Conversationware

You’d be forgiven for thinking that telephony lives in a vacuum. Considering that a bunch of ‘communications’ companies were in a big room for two days, I haven’t seen any blogging on the subject at all.

Our stand was busy enough that I had no time to go and see what else was of interest - so I was looking around on blog searches….nothing, nada!

Please feel free to point anything out I shouldn’t have missed!

So by most recent standards the show it was pretty good, and Olympia avoided the normal trade show tumbleweed, although Andy did have time to be on the phone occasionally.

Although we have a lot of solutions these days, Fax Over IP has really taken off in the last 12 months so we concentrated on that message - it went down really well for a mixture of channel and end users.

This one might even pay for itself

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.

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’ve been having fun.

I got the idea of a diagram from David Armano - his blogging story is here, worth a quick read. He always seems to have a diagram or two to communicate his ideas and I’ve been impressed. I thought I’d have a go at that…only I can’t draw very well.

So, the mindmap below was created at http://bubbl.us - a free hosted service for mindmaps. A very simple to use and quite exquisite user interface. It took only a few minutes to work out how to use.

I love mindmap interfaces anyway, being the most gratifying way to communicate difficult concepts visually without any visual design talent (believe me).

The MOST special part of this map though is that it is ‘embedded’ on the page. It is read only, but, you can click, drag and zoom in and out on the page. Give it a go…I’ve been messing with it all evening.

No matter that I haven’t finished the map, I can update the web application, and it will update on the page, and anywhere else I’ve shared it, with no further effort.

One snag, the solution is being re-written right now, and we’ll have to wait for the problem free embedding version for you Firefox viewers. I’ve added the diagram (exported naturally) below for a full view.

If you can’t see it properly, click this image

The next step is for me to see what it looks like in a Reader.

The idea behind this mindmap is to group technologies together to see what patterns emerge and to remind how things might fit together.

Companies are going to find it harder than ever to prioritise where they spend their communications budget.

Unified Messaging groups together message types now merging into one client (although not a single application). Unified Communications are merging into another - if that’s your definition too - it’s not everyone’s.

The more established technologies have more facets, it seems to indicate there’s more to come from the asynchronous and newer techs. I also think that asynchronous technologies will merge into a single interface….stands to reason.

I suppose in the end, you have to decide what you want to communicate, who to, and how. This diagram merely shows the how.

I know I have to add micro-blogging, but feel free to chip in, or let me know where I’ve got it wrong.

Why spend time, sweat and tears writing your predictions for the coming year.

Relax in your armchair instead, with your google persistent search turned on for the first week in January, and peruse until you find some you agree with - then link to them.

My interest is in how communications can help with business, in all senses of the word and to my mind, the best on the subject is a great article by Shomik Banerjee summarising 2007 and looking at 2008 for enterprise communications. Really good job.

Of course, I have to comment, or it’s not worth linking

Shomik doesn’t say if the headlined views below are in order of importance, or likelihood;

• A) PBX is passé, ‘UC’ is the buzzterm
• B) The Focus Market for Enterprise Telephony is Shifting to SMB
• C) Enterprise Mobility is ‘Hot’
• D) Collaboration Gains Fresh Impetus
• E) SOA and Web Services Gain Traction
• F) Open Source and Open System Gain Mindshare

In terms of market impact, I would have them in roughly the reverse order.

(maybe not by the end of 2008 though)

Another good read is by Charlie Bess on the EDS fellows ‘next big thing blog’. I like the Green IT idea, and I guess this is just an acceleration of the virtualization movement, which has been manic paced in any event.

Feel free to link to others in the comments!

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.

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.

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.

So many fads, so little time

There used to be this thing called facebook, back in the day.

It was useful, in as much as it showed what was possible, but it left people clamouring for more.

More control, more interaction, more privacy.

I often think about the development of technology -for example  where wizards stay up late  was an enjoyable read for me (the birth of the internet).

So, when Chris of Particls - an interesting product by the way - asks people to think about what they’re in favour of, rather than what they’re against, then that’s just like I heard a starter’s pistol.

Ok, so here’s my go at the next way of interacting with my Network - I think this application should be called Conversationware (why not).

It should include;

A. Contact management - CRM but something that lives and breathes

B. Conversation management

b1. Invite function - ie. “I would like a conversation ‘about’ ” - this would be in some sort blend of wiki/blog mechanism,

b2. The invitee can accept, or not

b3. Priority can be set by the inviter, and invitee….separately

b4. Presence should be conditional upon acceptance, priority and current condition/mode

b5. If accepted, Priority should include, important and urgent, important not urgent, not important urgent, not important not urgent.

C. Condition/Mode setting - automatically updating the resulting ‘availability’, according to priorities in my network contacts client software - via machine based RSS or some such. Let me explain. If another conversation participant is available at high priority, I should have that conversation before ‘becoming available’ for a low priority conversation. Ideal worlds I know…but hey, this is my dream, and I dream of productivity.

D. Feed management and attention settings

E. Tagging

F. A remarkable interface for continuing and extending the conversation (for conversation read ‘task, project, etc etc’) - this should be very very open for additions or change, like mind manager software, but updated in each participants client. Click, type, press enter, update every participants client as soon as online……not client server, machine RSS….it has to cross boundaries and firewalls.

G. Conversations will be contextual and relative. Six people will be contributing to a customer generated conversation, but only the lead will be interacting directly with the customer on the issue.

G. Conversation exposure settings - internal and or external, public or partner,  - who can search in other words, and what search engines are given access. What conversations are listed for public access/contribution - you saw Parlano before Microsoft bought them?

H. Unified Communications. That way, the agenda comes first, and then the conversation, spoken or electronic follows. All potential conversations are therefore listed as you interact, and thus, all audit trails, including call recordings,  are automatically indexed.

There’s loads more, but I’ve run out of steam.

The future is more electronic, not less and we need more tools. Tools to speed up the contact are not enough on their own. We need this stuff to get things done.

Make it viral people. Microsoft DOS software was effectively free until they sorted the licencing later on, by which time they had a user base.

I’ll await my free trial….thanks.

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?