The definition of "Unified Communications"
jasonkolb
talking to at the time, I posted some thoughts around it on my blog.
I'm interested in others' take on it as well, would be nice to get
some sort of a consensus.
http://www.jasonkolb.com/weblog/2008/07/the-definition.html
Regards,
Jason
mike
reference to Presence which to me seems a key component of the UC. Be
good to get some thoughts on how all the groups technology people view
this as I am thinking of it from a purely business productivity point
of view?
Sam Perchez
As a consultant I tend to agree with Mike. I take an approach with my
clients or future clients that UC should be doing one of three things which
all affect a businesses bottom line. One: saving your business money even
though there is a cost to UC done right; if it makes sense there should be a
tangible cost benefit that helps the departments using UC. Two: it should
improve your clients experience when communicating with your company and/or
reps. Three: it should improve your companies own internal communications
between peer to peer, management to employee, and employee to management.
All of these things or one or two of these things are what you are trying to
accomplish with UC.
And as far as what technically defines UC all three of Jason's definitions
are parts of the UC definition to me. UC started way back when our industry
created voicemail. We've just been getting better!
Sam
Senior Consultant
Pyles, Herb
I like to use the illustration below to help define UC from a “functional” standpoint – the technical standpoint is totally different. I see UC defined to two different audiences:
1) UC definition to the information worker/the end user/the business leader (easiest done using the illustration below) with the inclusion of definition that UC to the end user is about knowing who is available when and how AND then having the tools easily available to reach them from within a unified interface. So UC is about the communication and collaboration tools integrated into an end user’s single interface – Microsoft Outlook/Communicator, IBM Sametime, Cisco Unity, Siemens OpenScape, etc. etc. – doesn’t matter what the application the end user “lives in”, through API integration, they have access.
2) UC to the IT/network people – leveraging network and telephony infrastructures to utilize economies of scale to reduce costs. Does an information user think about cost? I think not, they look for ease of use. The communications cost savings come from integration on the back end by the IT and network teams. So wusing the same IP network that is delivering applications and data to the enterprise are used to facilitate communications.
Thanks,
Herb
Herb Pyles
Vice President
Strategic Business Development, Acquisition & Integration
See My Calendar
InterCall a subsidiary of West Corporation
866-236-9983 toll-free
773-867-7148 direct
773-474-0127 mobile
706-634-3727 fax
Conserve our natural resources, think twice before you print this email!
Neal Shact
Very nice art work
Neal Shact
CEO
CommuniTech Services
2340 S. Arlington Heights Road, Suite 360
Arlington Heights, IL 60005
Fax: (847) 981-9085
size=3 face="Times New Roman">
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
Jason Kolb
I love this definition. You're absolutely right, UC is being used to describe both aspects of the communication, and I think that's where the confusion sets in.
I wonder if there's a way to hone the definitions so that the aspect being talked about can be identified. Something like the "Unified Communication Experience" and the "Unified Communications Network"?
(Nice graphic, too, by the way!)
Jason
Sam Perchez
360 products by NEC. www.cng.nec.com
Sam
Senior Consultant
-----Original Message-----
From: unife...@googlegroups.com [mailto:unife...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of jasonkolb
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:41 AM
To: Unified Communications
Kipton Heuertz
mike
Opus (thanks Kip) of contextual communications being the varying types
of apps/interactions available to the user with UC being the enabling
platform/environment that it sits on.
bple...@commfusion.com
definition of UC: "Communications integrated to optimize business
processes." Under the UC umbrella are two types - UC-User and UC-
Business. UC-User (UC-U) focuses on user or personal productivity
(being able to do a click to call from Outlook, for example), while UC-
Business (UC-B) focuses on integration with business processes to
help companies save time, reduce costs, and increase revenues. I
write about this extensively in my new market study Unified
Communications Market 2007-2012. (am i allowed to plug my report here?
if not, i apologize). Most companies right now are buying UC offerings
for the user productivity benefits (which are extensive and important)
but the real value and ROI of UC happens when it is integrated to the
business applications and processes companies use.
I also believe that presence is the core of a UC solution - oh, and
another thing - UC is a solution. When I give presentations on UC I
always end with a slide that says "UC is a vision or philosophy that
leads to solutions - it is not a product." I get very upset with
vendors trying to sell a UC product, without focusing on the fact that
UC requires so much more. Presence and a unified user experience tie
in all of the different components of a UC solution, but there are so
many elements that have to be integrated together.
Blair Pleasant
President & Principal Analyst, COMMfusion LLC
Co-Founder, UCStrategies.com
bple...@commfusion.com
joafar
completely new on this UC discussion group. Good to see all these
discussions about the main feeling the of work (The new way of work)
with Unified Communications. In the Netherlands i'm working for a
company named e-office.
Each project we do is based on the HOT-terminology which means Human
Organization and Technology. We think that applications like
SharePoint 2007 are making the difference. Combined with tools like
MOC, OCS, Speech Server. That's what we called the new way of work or
work21. Together with Microsoft Netherlands we are both organize the
new way of work events. To plenty of practice what you preach, so how
are these systems working together. Absolutely key is make sure all
sections are covered when talking to people about UC. So refer to IP-
PABX, software powered applications, managed speech applications,
basic presence, enhanced presence etc etc. And the most important
thing is that potential customer can do UC-projects in little steps
beginning with Presence > Audio Video >> etc.
If you find it interesting please visit my UC weblog on all kinds of
UC things. Or maybe more information about e-office. Our Common Base:
"We are a genuine human software organisation, marketing innovative
solutions and services for partners through excellence" and our main
vision is: "We are the world standard human software partner
empowering people and organisations through excellence".
http://unified-communications.blogspot.com/
http://unified-communications-development.blogspot.com/
http://unified-communications-speech.blogspot.com/
Kind Regards,
Joachim Farla
Most Valuable Professional on OCS
e-office
On Jul 17, 5:57 pm, "Pyles, Herb" <hpy...@intercall.com> wrote:
> I like to use the illustration below to help define UC from a
>
> 1) UC definition to the information worker/the end user/the business
> leader (easiest done using the illustration below) with the inclusion of
> definition that UC to the end user is about knowing who is available
> when and how AND then having the tools easily available to reach them
> from within a unified interface. So UC is about the communication and
>
> information user think about cost? I think not, they look for ease of
> use. The communications cost savings come from integration on the back
> end by the IT and network teams. So wusing the same IP network that is
> delivering applications and data to the enterprise are used to
> facilitate communications.
>
> 38KViewDownload- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pyles, Herb
So to me, think of UC as a set of communication and collaboration features that can be "mixed and matched" into a UC solution. Grab your UC solutions menu and select the features you want integrated into your business process interface.
Love the conversations here!!
Thanks,
Herb
Herb Pyles
Vice President
Strategic Business Development, Acquisition & Integration
See My Calendar
InterCall a subsidiary of West Corporation
866-236-9983 toll-free
773-867-7148 direct
773-474-0127 mobile
706-634-3727 fax
Conserve our natural resources, think twice before you print this email!
From: unife...@googlegroups.com [mailto:unife...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of bple...@commfusion.com
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:53 PM
To: Unified Communications
Don Price
My comments come from the orientation of how UC is used in the enterprise. Some of these following comments may not applied to other UC use case scenarios (Or I overlook something truly important to other use cases).
It is interesting and I tend to agree in a perverse way just about any application could be part of an UC experience. Once convergence is complete for all IT services then the boundaries where a person communicates and where they are just using IT systems will be hard to distinguish. Yet without clear definition of a label, and what it applies to, it is very hard for us to move a concept forward.
I like to think that we do include IT applications but we give that some other type of label brining out the value of the applications themselves now having access to communications services. Something we’ve all at one time or another wished for in the legacy world that we now have in our converged world.
I like the graphic Jason shared. It include all the key elements of what most of us think of as UC. I would suggest the following:
· What is included in UC is something that is personalized. What enables me may be different than what enables the next person, next department, or next job function. We may share some common services such as Voice Mail, but lack of presences may or may not be that important for one of us. The key focus is communications enablement given the rise to even specialized elements which could be personalized mashups of services.
· Following that UC is truly about a named set of services which working together form a communications solutions. A solution that is voice, video, and all forms of messaging. Everything presences enabled. Ideally I would like to see UC as a set of SOA services which are seldom directly used communications applications themselves but are enablers of applications services used by any number of desktop and handheld applications. That of course means my UC solutions now would use all the same infrastructure elements of any of my other IT applications.
· To be unified means the services are accessible (not Section 508) from any of the elements. I want to say seamless here but that is over used. Being accessible means for the user, applications developer, and integrator of products or open source to a UC solution. Whatever the underlying technology used to support accessibility it is set of services which make such interchanges work as demanded by the user.
· Enterprise must immediately realize cost savings in the elimination of standalone services. Do to scale, or other issues one might chose to architect services into isolated platforms (such as to meet security requirements), but by default all services must be collapsible. The service demands defines how deployments are designed, and here again one approach does not fit all situations.
· UC to me is not about infrastructure. If anything the infrastructure is the means to achieving UC and a whole host of other interesting things. If UC was the only element using the infrastructure then it would be hard to think on these terms, but since UC is only one of many services using the infrastructure to me does not fall under the UC umbrella.
I also have to personally say for years UC was a very negative term for me because every solution that claimed to be UC was so poorly conceived and always lacked key features to be all that useful. I am not the only one who thought that way at the time. I am somewhat personally surprised the term continues to survive when we are truly in a different set of circumstances and capabilities. It is really refreshing to see how activity is brewing again in this area. There is such a tremendous capability which can bring to the enterprise productivity, cost savings to the bottom line, and the elimination of redundancy.
Don Price
SP CTO in transition formerly Avaya / Lotus
mike
whole development cycle of UC, its interesting to see Don say that UC
was a term that he thought of quite negatively yet has now come full
circle. I think Don's mention of the "elimination of redundancy" is a
great term. Would I be right in saying that is what presence portion
of UC helps deliver the "elimination of redundancy."
jasonkolb
from any of the elements. I want to say seamless here but that is over
used.
Being accessible means for the user, applications developer, and
integrator
of products or open source to a UC solution. Whatever the underlying
technology used to support accessibility it is set of services which
make
such interchanges work as demanded by the user. "
layer sitting between the endpoints on the network?
Great discussion, I'm glad to finally see this topic being hashed!
Has befuddled me for a while :)
On Jul 17, 2:25 pm, "Don Price" <d...@donprice.com> wrote:
> My comments come from the orientation of how UC is used in the enterprise.
> Some of these following comments may not applied to other UC use case
> scenarios (Or I overlook something truly important to other use cases).
>
> It is interesting and I tend to agree in a perverse way just about any
> application could be part of an UC experience. Once convergence is complete
> for all IT services then the boundaries where a person communicates and
> where they are just using IT systems will be hard to distinguish. Yet
> without clear definition of a label, and what it applies to, it is very
> hard for us to move a concept forward.
>
> I like to think that we do include IT applications but we give that some
> other type of label brining out the value of the applications themselves now
> having access to communications services. Something we've all at one time or
> another wished for in the legacy world that we now have in our converged
> world.
>
> I like the graphic Jason shared. It include all the key elements of what
> most of us think of as UC. I would suggest the following:
>
> department, or next job function. We may share some common services such as
> Voice Mail, but lack of presences may or may not be that important for one
> of us. The key focus is communications enablement given the rise to even
> specialized elements which could be personalized mashups of services.
>
> video, and all forms of messaging. Everything presences enabled. Ideally I
> would like to see UC as a set of SOA services which are seldom directly used
> communications applications themselves but are enablers of applications
> services used by any number of desktop and handheld applications. That of
> course means my UC solutions now would use all the same infrastructure
> elements of any of my other IT applications.
>
> Being accessible means for the user, applications developer, and integrator
> of products or open source to a UC solution. Whatever the underlying
> technology used to support accessibility it is set of services which make
> such interchanges work as demanded by the user.
>
> chose to architect services into isolated platforms (such as to meet
> security requirements), but by default all services must be collapsible. The
> service demands defines how deployments are designed, and here again one
> approach does not fit all situations.
>
> beyond-uc-contextual-communications.htm.
> Which is really what do you want to with it, how to do you want interact
> with the customer, how can you improve the customer experience.
>
> We've termed UC more as as the enabling platform and contextual
> communications as the applications and interactions with the customer/user.
>
> Just our two cents. Keep the discussion going!
>
> Kip
>
> Kip Heuertz
>
> Program Manager/Analyst
>
> Opus Research
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Sam Perchez <samperc...@centelinc.com>
>
> One more thing don't forget NEC when you talk UC. Check out the Univerge
Kipton Heuertz
Blair Pleasant
Interesting discussion on the google group - I'm glad Mike set that up.
I'm following up on your note earlier about purchasing the UC Market Study -
let me know if you're still interested.
Thanks,
--
Blair Pleasant
COMMfusion LLC & UCStrategies.com
707-538-4368 (Pacific)
707-688-0058 (mobile)
bple...@commfusion.com
Visit www.ucstrategies.com
Don Price
points having control over how services are initiated. If a layer is not
creating an "affinity of control" concept would fit.
Another point for me is the many different starting points enterprises can
enter into UC. One of the compelling reasons why this time I am so motivated
UC will work. Enterprises have the tools to start where it makes the most
sense and impact. Balanced to the priorities of the enterprise. As someone
has all ready stated; this is all an evolution. Those with a clean slate
approach are the exception.
Don
Sam Perchez
solutions in this group. We are solution providers, users and both. We may
not like using the word product but let's not kid our selves there are many
solid products needed to support a solution. A solution is compiled of a
group of products and ideas that solve a challenge, problem or deficiency.
Hardware and software with SKUs are a part of every UC design. We don’t
want to focus on the products but they have to be in place.
Please don’t get to philosophical and miss the facts. These groups of
communications and collaboration features you speak of belong to some one
and have a SKU and a price. If you have talented software programmers
developing your own custom communication applications you will not have a
SKU. Most businesses don’t have that and most business need to find the set
of products be it hardware or software. Once you have the right products in
place that support UC you have your solution, then you can grab your UC menu
and select the features you want or need.
The reason we all have jobs is because we help clear the confusion and take
an educated approach to selecting solutions for our employers or clients.
This has a cost and we are all challenged show ROI with every solution. And
ROI comes in many flavors depending on the challenge.
Sam
Senior Consultant
jasonkolb
Communications-Enabled Product", which is built in accordance with the
philosophies everyone is talking about?
The "philosophy" idea is an interesting one--I think it implies a set
of standards of some type. Does such a standard exist right now? I
would think it's made up of an amalgamation of several standards, a UC
Stack. What would you include in this stack? Here's my short list:
- REST
- SIP
- XMPP
- RDF
I'm sure I'm missing some good ones, but that's what you get on a
Saturday :) Would be interested to hear what other standards should
be included in a UC-enabled product.
Jason Kolb
-----
www.jasonkolb.com