Conversationware

Talk about email storage to IT managers and they tend to start going this funny colour. Users can’t seem to manage their Inbox apparently, although not the exact words they use.

This has come up time and again, where, on behalf of the user experience, it is up to me to persuade I.T that voice messages have to reside in the email store.

During the conversation you can see this assume huge proportions in the minds eye, and I always show my own mailbox to calm them down……a bit.

So its an area of interest.

I just saw that in my personal email, on Google, that I’ve used 93MB of 6 Gig. In a year and a half.

So I check my Exchange work mailbox, I now have ALL historical emails saved locally - although I’m good at deleting very large emails first - I have 2.5 Gig, in 3 years. Including unified messaging.

By my calculations then Google are effectively giving me unlimited storage. They seem to put it up every month, I could easily have 7 years of email before deleting anything at all. Which is surely what most people would ever need. Or am I behind the multimedia times.

You gotta love that.

Perhaps this is old news already

A sale has been on the cards since they went completely indirect and the manufacture was outsourced (if memory serves).

I remember when the big UK PBX’s in the old days consisted of

• Siemens ISDX
• Mitel SX2000
• Nortel Meridian Option 11
• Alcatel 4400
• Lucent Definity
• Ericsson MD110

A bit crowded when certain other companies joined the fray I suppose.

Obviously there are no announcements from Aastra about futures yet, as this won’t be concluded until April 2008.

The MD110 had a superb installed base in the UK. Back in the day they had a very innovative and reliable distributed solution. It was kind of the Ford Granada of the comms world.  

I’m sure this won’t happen soon, and I feel a bit like an ambulance chaser - but if MD110 customers were to consider change, they should keep hold of their Unified Messaging Onebox system, as it is an AVST CallXpress system in disguise - and that fits onto any IPT PBX. (drop me a note).

I’m telling myself that it’s just being helpful really

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.

Sometimes, leaving a voicemail is more useful than speaking to someone in real time.

Of course it’s not black and white, it depends on the conversation.

But, to illustrate the point, haven’t you ever got someone on the phone, asked a question and then waited while you hear them um and ah, or scrabble about for some piece of paper.

How often does the person give up and say - “I’ll have to call you back”?

We’re taught very early on about the power of preparation. So, when you make a call, plan for the person not being there. And, if you are in the habit of leaving ‘good’ messages, quite often you’ll get more done than if you actually do get hold of someone.

Voicemail is panned because of the people leaving useless messages. It gets a raw deal.

Leaving a well structured voicemail outlining your objectives and timelines can be a boon to your own productivity rather than a halted progress.

Whats more, if the person needs help with the task you’ve just set, they can ask for help with those objectives by forwarding the message in YOUR words (and emotions), rather than their interpretation.

So, when someone leaves a message saying “Matt, call me back”, it’s very tempting not to.

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.

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.

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?

This video covers a couple of typical questions plus gives a legal company’s view of Unified Communications and VOIP deployment (two very different things in my view….)

Courtesy of You Tube

If you want to know how to simply embed videos in your wordpress blog, whether from You Tube or any other system by the look of it, go here and download the plugin.

An excellent post, as usual, linked here from mike Gotta, on the his view of the likely progress of Microsoft OCS and the status of key components.

A balanced view which adds value to whatever else we’ve seen in the last week.