My Definition of Unified Communications
Here’s my new working definition
UC is using a single communications platform to increase productivity.
That’s it. People in your organization aren’t communicating as effectively as they could; figure out how much money poor communication is costing you… AND FIX IT!!
Maybe the fix involves a phone; maybe it doesn’t. Maybe it involves video; maybe it doesn’t. Or IM. Or LiveMeeting. Those specifics aren’t immediately relevant; they only are relevant once you’ve defined the communication deficiencies in your business process. Then you develop the solution using only the pieces of technology you need to fix the problem.
Why is it important to redefine UC?
This is clearly not going to end the debate on "what is UC"; that’s not the point. The point is that UC will not gain the adoption that it should if we keep using old/outdated definitions.
Lost in the blizzard of definitions, everyone ends up guessing that UC is code for "newfangled IT infrastructure"; or that it’s just a fancy new marketing term to re-sell you the same stuff you already have. And we make the mistake of playing into those misperceptions. Someone says "I don’t need OCS, I have a phone system already" we try to say "But OCS is a better phone system". NOOOOO!! Or they ask, "What is UC?" and we say "It’s Exchange and IM and VoIP and LiveMeeting". NOOOO! Those perspectives neglect the most important aspect of the whole shootin’ match: the business value. It’s not about the the phone or the client or the voicemail. It’s about increasing revenue, saving time, keeping employees happy, retaining customers through increased productivity.
That’s why we need to redefine UC – we need to focus on the business, not the technology.
Let’s look at the old ways of defining UC and why we need to stop…
Old Way #1: UC is Just Newfangled Infrastructure
Buy UC: "It’s a shinier IP phone", "a slicker IM client", "fancier voicemail in your inbox". In no time flat, most people duly conclude, "Aw, my current IP phone is plenty shiny, my IM client is functional, my voicemail system gets the job done" and they think that UC has nothing to offer them.
Yes, we had a good 10 year run where IT was driven by technology people, for technology people. And customers or businesses bought stuff because it was cool (c’mon! it’s got flames!), or because if they didn’t spend their budget, they’d lose it for next year. But all that’s coming to an end. People aren’t just slopping new technology out there for the sake of it. As the IT industry matures, you see more folks reflecting on a golden rule of IT: no one should be spending a dollar on IT unless it returns a dollar plus. You are better off not spending the dollar in the first place.
Oh and by the way: the economy ain’t what it used to be. Especially these days, people aren’t going to be lumping out cash for things that won’t generate a solid return for the business. And as well they shouldn’t.
So it’s a mistake to look at Exchange or OCS or any other piece of technology as a "must-have" because it’s new, or because it’s an enhanced version of an older product. If the existing infrastructure is still working, e-mail’s routing, phones are ringing, IM still showing presence, then people shouldn’t be compelled to move to a new platform.
Move to a new platform because it But today’s generation of Microsoft UC collaboration tools are meant to be more than that. They are software pieces designed to be integrated to your other applications and improve other applications. The MS stack is the BASF of UC: "We didn’t design your supply-chain, we made it better. We didn’t design ERM order entry process, we made it better." Any gap in any process related to human latency (i.e. waiting for someone to do something) is a candidate for a UC application. UC apps can’t and shouldn’t be standing on their own – they just aren’t as useful that way. They are only as useful as the amount they improve business.
So whatever UC platform you chose should be adaptable and flexible enough to integrate and improve any business process. Microsoft has a head start on a lot of other UC players in this regard, but all players will be aiming for this tight integration to the business. And to be fair, I’d like to see MS go even further with the integration of Exchange and OCS eventually. The closer we get to a single, flexible platform for communications, the further we get from the notion that UC is just newfangled infrastructure.
Old Way #2: UC is the "Junk Drawer" of IT
How does this sales pitch strike you:
- You should buy OCS because it allows you to talk to other people, just like your current phone system but it’s from Microsoft!
- You should use OCS Instant Messaging because it lets people send each other messages, just like AOL IM!
- You should use Microsoft Exchange Unified Messaging because it lets people listen to voicemail when they have a message!
- You should use LiveMeeting because it lets you share your desktop and do audio conferencing, just like WebEx, but this is from Microsoft!
- You should migrate your e-mail to Exchange because it lets people send and receive "electronic mail", just like your current platform.
- Let’s call all of the above "UC"!!
Worst. Sales Pitch. Ever. Throwing various products into a junk drawer does not unify them.
This ought to be banished for all time as a way to do business. You’re missing the point if you fail to see how all of those elements could be used together, or better yet, how they could all be woven into business processes to make people communicate more effectively. But letting them sit separately in a junk drawer diminishes their business value.
It’s only recently that we’ve been able to treat these components as a whole and to reshape business process with them. In the old days, your phones had their own devices and wires; computers had their own devices and wires; mainframes had their own terminals and wires etc. etc. But today we’re using common platforms (PCs) and common networks (IP). We have the ability to really combine elements like we’ve never been able to before. We’ve updated our technology, it’s time to update our thinking. A single UC platform should be able to hook into any process and communicate with anyone in any manner.
So don’t treat these as separate parts from each other, or separate from business processes like "order entry" or "claims processing". When you can do those things more quickly or efficiently by weaving in the right technology – you add value!!
UC isn’t the junk drawer anymore. MS has consolidated a lot of functionality into two platforms now. Voice, video, LiveMeeting, IM, conferencing, file transfer, presence… it’s an impressive list for a single product. Exchange and Outlook have been pretty well integrated into OCS, but as I stated before, I’d like to see that integration go all the way eventually.
OCS and Exchange are almost a single platform today, and they are very able to be customized and woven into the fabric of your business processes. The more we use these applications like this, the closer we come to relegating the "junk drawer" concept to the trash heap.
Conclusion
I’ll restate my original proposition here: we can do a better job of defining what Unified Communications and showing how Unified Communications matters to business – that UC is not a technology platform, it’s a business platform. If we don’t manage to change the misconceptions, UC will not gain adoption.
It comes down to adding value by increasing productivity with your UC platform. The topic of my next blog is to show how the MS UC platform can do that today.
