Stuff and nonsense in Unified Communications
February 19, 2008
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.
Comments
2 Responses to “Stuff and nonsense in Unified Communications”
Got something to say?
Matt,
I think you and I are the same wavelength about UC, i.e., what does the end user really want from “UC technologies,” both for personal and business communication needs?
I, too, started from messaging (unified messaging or UM), which was initially focused on bring voice mail and email together. However, because voice mail was not simply mailbox-to-mailbox messaging, but messaging, but converted phone call attempts to messaging and vice versa, I decided that UM needed to be upgraded as a subset of UC.
When Instant Messaging came into the picture, unfortunately as proprietary subscriber services that didn’t work well for enterprise control or public interoperability like the PSTN, we lost out in making presence technology useful for telephony. Now, that has become a handicap for UC implementations, since we do need meaningful “federation” between enterprise communications and the public carrier domain.
Mobility is the biggest driver, in my book, for the flexibility of UC services that end users will want as eitehr a contact initiator or a contact recipient/respondent. Those two needs are not identical! Furthermore, the new new multi-modal “smart-phones” are what will make UC fly, because they do provide access to UC flexibility when it is needed the most, away from the desk, moving around, or in environments where you can’t always talk, listen, or look.
Mobile devices are also becoming the focal point for business and personal usage, which means the devices have to subscribe to separate business and consumer applications and connections. However, the user interfaces don’t have to be identical for both (although it would be nice), because they are really contextually different and “application” access must be differentiated. (You don’t mix business with pleasure!).
So, users will need personal, consumer-based access and interface, along with an business organizational one, that will share a common personalized mobile device that is chosen by the user, not the enterprise. Of course, end users must get to control their accessibility and modes of communication with people and automated processes, based on their relative priorities to the user and environmental circumstances.
That’s the vision - but what should we call all of that? Back in 2000, I chose “UC”, but now is that really adequate for end users?
My view is that Unified Communications = Unified Vehicles. It’s the wrong description that stuck - mainly because it allowed everyone to claim they ‘had it too”.
Ultimately, I believe that it won’t matter that much. Communication will go peer to peer, the concept of calling to find out who to speak to will disappear - search and the mobile web will change everything!