Unified Communications: do users really need what vendors are selling?

The immediate answer is NO! However if you just take a step back one would need to understand the 'role' of a vendor in the technology space. In this case lets drill into UC and its developments.

The idea and philosophy around being a vendor is to lead and show innovation, else get left behind. All the big boys will be fighting for their slice of not only market share but also winning the award of industry leaders. By becoming industry leaders, naturally I would think that market share should increase and so does the revenue stream. I personally believe that the 'clever cookies' who derived the 'idea' of UC did not do this for the money. They did it because they had a vision and a passion to succeed.

In the case of UC the vision was around converging networks and the ability to service all types of communications with a single IP network. 10 years ago this notion was laughed at and today I have experienced UC (delivering, data, voice and video) at its very best. The ability to do a HD Video Call over the public internet to a friend across the globe is sensational and cheap! Compare this to an ISDN call at international rates!

Mind you the push for this technology was also driven by the need to drive cost savings and on-going operational costs as well as the incumbent service providers monopoly on these services!

So forums were developed and the race is on! The really cool thing I like is that MOST of UC is standards based and governed by the forum. It annoys me when vendors use proprietary protocols to try and 'lock' in a customer! I think we have all seen this before!

In summary my answer is YES and I welcome innovation and leadership from these vendors who have a proven solution. UC has come a long way and is about to get better as IP networks are advancing rapidly as well to compliment UC. It is not long before video communications is seen at your desktop.

It makes perfect sense to 'converge' networks and centralise infrastructure both from a cost perspective as well as administration. The advantage of the single network is that bandwidth is getting cheaper and the cost of upgrading capacity is incremental.

Can you imagine working from home or at a remote site and still having the ability to function as if you were in the office? Faxes sent to email, SMS and voicemail to email, taking a video call from your 3G phone and the ability to join audio and video conferences with peers all across the world! Your number follows you where ever you go and your customers still feel special because your responsiveness and productivity has increased! Guys believe it or not that capability is here today!

Isn't most new technology "vendor driven"? If you don't manufacture it yourself, then you need vendors. I spent several years developing testbeds for vendors like Adtran, Siemens, and Samsung at AT&T Labs to test against their backbone.

Recently a friend had an interview with a French company that just acquired 4 businesses in various areas around the globe. They wanted their company to be the main hub but still allow each company to manage independently. Unfortunately, they were bringing in PM's to fix the problem instead of seeking out companies that might be able to provide a solution. The reason? They didn't want to spend money on new equipment. Huh?

Currently I am studying up on Avaya's UC solution, and quite frankly it would easily provide them with a quick and easy solution w/o a lot of overhead costs. In fact, since the UC solution would allow admins in one location to monitor the entire network, they could reduce the staffs in those 4 locations. The savings could pay for the equipment. The main infrastructure could stay the same also.

I think this is where UC shines, is in integrating existing networks and equipment.

My experience in general with most telecoms products is that users rarely use or understand or sometimes even want everything that the UC solution can do. They will sagely nod and say yes that's wonderful and how it will make their life easier but when you go back and visit, they are doing the same old things. Some will embrace new technology wholeheartedly but most like the idea but few use.

The answer I think is that because there is little incremental cost in including a lot of sophistry in any UC solution it is in there. It almost certainly not mainstream user request but available technology to try to differentiate a particular product.

Vendors drive most product development and innovation and always have. One can argue that the open source community is not a vendor, but that is in the eyes of the beholder. UC is a set of products and the UC offerings vary greatly from one vendor to another. We use UC (voice mail to email, chat, call transfer, click to dial, queue log in/out, follow me, using cell phones as extensions instead of desk phones, integration with our CRM, etc.) from our phone system vendor and even though we are small we would be now be at a real loss if we did not have it. What I don't really understand is why everyone (certainly in these forums) keeps putting UC out there as if it is a new and separate product. We are a reseller of phone systems and other telecom services and as a general rule we never lead with UC. We do mention it, but in our experience, it is usually assumed to be there (in some form or other) and with the exception of voice mail to email, has never been a requirement in a deal. We position it as simply part of the advanced feature set of the new phone systems.

Most people see UC (Unified Communications) and think VoIP. They aren't one and the same, although UC is infinitely more difficult without IP capability in place.

Companies are downsizing, or at least right-sizing. They're trying to do more with fewer people. They'll continue to look at areas where that's higher productivity is possible. Productivity gains typically come from new technology and business processes.UC addresses both.

The question was "do users really need what vendors are selling?" Absolutely not.

Do companies need what vendors are selling? Definitely.

There are a lot of great UC tools out there these days. And, I believe that many are extremely useful and can create a good soft ROI if sold and implemented correctly. Like Debra stated, she would have never known about the UC tools available from her PBX had the vendor not asked the right questions, uncovered the need or simply beat their chest about the UC products inherent to their PBX.

I would recommend reading an article that Eric Krapf, Enterprise Connect Co-Chair, wrote on the first day of VoiceCon 2010 in Orlando. You can find it on the NoJitter.com archives. The point of the article is that "Interoperability" is the key to UC being more widely accepted, understood and used. And, the only way that will ever happen is when everything moves to the cloud. Too many PBX manufacturers are touting "Open Source", but they will never open their kimono's all the way.

Long ago, when I founded the Computer Telephony Resellers Association, I'd have said the same thing. What we have to day are vastly incompatible standards, competing product lines with marketing FUD, and the complete distraction of smartphones, barrierless/insecure voice communications, and plenty of spam. It's not bizarre: it's a deliberate posture by members of the USTA and TIA. The short answer: no. The telephone and cellular industries are fundamentally clueless, as Steve Jobs (et al) have shown. They should be ashamed. People hate them, and for many good reasons. They embody, emblematically, the bad qualities of monopolistic corporations. CPE makers are no better.

which of the information technology is really selling? why is it that organization does not employ those with IT certification except degree or related papers?

I agree with Steve Johnson. I monitored four of our multi-state locations from our Minneapolis corporate office. I also integrated the ability to see your voicemail messages via Outlook so you could pick and choose which messages you wanted to listen to and in what order. We were also able to save these messages for future court hearings.

All of the products we purchased benefited our employees making them more productive and efficient. UC allowed us to create a work-from-home atmosphere.

Without our vendor I may not have found these products. We were impressed (and thankful) that they integrated with our existing equipment.

UC is absolutely vendor driven, but adoption is still largely telephony centric. The advanced applications delivered across all users in an enterprise are still marketing sizzle, and still too much $ compared to many customer's existing budgets. Customers are interested in the centralized administration and think the advanced UC features are cool, but in this economy cost is king. If you had a (profitable) IP replacement for centrex, delivering cloud based call processing and messaging for $10 / month you could quickly capture this market.

Agree with some of the sentiments here. If you just throw UC at someone and see what sticks, you will have failed - Jon Pentel's remarks are spot on.

The key to making UC effective is to tie a feature or function into a particular user's business process and practice. When one finds that particular dovetailing of "new toy" and "thing I need to do" you have a very sticky application that end users love.

Most vendors I've seen don't really grasp that UC is a tool kit with discrete functions and features rather than the Second Coming Of Dialtone. Then again, a lot of vendors make that mistake with VoIP, too.

I think the answer is yes if a particular product fills a specific need. A lot of new products have full filled very real needs. New technology innovation is designed to fill a particular need, whether it does it or not is a different question and it is up to each individual owner/manager to determine if a particular solution solves a particular need.

UC products are still very new and the market is just starting to figure out how to use these products. The markets will determine which products it wants. Vendors will keep trying and the markets will determine which product will ultimately succeed.

YES all good thanks! PS: Good question BTW

I've been using the UC solution for over 2 years now and its doing what its meant to... Unifying my Communicaitons. Greatest benefit is it helps me manage all email accounts and calls from my mobile device(s) and notebook. I fully use the technology as it helps me sell it as well. For most business, the value proposition is about staging the requirements in bite sizes so that the features can be adopted within a realistic timeframe. If the customer just wants dial tone, its a tough proposition but that's where you need to come in and break it down for them.

Hello All,

This is a good continous discussion and I would take pride to be a part of this discussion. We have been providing UC for some good time now.

We have our Unified Communication Solution by the name of Alliance Universus™ and have deployed it with telcos and Public Sector Unit in India. And would say that this is an era where communication need to flow quickly to enhance business.

Ages back there was no internet, limited website and things were really like snale. Now people are moving fast every small shop has it's existance in WWW. Similarly now we are building to make the communication travel fast to the user by unifying all modes of communication.

We make business GROW!

Regards,
Amit Grover, Business Manager - International Sales
Alliance Infotech (P) Ltd.
E-mail: amit.grover@alliance-infotech.com
Web: www.alliance-infotech.com