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?
