Conversationware

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.

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.

We’ve had communications Vendors telling us for months that;

• Voip is Unified Communications
• Unified Messaging is Unified Communications
• Sending an SMS from a database event is Unified Communications

All very irritating for everyone (ok, that would be me), but probably even more so from an analyst point of view.

The good news that someone sensible from the analyst community got involved, and Melanie Turek, tells it like it is. Bravo

The CURRENT guestimated market size is very interesting indeed, less than $10M.

I’m sure that’s about right given the (correct) definition

However, Vendors have all promised their investors that there is gold at the end of this rainbow. The land of Unified Communications will deliver prosperous and wonderous times.

So, how long will it take to get there?

VOIP (red) vs ‘Unified Communications’ Search trends (blue)

Having figuratively left Reading Town a few months ago, my guess is that we’re only up the road in Newbury, the natives look pretty similar, and the emperors new clothes are still only just getting worn in.

There is a broader point

Until we define things properly and without fluff and nonsense, then the interest in unified communications won’t hit the heights that vendors want to see.

(More diagrams after the jump for RSS readers)

(more…)

Sometimes, the internet throws things up that make you laugh, for all the wrong reasons.

Proudly displayed on this website - Microsoft and Avaya’s great big advertising links alongside a very thin (to be kind) article about the vulnerabilities of Unified Communications.

You couldn’t make it up could you?

In case it gets taken down soon (UPDATE, the Avaya advert got removed) - the text includes things like

“One cannot ignore the seriousness of attacks against unified communications systems. At best, such an attack might disable your company’s phones. At worst though, a unified communications-based attack could allow an attacker to steal or modify data, or eavesdrop on voice or video calls”

and

“Unfortunately, I would have to write a good-sized book in order to cover all of the known exploits and countermeasures related to unified communications systems”

and worst of all

“Conclusion

Unfortunately, there is no easy way to secure your unified messaging systems. Some vulnerabilities effect virtually all unified messaging systems, regardless of make or model, while other vulnerabilities are specific to certain brands. Until traditional firewalls and IDS systems evolve to the point that they can detect unified messaging based-attacks, your best defence is to monitor the various web sites that I have mentioned in this article, in order to arm yourself with the latest security information.”

This last one is the richest of them all. I have never come across a Unified Messaging vulnerability in my 13 years of supplying them. That’s either from AVST or the competition. It’s just ridiculous.

It’s nice to be safe, however, you don’t need VOIP to get Unified Communications. But, if you do go that route, it can all sit nicely behind your firewall without opening any extra ports whatsoever.

When I see CRM, a sometimes debateable technology, aligned with VoIP for the greater good, it has me snorting into my morning coffee. A good job I’m on my own this morning.

“A perfect fit” indeed.

Most industry people know that VoIP itself isn’t needed to integrate telephony into a CRM system, and this has been possible for many years.

There has to be another reason for this sort of technology bundling (and marketing)

Whatever, the lure of simplicity is just too great sometimes. When it gets difficult to decide, just go for the easy option (technology or marketing)

Getting dressed for example, it sometimes can take ages to work out what goes with what.

Deep down of course you know that you’ll pay in the end.

With technology, the cost can be time and money taken up, and the work you have to put in justifying the original decision. Still, as the article quotes, the cool factor can be worth it, just look at the cool dude above. (it’s not me) 

Personally, I didn’t go the shellsuit route. But, I’ve just resigned myself to going back to a proper mobile phone.

I’ve tried the qtek Windows mobile device, and I have to say the experience was dire. If the phone isn’t any good, it matters little that I can access my gmail whilst on the move.

One size fits all didn’t work. I realised I wasn’t using the damn phone as often as I should, because the experience was painful - how useless is that?

I like technology from people who specialise. The motorola Z8 enables me to hear people properly when I call them.

Luckily, with telephone systems these days, we can now enjoy open systems and choose the best of breed and still choose the best handsets, the best voice messaging system, the best call recording platform, the best fax solution, the best stats package, the best call centre software, the best CRM system, and not have it cost a fortune.

Any other decision might be construed as a symptom of not trusting your communications suppliers to dress themselves properly.

   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.

Hey Ewan

A neat post on the joys of using OCS for the first time. Thanks for the insight.

Only a small point, but I wondered why you would need to call your voicemail system? Surely you would have a voicemail within email, and you’d just click to listen?

It’s late, so I may have missed something simple.

Matt

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?

I thought I’d do an experiment and see if anyone could either recommend, or perhaps works for a telecoms hosting company. An interesting use for a blog if this works out.

We’re…now what is the right phrase….’putting the business case together’ for a hosted service to complement an on premise solution. The applications already exist, with tenancy, billing and failover facilities, everything we need in fact apart from the hosting space and interconnects, which may or may not include the following

E1 or SIP connection for voice application, but also bandwidth for web based user interface. There will be break out to the PSTN, and also dial in requirement. There’s also a fair amount of VOIP being mentioned in corridors.

Because we’ve not done hosted service like this before, we’re starting somewhat a position of being very open to advice. I have an idea of how these things work from some time back, but it was quite a while.

Anyhow, if you would care to leave a note, or email me at matt dot lambert at converstionware, I’ll be picking up on this in the next few days. I’ll stand the cost of a round for anyone who points me in the eventual right direction. Many thanks.

Microsoft has been talking about Unified Communications for a while, and I keep an eye out for the detail.

A good summation here from Mark Dea, from Microsoft, who’s post about piloting OCS I found on my persistent search (radar) for Unified Communications - isn’t search and RSS combined an extremely useful technology?

Anyhow, thanks for the detail Mark. The feature I liked the look of most was

“I have found myself answering more calls than usual,  the reason being is that when I email someone and they phone me back,  it includes the subject title along with the call.  Even if the call doesn’t have a subject,  I can easily see who is calling now as it picks them name out of my contacts like it would on my mobile phone.”

This adds to communications as it stands today, and is only the beginning of UC. Making instigation of conversations ‘topic based’ will enhance productivity no end.

For example, I can imagine that when I make contact with someone in the future, as well as being highlighted with the foremost subject, it will be accompanied by a list of all the sharepoint work areas that we inhabit in common.

I was also very impressed at the association of Microsoft Office Server 2007 with 28 Days Later, a film about a deadly virus that swept the UK and turned most people into slavering zombies….or was that just the Comms industry? 

It looks like classic subtle British humour, but I guess it could have been entirely coincidental.