Conversationware

This is one of those ‘prediction’ posts for comms solution companies.

Talking to a couple of integrator partners today about the change of IPT solutions from hardware to software, and about software upgrade renewal plans, it became clear there are issues bubbling away for the unwary.

These maintenance and support plans are designed to give the customer a better deal on continuous upgrades, and encourage a well supported customer base - presumably to higher levels of customer satisfaction over the period.

As a customer you get to know your upgrade costs in advance, and don’t suddenly have to ‘find’ money you didn’t know you needed for an upgrade. Manufacturers get more revenue to fund further research ….so all well and good all round.

There’s a seemingly small issue though, one that can bite you

• The customer only wants to start their support contract from the completion of install, which can be months after original kit order
• The manufacturers start the 12 month clock when they ship

Renewals are sent from the kit manufacturer three months before you’re likely to see the revenue from your customer - and paying out months before you even know if you’re going to get your contract renewed isn’t much fun. 

This is compounded when lots of suppliers on the same install are going live at different times.

So, if your suppliers aren’t flexible about go live days for your orders - as opposed to ship dates - there will be trouble about 9 months later. Sounds about right when dealing with some manufacturers.

Our company supplies workflow solutions, so we can manage the lead times for solving the issues (saving a personal headache). But I bet there will be more than a fair few accounts in the industry on stop this time next year.

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.

I was amused at Tom Keating’s headline t.38 fax dead?  but it turned out to be one of those reverse, attention grabbing lines. Bloggers eh?

t.38 or traditional fax are neither dead, nor losing revenue as far as I can see, and I thought I would echo the amount of interest seen in the field. Fax over IP seminar’s, real or virtual are stacked out.

There’s are simple reasons for this

• Fax doesn’t work very well over a VOIP network, kind of important!
• When moving to a VOIP system, analogue extensions just seem so ancient
• The real benefit of a centralised fax server is that it’s easier to failover
• Small pockets of fax machines, at remote offices for example, are more cost effectively replaced through a centralised server (mimicking the voip system benefits)

A few things may interest people here

Few VOIP systems support t.38 natively yet. For example Cisco does, Avaya does, but Mitel doesn’t until later in the year. It’s likely you will need new kit or software when support does arrive.

The important thing about t.38 support is that it’s the VOIP gateway that is actually terminating the fax, and then passing it on to the centralised IP fax server. (there are other ways if necessary)

There are also some wrinkles to iron out. For example some MGCP encrypted VOIP systems can’t transport t.38 as yet.

So, to sum up, Fax Over IP, or t.38 is a coming technology, not a fading one. And given the Return on Investment and ‘green’ qualities that electronic fax can lend to a VOIP project, I can’t see it going anywhere but up the agenda.

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.

Any telephone system salesperson will say their new sparkly VOIP platform supports unified messaging.

I bet it doesn’t support everything you might want though. The devil is in the detail.

Huh?

In reality, this is only because the word itself hasn’t been defined very well. So, what is being unified, where, and for whom?

If this subject is at all interesting to you, then you should know there are 4 types of user desktop accessible voice messaging.

A. Server based unified messaging

This very best unified messaging system sends voice and fax messages to the email server for storage and access.

The UM system will then usually also have a plugin installed at the email client for GUI setup and playback.*

This setup means that all messages then benefit from the ALL of the resilience and access methods that have already been paid for on the email system. (If you haven’t got resilience for your email system then message me abut Neverfail!)

1. The users see no difference between message types
2. Web Access is supported in the existing client OWA, iNotes
3. Notifications and rules are the same for all messages
4. Thin client is seamlessly supported
5. User voicemail set up is also GUI based via the email client plugin
6. Text to speech over the telephone is easy, but this should be available in all 5 scenarios listed here

NB: This does NOT mean install UM on the email server. I have seen this cause restrictions on functionality, reliability, change management overheads, and ongoing cost of ownership (and support…resellers take note). 

* Notes sites could use DUCS (Domino Unified Communications) for the clients, but this can be more expensive than a whole UM system on it’s own, so wouldn’t recommend it.

Most important of all, there is only ever ONE copy of the message for the user to worry about

B: Client based unified messaging (integrated)

This takes advantage of the ability of Email Client software, like Outlook, to access messages stored in different places.

Voice messages remain on the voicemail server, and are presented in a second ‘inbox’ to the user, meaning that access is graphical and bit easier, but not fully ‘unified’. The email client is ‘looking’ in two places for messages.

1. Voice messages are NOT available by web access to email
2. Resilience and backup for voice messages has to be considered separately
3. Voice messaging and email message are not totally interactive
4. Messages saved, or deleted, by the telephone are not resident in email ‘deleted’ folder, and therefore not retained.
5. Many systems can’t provide telephone access to email in this setup

C: ‘Simple’ ‘unified’ messaging

Most common amongst smaller telephone systems, the offer is to send voicemails to email.

Unfortunately, this option looks very similar on the UM brochure, with a voicemail in Outlook inbox.

In reality it is not at all useful for the user (the whole point of UM is to make life easier for the users).

1. The first choice is usually whether to ‘forward’ a voice message - which actually means ‘copy’. The trouble with ‘copy’ is that the user then has to manage two copies of the message, this is fraught.
2. The other option, which is to ‘move’ the message over to email, then means the message is no longer available via the telephone.

Not a good choice to have to make 

D: Browser based access

This isn’t ‘unified’ messaging at all, but it does provide a solution for those users who shouldn’t have voice messages embedded into email.

A lot of finance companies, for whatever reason, are worried that voice messages might be included in legal ‘discovery’. Interesting, because most legal companies I know are insistent that voice messages should be included in the email store.

Browser based access to the Voicemail server still provides a GUI front end for messages and mailbox configuration, but keeps the voice message separate from email, and, if streamed, can prevent a message being saved to desktop and then forwarded without record.

E: Voicemail Only

You may want some of the above for a proportion of users, but if you have users without email, they may want only a voicemail box. This should be possible without incurring any licence costs.

F: So What You Want is………

A system that can provide all 5 different types of messaging, concurrently, on the same system, to different sets of users with different needs.

You just don’t know what you’ll need next week, or next year after the acquisition.

You may also want the following

• Any PBX switch support - VOIP or not
• Multiple PBX support on the same box for migration
• Unlimited Auto Attendant Menus
• Personal Attendant Menus
• SMS notificiation
• Mobile device support (single mailbox, multiple devices)
• Mobile auto logon
• Speech Integration, Directory, Settings and Groupware Calendar and Contacts
• Fax integration
• Thin client support (Citrix, Windows)
• Old Voicemail key emulation (Octel, Audix etc)
• Networking
• Failover
• User Management
• Scalable
• Modular

Did I miss anything?

Oh, by the way, Unified Communications is completely separate - that uses different client software and application servers.

Message me if you need further info about a good service led distributor.

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.

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.

   It feels like the calm before the carnage.

This week, Microsoft aimed at the Enterprise market with OCS, and Microsoft Admins over the world pricked up their ears.

To be able to apply their hard earned Active Directory and networking skills to telephony, and not to mention finding a new use for all that spare rack space, it must have felt like heaven.

At the other end, the SMB’s also got something. For those who have never heard of Active Directory in other words, 3 Com announced it’s support for the open source Asterisk PBX. This aimed squarely at those interested in a good deal for their telephone plumbing. 

Open source lacks credibility? Well, here’s some  - and an excellent article from Dan York indicates some traction. Comparing Asterisk to the rise of Linux is probably spot on from what I’ve seen recently.

Trixbox had a stand at IP07 - (I thought it was VOIP for business show, my mistake), and it looked like theirs was one of the busiest stands. A cool colour scheme must be the reason.

Anyone who says Asterisk won’t be a player, well, that’s like saying no corporate would ever install linux based applications.

Back in May we saw $6.5B of linux server sales in a quarter. That’s only 7 or 8 years worth of activity, without credibility.

Genesys supporting Asterisk is somewhat of a suprise given who they’re owned by,  but hedging bets was never a bad thing. 

So - two potentially massively impactful solutions gain traction on a crowded staid technology market. The neighbourhood just isn’t the same any more - that banging sound must be the ‘for sale’ signs going up.

The demise of any technology is probably inevitable, apart from the PC, which seems to be responsible for most of the carnage. The PBX is being lined up as the next ‘mainframe’ to disappear.

My own thoughts are that A single interface for whatever it is you may want to do is just too powerful to resist, starting with the typewriter, and who knows where it will end

Alasdair Ford writes an excellent piece plotting the rise, and predicting the ‘possible’ eventual fall of the PBX.

It started me thinking about whether there are good reasons the traditional PBX will survive OCS and Asterisk.

I know my telephony friends will probably look at me with scorn for putting it like that But when speaking to a technical chap yesterday, and he told me he was considering downloading and running Asterisk telephony on his ADSL router for a home PBX, it kind of stopped me in my tracks.If the only reason for PBX is survival were to be “you wouldn’t run a business on that, would you?” then I don’t think there’d be a decade left in it:

But surely that’s not the case?

1. Call Centre - this is a nailed on survival strategy as the ‘niche’ is completely arcane. It is also the one reason most companies will keep some sort of PBX imho. It may split buying decisions between callcentre and back office, but that’s always been ‘common’.

2. Call handling - related to the first point, routing calls through reception consoles, and all the little foibles that users in ad-hoc groups need. After 5 rings, can we ring the bell in the delivery bay, for example, and how about Manager Secretary working.

3. New Technology projects are not always about all the new facilities, it’s about the little stuff you took away. Replacement solutions have to be very extensive in functionality.

4. Unless it is a greenfield site, it will always be less expensive to just carry on with what you have and add a few bells. The business case for UC hasn’t been proven for example, but then, is there a business case for email….who has to make that these days? And it amazes me how much kit out there has gone well beyond the 7 year cycle. The long tail indeed.

Fax is still a growing technology for us, lets not forget the proven stuff will find a market for time to come, although suppliers will probably consolidate. Do you fancy buying a telephony from someone who will be merging with one of the dominant players?

Ok, I’m stuck for ideas now, 4 reasons isn’t that great is it - what else is there?

First, frame the problem.

Whatever your definition of Unified Communications, (this link is my own ‘What is unified Communications’ approach), there is an inescapable conclusion that in order to make software based communications work good, you have to find, and then telephone enable (all) your contacts.

Only one problem, and that is, the possible inbound and outbound contact details you might need are literally all over the shop.

• Customer Relationship Management systems
• Accounts software
• Outlook or Notes personal address book
• Global address book
• Your mobile phone
• Paperwork
• Web
• A colleagues’ version of the above

Of course, these contacts increase exponentially with the number of social software platforms that you’re using such as linkedin and facebook.

(more…)