Conversationware

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.

I’ve noticed that a number of people searching for “CallPilot Exchange 2007″ are coming to this blogsite.

Because I posted asking where Callpilot is going, about 10 months ago, I’m seemingly getting a few hits through lack of news elsewhere.

Going back to Google just now, I just searched on - “Callpilot news”

In terms of Search Results - I often figure that the more recent the information, the more relevant. (Age affects relevancy, but only in terms of search of course

The fourth entry looked somewhat relevant, but goes back to 2001 - 6 years!

So….not a lot of news then. Conspicuous by it’s absence.

Of course, if you’re searching for Exchange 2007, you should know that Callpilot never ‘unified’ with Exchange in the first place. So there should be no real effect of a later version (guessing).

Callpilot stores messages on the voicemail server and should therefore really be described as ‘Integrated’ with Outlook. It works because Email clients like Outlook can look in multiple places for messages….and that’s why Outlook Web Access won’t show you voicemail in this sort of set up.

In my book at least, that was another terminology balls up by the industry at large, but that’s not the focus here.

If you’re searching to compare Nortel UM with Microsoft UM - although there may be licencing reasons to consider change - spare a thought for the users having to retrain! 

Seriously though, the whole Callpilot issue is still very cloudy with the Micosoft Exchange 2007 UM release and no news of a Callpilot development path (that’s available to me).

Callpilot runs on Windows 2003, when the new Nortel comms servers run on Linux. Thinking on, perhaps that’s why MS see the Comms market as lucrative….it’s an OS thing.

- and moreover with the new Microsoft Office Communications Server being effectively a switch with a proprietary IP protocol meaning specific handsets, and so how is that sitting with the partners in the Innovative Communications Alliance?

I believe the original plan was for OCS to be a CSTA overlay to existing telephony, but that’s not what I’ve read now.

If its confusing for me, it must be for everyone else, especially existing customers - unless someone can steer me in the right direction?

Maybe my research skills are deserting me, or perhaps bad news isn’t any better than no news?

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?

The age of ‘Presence’ is on us, with the requisite promises of unlimited contact potential.

A couple of Microsoft attributed quotes lately on the subject

For example, many of the features implemented in a PBX are intended to ensure that calls are not missed and/or do not end up in voicemail: so-called “find-me, follow-me” features. Unified communications uses a fundamentally different paradigm to address the underlying customer need

And another one

Presence based communications: you only attempt to communicate with someone who is advertising their willingness and ability to communicate with you at any given moment

OK, so, I can see the point. Instant messaging is a great overlay, and will give us the very important ability to know if someone is available at their desk.

So, wouldn’t it be neat if Unified Communications could tell me if you’re on the phone? (more…)

Are you at your desk, are you on the phone…these are the two key ingredients to make your Real Time Unified Communications cake rise.

Presence, I think they call it, and, exposing (all of) the PBX telephone handset status to software is what’s needed.

Did anyone say Busy Lamp Field?

However, whether you can have cost effective UC might come down to whether you run a Call Centre.

I’ll explain (more…)