The Emperor Has No UC
The Emperor Has No UC by Dave Michels
Today, there are hundreds if not thousands of vendors offering UC products and/or services. The same can be said for consultants and analysts that specialize in UC offerings and technologies. One could easily conclude that Unified Communications is a mature industry. Just one small complication - there is no clear agreement on the definition of Unified Communications. We pretend it is as clear as the Emperor's New Clothes, but no two people can really describe what he's wearing - if anything.
In
Gartner's UC Magic Quadrant report last year, they resorted to "Magic Quadrant...inclusion criteria require that vendors have strong...solutions in at least three of the six key technology areas." This logic means that two vendors, each with three of Gartner's technology areas, could be UC competitors even without any technology overlaps. Confusing things even more, Gartner offers separate research for UC product and UC service vendors.
Well certainly the vendors know what UC is. After all, its the vendors that are creating, selling, and supporting it. Let me do a quick search for "Unified Communications":
- ShoreTel the leading provider of brilliantly simple IP phone systems with fully integrated Unified Communications.
- MAC Source Communications is a Unified Communications Solutions provider, specializing in contact centers along with best of breed technology products.ADTRAN is a leading manufacturer of voice, data and unified communications products to enterprises.
- Digium's Switchvox system is more than a phone system – it's the Unified Communications system that integrates all office communications.
- The SEN Group is a premier provider of end-to-end enterprise communications, including voice, network infrastructure and security solutions that use open, standards-based architectures to unify communications and business applications for a seamless collaboration experience.
- Cisco Unified Communications creates collaborative, adaptive workspaces by integrating communications and collaboration products and applications.
- Plantronics audio products are optimized for our voice Partners' Unified Communications solutions.
- BroadSoft delivers Unified Communications solutions that bring game-changing power and productivity to any type of business, at a fraction of the cost and complexity of solutions from traditional premises-based products.
- Mitel delivers flexibility and simplicity in smart unified communications solutions and applications for organizations of all sizes.
- Microsoft unified communications technologies streamline infrastructure and administration and deliver scalable, secure communications.
- Avaya is a global leader in enterprise communications systems providing unified communications, contact centers, and related services to leading businesses and organizations around the world.
- IBM Unified Communications & Collaboration (UC) solutions deliver real-time communications services—from enterprise instant messaging and online meetings to telephony and video conferencing—through a single user interface.
- CyberData has been a leading OEM design and manufacturing firm specializing in developing connectivity solutions and Applications Specific Endpoints for Unified Communications.
- eOn Communications offers a broad portfolio of innovative communications products, including IP communications platforms, unified communications, mobility solutions, hosted VoIP services and contact center solutions.
Certainly that helped clarify what UC is and does. Not!
In the old days, voice solutions were centered around the "PBX". But it is important to note that few, if any, vendors actually marketed a "PBX" even in in the day. As systems migrated to VoIP, the term PBX came to mean TDM or non VoIP. The vendors want as much space between their current products and the "PBX" of the past. "IP PBX" never caught on. Recently, Allan Sulkin wrote on NoJitter that it's time for the PBX term go die:
"Perhaps now is the time to take the term "PBX" out to pasture and bury it alongside "Switchboard." I think that the term "IP Communications System" would probably be a more appropriate appellation in today’s environment to describe a system from Cisco, Microsoft, or any of the traditional telephony system suppliers. The term "Unified Communications" should be avoided, because it is too vague (let alone confusing to most customers) about what the term describes, though many have incorporated it into the product name. In the end, though, it really doesn't matter what you call the systems providing your communications services and features, though it is nice to have an accepted term of recognition. Whatever term is used, I bet it will not last as long as PBX did, because the life span of today's products and naming conventions are shrinking at an accelerating rate."
I agree, "Unified Communications" is too broad, but it does have traction. After all, why exclude technologies from such a growing club - or is the club growing because everyone is now a member?
The problem has to do with objective and subjective definitions. Unified Communications is in the eye of the beholder. It is similar to a "Complete Breakfast" which is a fairly objective term. We can generally agree what's on the menu. However, when a friend says he had a complete breakfast, it's almost impossible to guess what he ate. The UC menu is becoming understood, but the implementation is subject to specific organizational objectives and needs.
The opportunity is to agree on what UC means in terms of the offering, and not the actual implementation. There is the risk of offending some as the whole point of such a definition is to discriminate from all things to some things.
Unified Communications is a strategy - not a product or service.
The number of products, services, or vendors required to implement the strategy is not relevant. The age old IT architectural issue of best of breed or single integrated solution applies to UC implementations. As does the issue of premise equipment versus hosted or cloud solutions (or any combination). A UC strategy, must contain the following components:
- Voice: In many ways, "UC" simply represents the evolution of the PBX which evidently has been discontinued. The voice/calling engine is a central part of a UC strategy. The main difference between the PBX of the past and the UC system of today is integration capabilities. The PBX was an independent system - dedicated proprietary hardware, connected to dedicated proprietary networks (internal and external), with dedicated proprietary endpoints. VoIP changed things up a bit with convergence initially allowing proprietary devices to connect to proprietary servers over shared networks. As convergence matured, the phone system become interconnected with many other devices and endpoints. Voice applications, networks, and servers blurred with IT systems and applications. The "PBX" moniker is too narrow for this broad new platform. A UC strategy that does not address real time voice/call processing is not a UC strategy.
- Messaging: Again, in the old days of the PBX, Voice mail emerged initially as a stand alone dedicated service - but today messaging is integrated. Additionally, voice and email messaging need to be viewed with one strategy (not necessarily one product or service). Messaging servers also can be part of a broader solution including faxing, RADs, auto attendants, and email/vmail/fax blasting. Related services include SPAM and virus protection solutions.
- Presence and IM: The market seems to correlate presence and IM with unified communications. Without a doubt, presence and IM have improved enterprise communications and users are growing more reliant on these tools to improve productivity. The technology is still fairly young and I expect major technology improvements in what some term "Rich Presence" or presence that is more aware of location and activities over the next few years.
- Mobility: Mobility appears to be the current killer application regarding unified communications. A unified communications solution that integrates with cell phones is one answer, but not the only one. Soft phones, wireless phones, fixed mobile convergence solutions including soft phone clients on a smart phone are all other solutions. Also, remote phones or "teleworkers" enable mobility.
- Conferencing: Both audio and video conferencing solutions are required components of a unified communications strategy. Often related to this is collaboration tools such as desktop sharing, conference recording, and video streaming.
- APIs: The key value here with UC is the ability to integrate it into other systems, applications, and devices such as CRMs, cell phones, LDAP, etc. UC represents the ability to play well with others in ways the PBX never dreamed.
The above required components of a unified communications strategy, are not required components of a unified communications solution. That is to say there is nothing incomplete or wrong with a unified communications solution that doesn't include one or more of these components. There are plenty of reasons why an organization may opt against video or any other component. The customer always has the choice to implement whatever components it desires in its UC solution. It also means traditional voice services combined with traditional voice mail can indeed be construed as a UC solution (though its a bit misleading). The key is to separate the strategy from the implementation. A strategy must address the whole menu; the implementation does not.
A vendor's UC solution can be accomplished with partnerships. IBM strenghtens its voice solutions with multiple integrated partnerships, and Microsoft relies on Polycom for phones. As UC increasingly embraces SIP, the opportunity for third party devices and services are increasing.
There is virtually no limit to optional components that may be included in a UC strategy. Popular components include call center solutions, test and measurement tools, an endpoint strategy (soft, hard, SIP, wireless, cell, etc.), call recording, encryption tools, SBCs, virtualization technologies, development tools, redundancy requirements, hosted services, IVR capabilities, and so on. A UC strategy should be customized to specific needs.
There is no UC requirement for commercial products and services. Free and open source options exist for most UC components. Nor is there even a requirement for IP phones. The underlying requirement is APIs or methods of integration. In order to unify communications, the various components must offer some level of integration. For example, presence that can indicate when a user is in a call. The biggest differences among the vendor offerings lies in the approach and integration capabilities of the UC components.
I consider UC a natural evolution of the PBX, but not all PBX systems are evolving. Traditional voice services along with traditional voice mail will continue to meet the requirements of many organizations. UC represents potential. Voice doesn't need to be a stand alone system any more and the benefits associated with UC can be dramatic. It does represent more than a label, it's a whole set of capabilities than can revolutionize business processes and communication flows.