Conversationware

We’ve had communications Vendors telling us for months that;

• Voip is Unified Communications
• Unified Messaging is Unified Communications
• Sending an SMS from a database event is Unified Communications

All very irritating for everyone (ok, that would be me), but probably even more so from an analyst point of view.

The good news that someone sensible from the analyst community got involved, and Melanie Turek, tells it like it is. Bravo

The CURRENT guestimated market size is very interesting indeed, less than $10M.

I’m sure that’s about right given the (correct) definition

However, Vendors have all promised their investors that there is gold at the end of this rainbow. The land of Unified Communications will deliver prosperous and wonderous times.

So, how long will it take to get there?

VOIP (red) vs ‘Unified Communications’ Search trends (blue)

Having figuratively left Reading Town a few months ago, my guess is that we’re only up the road in Newbury, the natives look pretty similar, and the emperors new clothes are still only just getting worn in.

There is a broader point

Until we define things properly and without fluff and nonsense, then the interest in unified communications won’t hit the heights that vendors want to see.

(More diagrams after the jump for RSS readers)

(more…)

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.

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.

I hope that BCR don’t mind me promoting their reports, and using their article on UC adoption. Particularly interesting was that Unified Communications hasn’t often been a simultaneous purchase with the VOIP system (See picture). I think this is because the proposition is not yet understood by many.

 I enjoyed the article, and it is apparent that the vendors are   scrambling to define UC, and it’s associated ROI and benefits.

Unlike BCR, I find it useful to align technology to the user interface, and therefore would keep UM separate, as this uses the existing email client.

I personally believe that Real Time IM, telephony, and multi media conferencing (multiparty audio, web and video) will use the IM or presence front end, with or without the most convenient voice device, whether pot, Ip phone or mobile. VOIP is only a transport, not a software interface.

Because users will adopt extra functionality in their existing interface much more easily than adopting a new interface for existing functionality - i guess that Sametime and LCS have opened their front ends for the real time telephony play.

In addition, presence needs to be proliferated amongs other applications, like email, portals, chat and communityware, and therefore the single sign on and user management of MS and Lotus will attract users and admin staff alike.

The existing UC benefits will be personal and team productivity, and location independent working, which could pay for the technology quite easily, but Business Process based communications is unlikely to be served by either of these front ends.

Instead, there is a requirement for a ‘work area’ that could be defined loosely as ‘workflow’ for knowledge workers. This should be with an easy to use interface, of a wiki, or mindgenius for example, and topic based advancement and discussions. I’m pretty sure Sharepoint doesn’t yet fit that bill, even with it’s wiki plugins because of a heavy IT involvement.

Not to digress too much, but there is also whole missing piece of the jigsaw with the personal inbound contact management being poorly served and standards free. I expect this will be delivered by some net driven technology eventually.