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.

I kept hearing about Twitter, but to be frank, things are busy enough without learning anything new. But, I suppose there is nothing new about having to learn something else in web software land.

So, here I am

https://twitter.com/mattlambert

I follow only one person so far (1 hour and counting), and that’s because they linked to this blog with a twitter post, so I knew where to find them.

Ok, I admit, being in a conversation on your own is no fun for me - so if you’re reading, why not sign up? It’s free, takes about 10 minutes to discover the long and short of it all.

The premise is that you can keep up to date with people’s stuff, but only as and when its convenient for you, not for them.

It’s like IM but shorter and not so interruptive. This is a very important point for us Brits who, even if you’re ‘friended’ via instant messaging, won’t presume to interrupt even if your presence status is ‘green’ unless you’re very best of buddies.

I can see it would be a better form of ‘presence’ - much more contextual.

Ultimately, the fact I work remotely (no word reversal jokes huh), made the decision, as Twitter can apparently resemble being in an office by letting you pick up on ambient information without having to join in.

It even interfaces through your gtalk client and ping you to remind you to add a sentence and to make things easier.

Perhaps you can tell me if you’ve already had a go, or if you can add to the ‘business case’? I may have to update my Communications Mindmap

The phrase “mobile presence” is a misnomer, but even so, there should be more done about applications sharing information as to whether someone is currently “on the phone” or not.

As difficult as it already is to share IPT desktop phone status information between organisations - very early days - it is even less common to be able to determine someone’s mobile phone status electronically.

It occurs to me that this situation is unlikely to improve.

The issue is this

• If people are shown to be already on the phone - people won’t call to find out. Thus, there is likely to be a corresponding drop in telephone calls, voicemail leaving and voicemail access, and therefore call revenue.
• Presence reduces call revenues

So, what hope for ubiquitous presence information?

There is a hope if the (software?) application that generates the call in the first place, then makes that information available for the duration of the call.

For instance

IPT software commonly redirects incoming calls to people not at their desk. Do those IPT software systems then show someone as ‘busy, mobile’ for the duration of the call? I’m betting not many of them do.

If the trunk to trunk remains connected, device busy status should be simple shouldn’t it?

And therefore, with the right application development, if all incoming calls are routed through a central location, then another important UC element could be delivered.

What’s left then, is to generate ‘outgoing’ calls from a mobile device through a linked application.

Alcatel’s My Teamwork solution facilitates that, but perhaps it should be a facility of some mobile operating system as well.

Google Android  and Grand Central anyone?

Then, there is the issue of being out of service or ’switched off’….it goes on, this search for the UC holy grail.

Exposing a combined desk and telephone presence is like giving out your front door keys.

So, are your parents and best friends welcome around at ANY time?

The likelihood is that even if they have keys, the visit would still be agreed in advance. Either that, or perhaps you’d have a standing arrangement for a certain day of the week.

Work is a bit like that standing arrangement, a pact between colleagues to be available

But does your availability pact extend to everyone in your business, to any more people than you’re sharing projects with at that time, your immediate teams?

Does your being available ’depend’?

Because answering ’depends’ could mean you need to ‘manage’ your presence, and imagine setting presence when putting the kettle on.

So, even if someone is shown to be at their desk and not on the phone, they might not answer your phonecall…..it depends on

• What they’re doing,
• Who YOU are
• What you want to talk about.

Arranging conversations in advance 

My current experience is that even with presence tools, because they don’t automatically answer the above questions, we’re more often arranging conversations in advance.

there is an invitation…..then permission…for you to talk to them at a time, about something.

Most people email an invitation - but this is unrelated to real time communications and there has to be a better way than that. 

Even a ringing phone is an invitation, but ok, it’s basic, and the trouble with a voice invitation is that by the time you’ve asked, you’re already speaking to them. As an aside, having one dimensional presence tools does lend more weight to voicemail, which is probably the best invite to speak - if you use voicemail properly that is.

Presence on it’s own won’t replace voicemail

But back to the main point. Isn’t sending invitations much simpler than managing presence? I think it could be.

Would you turn up to your customer’s office without arranging it in advance?

And so, therefore, is presence the wrong tool for anything other than close relationships, which already have an element of assumed permission?

–

Some other people’s posts on presence

Collaboration Loop (again) article on presence interoperability

Melanie argues that this is the holy grail for UC, but as you can guess from the title of this post, I’m not ‘holy’ convinced (groan)

Yes, the customer is king, and I would definitely love to see callcentre skillsets aggregated and shown online so that I could click to talk at my own convenience, but other work relationships are more complicated than that.

Alec of Iotum was the first to make me think about availability instead of just presence.

My understanding is that availability is ’presence’ with an overlay, which means that the questions - “Am I at my desk, am I on the phone”…should be supplemented with;

“do I want to talk to you” (right now) 

- Availability does need that vital permission component -

But that’s my own interpretation and words

Dan York argues that presence is critical, but doesn’t necessarily relate it to a telephone call, as he sees voice calls declining in importance.

I very much agree that voice is less useful than it used to be - but for some additional reasons, it deserves a future post.

Presence will be critical, but only once this permission requirement is worked out, and it needs something new, a better way to initiate and manage a conversation. It should definitely be conditional.

Although Unified Communications is great, you do know where this is going don’t you? 

Yes, we now have convenient and quick ways to get in touch, and to get our stuff done.

But it’s only going to mean even more conversations (work), in probably less time than we have now!!

So - whilst we still have only one set of ears and one mouth, we’re going to have to bite this bullet properly and ’go asynchronous’. Electronically.

If we don’t, then Presence, or Availability as I prefer it,…… they won’t mean much because we’ll be neither present nor available any time soon. We’ll be in more meetings.

Just in the nick of time, with chest stuck out and pants outside it’s trousers, this new Social Software has been showing us a bit of what’s possible. So do wiki’s, so do blogs, so do readers.

A real taste of that, and it’s “No more email thanks”, if its all the same to you.

Please don’t CC me on everything, I’ll just search through your multimedia conversations if I think I need to.

You know, we could really do with a way to keep a track of all these conversations.

–

The reason I go on about this (again) is that I saw just a glimpse of all this in a demo with Traction Software.

The Traction (and Newsgator) case study with the NHS in Orkney intruiged me, being a new media software solution being first adopted by a traditionally IT follower organisation.

But, after having all too short a demo with Jordan Frank, I can tell you this isn’t your normal Web 2.0 stuff - it has ‘Enterprise’ written all over it.

The best description of how and why being an Enterprise solution matters is in one of traction’s latest blog posts.  Delivered by their own technology, naturally.

So, whatever ends up giving us this ability to more perfectly replicate group conversations - I’ve joined the seemingly general gut feeling that it will transport us all ‘rocket like’ through the stratosphere of group productivity.

There’s a cusp around here someplace.

Possibly I got it from the ability for everyone to contribute, even down to a paragraph level, and ‘build’ a definitive conversation around any subject, in fact spanning several subjects if necessary. Big steps indeed.

This technology could be so devastingly different to the systems that we use today.

–

However, I’m reminded of a great line from a film - “I’m drowning here, and you’re describing the water”. A Jack Nicholson special class line delivery.

What’s the betting that the people who discover this new great technology are SO clever,  they find it hard not to desribe it in an incredibly intellectual way.

It could just mean the secret stays in the bag just that little bit longer.

Lets face it people, calling new technology blogs or wikis is probably something that overly clever people would do. 

The last time, in 1985, that we were transported through the productivity stratosphere was when someone coined the phrase ‘desktop publishing’. Descriptive genius.

Perhaps when we find new technology a new name, we can get to do it again.

–

Only one problem for me. That is that if we work for different people and we want a conversation, then who’s place shall we have it in? Yours or mine?

At the moment, presence is a bit like opening a christmas package to find some bits and a pot of glue.

And, there are pieces missing. Even when you’ve been using presence for a while, something just doesn’t feel right.

Here’s the thing -

I don’t care who you are (sorry mother), there are times when I don’t want to talk to you, at that moment.

Conversely, it might vary, depending on why you need to talk to me….I’m becoming a master of the obvious.

IF THEN EQUALS

So - presence ’status’ should be conditional upon what you want to talk to me about

Send an invitation to converse (I know that’s what a ringing phone is), but send it with the subject - and if you get an affirmative response, ‘WE’ can then go about deciding on the best method and time to do it.

By WE, of course I mean clever software that AUTOMATICALLY detects when we both can and would do it.

The only additional fluff could be with the level of urgency, or importance - I’m not sure which, but probably the latter -  to be attached by both the invitee and respondee to the subject, and that should be 1,2,3 or maybe 4.

The final requirement is that when we do get to speak, all of the items we’ve hitherto agreed to speak about are listed on a screen, which means we can make notes and either tick them off or agree to invite someone else into the subject.

The lower the combined importance numbers, the higher in the list the subject goes.

You know what, it makes much more sense than ‘ringing’ someone without knowing beforehand whether its a good subject, or time.

I do have deja vu at this point. So maybe this is something I’ve already seen - but if so, then it needs more publicity so that I can remember it better…..so link back here.

I’m minded of the following.

Albert Einstein quote - If A equals success, then the formula is A equals X plus Y plus Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut

The business case for Unified Communications usually centres around individual productivity and time savings. But generally ROI for UC is thought to be quite hard.

Yet, there is definitely a wider case to be made.

Yes, we can save individuals time, but that rarely impresses the people with the cheque books. Although, if those wallets are fat enough and the industry competitive enough, then small advantages count towards communications companies getting orders.

An important string to the ROI bow has been ‘on premise’ conferencing.

Companies are increasingly spending substantial amounts on conferencing, and even more when there is a web element involved. Outsourced Audio conferencing is an easy target for a new GUI driven system.

But, in terms of ROI, there’s more to Web conferencing equipment than meets the eye.

Because of the pressured nature of Webinars to customers, plus peaky traffic often meaning a big system for sporadic requirements, and not forgetting costs of critical support and failover, it can make this a tough pitch at premises level.

For large organisations, one of the best returns for Unified Communications is the promise of reduction in premises overhead.

Technology makes it possible. For as the PC (Laptop) swallows yet another device, the phone, the desktop footprint of an employee is shrinking, and becoming ever more portable.

I know its obvious, but 25 years ago, if you wanted to work at home, you might have needed

• Typewriter
• Copier
• Fax machine
• Mobile Phone (measuring about a foot square)
• Your own franking machine
• Calculator (measuring about a foot square)

More than that, your telephone extension was practically nailed to your desk, and you couldn’t transfer calls out of the building. Your terminal definitely not!

Being able to plug in anywhere, in or out of the building, and maintaining consistent high rates of productivity is enabling shared work spaces and driving down property costs, for both growing organisations, and yes, even the old school.

One public sector organisation (a UK council) recently stated their decision to reduce their property portfolio by 30%, would comfortably provide the means to pay for all the new technology to make anywhere working a dramatic possibility. A UK Council leading the charge towards communications technology is news indeed. But, this is by no means isolated.

Even small companies are enabled by UC, probably most very small service companies (2-5) could now work without any premises at all.

Unified Communications is just one element, alongside broadband and networking, but it is an important one.

This isn’t new, but Presence and Conferencing become more useful when people are not in the same room.

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…)

The way I look at it, the term ‘Mobile Presence’ seems to be a contradiciton in terms. 

I originally read this linked article and found myself thinking the issue was very complicated. And now, having mulled it over in terms of whether this technology was something I would actually ‘use’ or not, I’m skeptical.

Leaving aside the ability to see if someone is on the phone or not….till another time at any rate…

My first thought was;

Because I always have my mobile with me does that mean I’m now always present?

Trouble is - I don’t want to instant message via a mobile phone if I can help it - as I’m usually busy being mobile and away from my desk.

Looking back, ‘Presence’ was coined by the Instant Messaging PC client, and therefore, to say I am ‘present’ actually means that I am at my PC desktop and contactable. Not being present means I have wandered off and am not going to respond.

In my book, this concept can’t be extended to a mobile phone, so ‘mobile presence’ is a misnomer. OK, enough with the re-iteration already already.

The meaning of Presence, has started to morph into ‘availability and willingness to interact’, and to that end a lot of discussion is being put into handling contacts, grouping them, and puttings rules against VIP versus double glazing people. And the bottom line is, I’m not sure about this.

So, in the instance I am away from my desk, I would pitch my voicemail against ‘presence’ technology as being most useful. Give me a call, and I’ll decide on the spot whether I’ll answer you or not, and, unlike a rules engine, I won’t ever get it wrong.

So, if I really can’t talk to you now, then leave a message and I’ll get back to you as soon as it is convenient. Of course, leaving a voicemail should in itself move the conversation onwards, so this isn’t a waste of either your or mine time.

I think that’s a lot easier than maintaining a presence engine via some small mobile screen that you forget to check every ten minutes, don’t you?

So couldn’t the communications industry just define Presence to mean Whether I’m at my desktop, or not?

It’s not perfect, so perhaps we should think more about how conversations are initiated, a more formal process that simulates that so repetitive IM, “can we talk?” 

That permission element is going to be all important