Conversationware

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.

I caught this post from Nick Fera it struck me that many of us are still experimenting with the best ways to handle email.

When you spend a large part of a day out of the office (it varies whether I set OOF), don’t you find that by the end of that day, you will still have processed everything?  It happens to me a lot.

This is strange, because when I’m away from my desk and not on Instant Messaging, then I would expect more email, not less.

I’ve been mulling some reasons for this ‘disconnect’. Perhaps all or none of these are true for you?

1. By the time you get back, some other, helpful, people have already responded to the email reducing your workload

2. By the time you get back, the emailer has found an answer on their own and has emailed again to say so

3. You haven’t been generating outbound email, so therefore (obviously) you  have less inbound responses to deal with

4. The session is more productive when doing email in batches, because it’s not using interuption time (up to 15 mins to re-focus on the original task I hear)

The extrapolated theory then could be as follows

“helpful people, those more willing to communication instantly, get stuck in email threads”

To be more productive, be less helpful?

- or to put it another way, perhaps this is why service levels in your favourite company having been dropping since email was invented.

Are voice calls quicker than using email? I would say only if you know they’re available.

The way I look at it, the term ‘Mobile Presence’ seems to be a contradiciton in terms. 

I originally read this linked article and found myself thinking the issue was very complicated. And now, having mulled it over in terms of whether this technology was something I would actually ‘use’ or not, I’m skeptical.

Leaving aside the ability to see if someone is on the phone or not….till another time at any rate…

My first thought was;

Because I always have my mobile with me does that mean I’m now always present?

Trouble is - I don’t want to instant message via a mobile phone if I can help it - as I’m usually busy being mobile and away from my desk.

Looking back, ‘Presence’ was coined by the Instant Messaging PC client, and therefore, to say I am ‘present’ actually means that I am at my PC desktop and contactable. Not being present means I have wandered off and am not going to respond.

In my book, this concept can’t be extended to a mobile phone, so ‘mobile presence’ is a misnomer. OK, enough with the re-iteration already already.

The meaning of Presence, has started to morph into ‘availability and willingness to interact’, and to that end a lot of discussion is being put into handling contacts, grouping them, and puttings rules against VIP versus double glazing people. And the bottom line is, I’m not sure about this.

So, in the instance I am away from my desk, I would pitch my voicemail against ‘presence’ technology as being most useful. Give me a call, and I’ll decide on the spot whether I’ll answer you or not, and, unlike a rules engine, I won’t ever get it wrong.

So, if I really can’t talk to you now, then leave a message and I’ll get back to you as soon as it is convenient. Of course, leaving a voicemail should in itself move the conversation onwards, so this isn’t a waste of either your or mine time.

I think that’s a lot easier than maintaining a presence engine via some small mobile screen that you forget to check every ten minutes, don’t you?

So couldn’t the communications industry just define Presence to mean Whether I’m at my desktop, or not?

It’s not perfect, so perhaps we should think more about how conversations are initiated, a more formal process that simulates that so repetitive IM, “can we talk?” 

That permission element is going to be all important

A useful article here, which has gartner predicting that enterprise IM will go from 25 to 100% penetration in enterprises by the end of the decade, and it has some market figures.

There are some other predictions, like “by 2012, presence technology will be offered independently of IM and email products”

I thought this sort of thing was called a busy lamp field in days gone by, but I could be wrong.

This post is incomplete, but then so is the industry

I’ve mentioned before that the key to understanding Unified Communications (all of it) is the software interfaces presented to the user. (You may notice I don’t mention voip at all in the following, it’s about users).

Unless the user is going to adopt functionality, there is almost no point deploying it…..and by definition the more interfaces there are, the more difficult adoption will be (how many training course will users go on).

Once the required interfaces are defined, it’s so much easier to put the technologies in the right place, or in the right box, so to speak, and so I have been framing business requirements around the GUI.

The reason I’m bothering here is that I have met with customers who have in front of them very interesting new products - but they overlap so much, and so how does one decide?

It can be as tricky as hell, as current comms software technology on offer includes

Messaging

• Email
• Voicemail
• Fax
• Text Messaging

Real Time Conversation interface,

• Instant Messaging - are you at your desktop
• Telephony - are you on the phone
• Conferencing, Audio dial in, dial out, desktop sharing, webinars
• Video conferencing, are you at your desktop

You can see overlaps wherever you look with UC - but there will be ‘at least’ two interfaces for users - as the ‘button’ requirements are different for messaging, to that of real time.

Messaging buttons; - Address, Send, receive, store, mark as urgent, copy, forward, and so forth

Real Time buttons; - Receive contact, Make Contact, whether IM, call, or video, include someone else in the conversation, transfer, desktop share, present, record, and so forth

• Messaging interfaces are reasonably well defined
• Real Time Conversation interfaces are in their infancy
• Personal Contact Handling isn’t well defined

However, for framing Unified Communication discussions and decisions, each user will probably have at least the first two initial interfaces for personal productivity.

A third interface should exist, but doesn’t yet (?)

Personal contact handling

• This doesn’t yet exist as a recognised ‘desktop based user interface’ category - although network based Grand Central is a good start in showing what will be possible
• Call routing and handling, where should calls go, onto which device, at what time
• Planning - willingness to engage, calendar integration, - Iotum is interesting
• Call processing, what happens to the caller if you can’t take the call
• More loosely defined is a meta directory, routing and capture application such as that delivered by Corebridge - because contact information pervades around all communications solutions, (and existing applications).

It isn’t clear where functionality to control personal contact handling will be interfaced by the user, - most of the above is handled at premises based system admin level currently - but it makes sense if all features to determine the inbound call routing for today, all end up in one interface, (if not provided by a single backend system) to be controlled by the user instead of Admin.

This interface could yet still be provided by a hosted system provider, overlaying and complementing existing site number and mobile number implementations - instead of replacing them completely.

The final interface, enabling existing applications with (the same) communications

As well as providing the primary interface for specific channel technology (show me all my received faxes, calls, emails) All the technology channels above ‘may be’ suitable to ‘enable’ an existing user interface, by line of business - Email a Contact, Fax a contact, Call a contact, record a contact, Text a contact

By way of a small example, although fax is a single technology channel above and sounds simple enough - fax integration can get interesting when requirements appear on the horizon to integrate into Exchange Outlook, or Lotus Notes, then to the telephone system (TDM or IP), then to unified messaging (forward the fax to a local machine) then SAP or Oracle line of business applications, then back end integration to hard copy Multi Function Devices and onwards archiving to the industry flavour EDM.

Nobody said it was simple.

At this point, Microsoft Sharepoint usually comes up in the conversation as a replacement interface to all the existing applications, so UC takes on another interface….and so it goes on, much to the user’s consternation.

There’s a play on words about ‘users’ being addicted to existing interfaces, but that would be cheap.

How to choose

Enabling lots of interfaces with a technology flavour tends to point towards best of breed technologies instead of an all-in-one UC solution.

Generalising: wide ranging applications just don’t go very deep in my experience, and ultimately they don’t generate enough ROI, and therefore sales, to justify the development resource to integrate into every interface (converge) that may be required in every industry.

All in one solutions, may be fine in small organisations where the user requirements are very focussed and not wide ranging.

In larger organisations with wider ranges of activites, each messaging ,or real time conversation, ‘technology’ should support the most possible interfaces you can think of, (and multiple interfaces concurrently).

This almost defines a best of breed requirement for each technology - particularly when in a sector that is in acquistion mode - and if you are adopting UC, it won’t be long before you’re in a sector likely to be acquisition minded according to some sources -technology adopting sectors see most acqusition.

So when you acquire a major competitor next month and have to incorporate whatever they are doing into what you’re already doing, you want multi-interface communication products.

It’s plain that in these unforseen circumstances, functionality needs to be priced in a modular fashion, according to the interfaces required and the inherent value of doing so (each interface is it’s own individual case for each technology).

So, am I proposing that in order to have fewer user interfaces, there is a need for more technology boxes and management?

It’s debatable I suppose, but probably.

I’ve seen non specialist technology suppliers integrating essentially as ‘lip service’ to get the original deal, and then support evaporates over the period, especially when the next app needs enabling, and you have to start looking to replace again.

I’m lucky enough to see the best of breed technology I supply stick over a very much longer period.

If I’ve missed anything then it’s likely to be mobile - but that’s a longer conversation.

It’s been a long day, but is there anything else I haven’t thought about?

Click to Dial allows you to locate a number in some contact database and call it, but if the user is then handling the ongoing conversation on their telephone device - this precludes all other potential channels of communication - and it misses the point.

By Contrast, UC is about delivering a single user interface for Real Time Conversations - and these conversations need handling tools. See the picture below.

We’re all getting used to conversations being started in any of multiple modes, including IM, Telephone, Audio, Web, Video and Desktop conferences. The challenge is a consistent and single interface to handle the conversation

We might want to

• put people on hold
• mute them
• invite someone else either by IM phone or email (or by clicking their name)
• Consult with another colleague separately on a different channel 
• drop a specific person
• start a desktop share or make a presentation
• Record the whole thing

The tool also needs to do two things - show whether someone is at their desk, or not, and show when they’re on the phone (that defines presence for me). The first one is simple, the second can be approached in any number of different ways.

The ultimate goal is to share this information with people that you choose, in any organisation and whatever phone device you happen to be using. 

Have you seen a single interface to handle all of those conversations? Not many people have as yet, but it doesn’t stop them claiming to have a UC solution

My Teamwork from Alcatel Lucent has the best conversation GUI that I have seen and it also solves a lot of the problems that desktop installed solutions would have by being completely browser based, meaning that anyone can join in with any channel of communication.

It also covers a little of the other two aspects of UC, by which I mean incoming call handling and application integration.

People often tell me that they want one presence tool to use - that their screens are full of different interfaces.

I can see the point, but really I think you probably do need two at least. If you’re at work, it doesn’t seem right to be available to all your buddies and family…does it? I mean interruptions can take 20 minutes to get over and back to being fully focussed on your work, which is hardly fair to the employer.

At work, we have settled on a single tool for work activity, and this seems to be well regarded in terms of only being used as instant messaging if important, and to see when people are on the phone. It is distinct and walled.

In addition, we all probably have another tool for friends and family, switched off or rarely used during the working day. Although because we all have a choice of dozens, it will probably fall to people like Trillian Software and Meebo to persuade us to use a single interface to inter-connect to all of them.

The place to start thinking about presence is with the most simple change of status.

If I’m logged in at the desktop, I may be available, but if I’m not logged in, then I may only be contactable by the telephone.

So, call me if you need to.

The ‘need to call me’ part is of most significance here, and there are two sides to the benefit of being logged out;

1. Calls from my contacts are now more sporadic, because with them knowing I’m away from my desk, it allows them to re-schedule that item of middling importance for when I AM at my laptop screen, and hence more able to deliver.

2. So, logic says, and experience bears out, that when people now call me, they have already made a decision not to wait until I return to my desk. Which means my calls are nearly always more important.

The result is that when I’m mobile, I get less calls, and they’re more important

What this means is that when you roll out presence tools, it’s important that management communicate the importance of not hiding behind the ‘make it seem like you’re offline’ tool. Instead, use busy, or not interruptable wherever possible. The distinction is important for others in their decision making.

Equally, if I log on to some mobile presence element of the tool - there needs to be distinction between mobile and desk, for the reasons above.

The fact is, managing my mobile ’status’ will probably interrupt my attention, and therefore isn’t worth the effort. The only mobile status of interest to me is whether we’re on the phone or not - which we will have to spoof, awaiting desperately needed innovation.

With that in mind, I am still a fan of the iotum approach, especially from a subject driven conversation point of view.

There are some great conversations developing around the ideas and implications of communications presence. For instance, Ken at the Realtime Community is doing a good job of collating great information, and adds his take

Around whether it is a good thing or bad to be interrupted, I would provide a link to the following.

http://www.slowleadership.org/2007/03/accept-it-you-cant-concentrate-on-two.html .

I think that the interruptus element is a real barrier to user adoption….even after deployment. Simply, we’ll not ’sell’ the idea of presence to the people with the money, until they know their business won’t be interrupted, all day long.

Why are things are better when communication is unified?

I like to explain that I don’t want to have to choose ahead of time whether I want to text, speak, share documents, present a point of view or share my desktop or video when having a conversation with you. 

If we have to re-convene to continue a part of our conversation, wherever it is taking us, then a lot of the context of the moment may be lost. If I have to book a web conferencing room and pay for it, lets face it, 90% of the time this potentially valuable conversation opportunity may never happen.

So, instead, let me instigate any mode of conversation with a single tool, and then let me add and extend with different modes during the session. 

So, the first requirement is for an interface that will allow us not only to dial, but crucially to then control a phone call - mute, hold, conference someone else in, record and so forth. This is pretty new for most of us, but it only the first step.

The interface must then also include the ability to start with, or later revert to, an Instant Message instead - and because IM includes presence, then it handily allows me to know if you’re there or not, or on the phone, before initiating. (This is a big subject of course).

Could I also launch a desktop share, a powerpoint presentation or review a word document? Could I do this even if the person doesn’t have the right software loaded, if they’re not a part of my own organisation?

Can I use this with whatever telephone I happen to be using, office phone, mobile, home phone.

Can I then just add people at will, instantly?

The answer is yes, and companies who buy VOIP systems will be working this out soon.

I love this application, it’s called ‘My Teamwork’

Disclosure, my company is starting to promote this software.