the availability be shown. It’s better than trying to reclassify everyone I know.

In my view, Presence missed a step, the equivalent of the ringing phone invitation.

I’ve been having fun.

I got the idea of a diagram from David Armano - his blogging story is here, worth a quick read. He always seems to have a diagram or two to communicate his ideas and I’ve been impressed. I thought I’d have a go at that…only I can’t draw very well.

So, the mindmap below was created at http://bubbl.us - a free hosted service for mindmaps. A very simple to use and quite exquisite user interface. It took only a few minutes to work out how to use.

I love mindmap interfaces anyway, being the most gratifying way to communicate difficult concepts visually without any visual design talent (believe me).

The MOST special part of this map though is that it is ‘embedded’ on the page. It is read only, but, you can click, drag and zoom in and out on the page. Give it a go…I’ve been messing with it all evening.

No matter that I haven’t finished the map, I can update the web application, and it will update on the page, and anywhere else I’ve shared it, with no further effort.

One snag, the solution is being re-written right now, and we’ll have to wait for the problem free embedding version for you Firefox viewers. I’ve added the diagram (exported naturally) below for a full view.

If you can’t see it properly, click this image

The next step is for me to see what it looks like in a Reader.

The idea behind this mindmap is to group technologies together to see what patterns emerge and to remind how things might fit together.

Companies are going to find it harder than ever to prioritise where they spend their communications budget.

Unified Messaging groups together message types now merging into one client (although not a single application). Unified Communications are merging into another - if that’s your definition too - it’s not everyone’s.

The more established technologies have more facets, it seems to indicate there’s more to come from the asynchronous and newer techs. I also think that asynchronous technologies will merge into a single interface….stands to reason.

I suppose in the end, you have to decide what you want to communicate, who to, and how. This diagram merely shows the how.

I know I have to add micro-blogging, but feel free to chip in, or let me know where I’ve got it wrong.

Why spend time, sweat and tears writing your predictions for the coming year.

Relax in your armchair instead, with your google persistent search turned on for the first week in January, and peruse until you find some you agree with - then link to them.

My interest is in how communications can help with business, in all senses of the word and to my mind, the best on the subject is a great article by Shomik Banerjee summarising 2007 and looking at 2008 for enterprise communications. Really good job.

Of course, I have to comment, or it’s not worth linking

Shomik doesn’t say if the headlined views below are in order of importance, or likelihood;

• A) PBX is passé, ‘UC’ is the buzzterm
• B) The Focus Market for Enterprise Telephony is Shifting to SMB
• C) Enterprise Mobility is ‘Hot’
• D) Collaboration Gains Fresh Impetus
• E) SOA and Web Services Gain Traction
• F) Open Source and Open System Gain Mindshare

In terms of market impact, I would have them in roughly the reverse order.

(maybe not by the end of 2008 though)

Another good read is by Charlie Bess on the EDS fellows ‘next big thing blog’. I like the Green IT idea, and I guess this is just an acceleration of the virtualization movement, which has been manic paced in any event.

Feel free to link to others in the comments!

Could society could be stupid enough to label completely different disciplines with the same moniker?

I used to wonder.

Communications meant both “telephone technology” and a “job title within some PR function”

Back in the day though, telephones seemed completely different to the ‘other sort’ of communications, which seemed to be about getting your message published in a newspaper.

Well, doesn’t this single word make more sense this year? (Happy 2008)

Today, you can draw a theoretical line between real time voice communications, through other one to one technologies, to messaging, and on to other asynchronous group based communications like blogs, wikis and social software.

So my theme is that;

• Marketing is talking - originally to a very wide audience, but now steadily being segmented (segmented, segmented) into smaller and smaller targeted audiences.
• Real time communications is talking - originally one to one, but now steadily being increased from one to one conversation into larger and larger targeted audiences.
• Communications has finally lived up to it’s original promise.
• Cisco bought a Web Conference company last year. That tells you the same thing - communications is communications, and wherever the technology falls between the two endpoints, it is all interelated.

So: communications were unified enough already. Therefore, doesn’t the phrase ’Unified Communications’ lack definition, ambition and a sense of purpose?

Get a telephone, and surround it with lots of other technology like IM, everyone seems to say. Perhaps the better approach is to define a business process, and then telephone enable if needs be.

Voice is used to persuade, to seal the deal. But the fact is, written communications are just as useful as voice communications and sometimes a great deal more.

I suppose I could have just rung you all to tell you, but this seemed like a better way.

PBX based companies had better think this through.

The phrase “mobile presence” is a misnomer, but even so, there should be more done about applications sharing information as to whether someone is currently “on the phone” or not.

As difficult as it already is to share IPT desktop phone status information between organisations - very early days - it is even less common to be able to determine someone’s mobile phone status electronically.

It occurs to me that this situation is unlikely to improve.

The issue is this

• If people are shown to be already on the phone - people won’t call to find out. Thus, there is likely to be a corresponding drop in telephone calls, voicemail leaving and voicemail access, and therefore call revenue.
• Presence reduces call revenues

So, what hope for ubiquitous presence information?

There is a hope if the (software?) application that generates the call in the first place, then makes that information available for the duration of the call.

For instance

IPT software commonly redirects incoming calls to people not at their desk. Do those IPT software systems then show someone as ‘busy, mobile’ for the duration of the call? I’m betting not many of them do.

If the trunk to trunk remains connected, device busy status should be simple shouldn’t it?

And therefore, with the right application development, if all incoming calls are routed through a central location, then another important UC element could be delivered.

What’s left then, is to generate ‘outgoing’ calls from a mobile device through a linked application.

Alcatel’s My Teamwork solution facilitates that, but perhaps it should be a facility of some mobile operating system as well.

Google Android  and Grand Central anyone?

Then, there is the issue of being out of service or ’switched off’….it goes on, this search for the UC holy grail.

More and more it has seemed to me that VOIP doesn’t matter. I don’t see this discussed on mainstream communications news sites, presumably it’s a question of who pays their bills through advertising.

I was contemplating on ways to express this properly, when I read this seasonal post by Ken Camp, looking back at the technological year . He did the job already, - see the extract below.

Voice over IP - VoIP as Plumbing
If there was a shaking revelation in 2007, I don’t think it shook enough people. Having written books and papers about VoIP from a number of different perspectives, my view is focused in a different way that the enterprise customer view. My history in VoIP goes back ten years or more. But the stark reality is in 2007 VoIP became plumbing.

For many years, VoIP was viewed as a major disruptive technology. People expected it would completely change the face of telecommunications. I know I believed that. But I don’t believe that today. I’ve often, in the past, referred to circuit switching, for either voice or data, as nothing more than plumbing. It’s base infrastructure. It’s a foundation.

VoIP has proven that it’s really just another foundation element. The hot technology area is voice as a service. It’s how and where we can use voice services. How we deliver them is irrelevant to customers and users. VoIP truly is just another delivery mechanism. It’s a great delivery mechanism. It lets us maximize the value of IP networks. Cost savings and operational efficiencies can be huge, but at the root of things, VoIP is simply a service delivery mechanism for a service.

There is another element, in as much as voice calls are going to be less frequent, and therefore doesn’t matter as much as it used to. A trend I think will continue over 2008.

Incidentally, I should be careful with plumbing analogies, I am still very high up on uk google search for k.i.t.c.h.e.n.s after a rather overworked analogy back in April on how if you wanted to buy one (unified communications was the k.i.t.c.h.e.n), you shouldn’t be held to ransom by your plumbing provider (voip).

Anyhow, thanks Ken, I enjoyed the rest of your post.