During this election season, I try to do what I can to help the candidates I’d like to see win, and the propositions I’d like to see pass or not pass (I live in California where we have about a dozen propositions to vote on). I decided to make phone calls to undecided voters for my presidential candidate and one of the propositions, and I got to experience what outbound call center agents/telemarketers get to experience every working day. And they have my deepest respect!

My two experiences were very different, as are various call centers, depending on their level of technological adoption. The phone calling system for the presidential candidate was pretty sophisticated, and via the Internet, it provided me with a list of key voters to contact in battleground states, a script to use in my conversations, and an easy interface to report back my contacts. Because it was web based, I was able to make calls from the comfort of my home. The script was simple to follow, and I clicked on the various options to report on the contact (eg, not home, refused to talk, non-English speaker, etc.), as well as which candidate they were voting for or leaning toward. It was a well-run operation that made it simple to make calls. There were links to sites providing background information, FAQs, etc. in case I wanted to read up on the candidate’s platform and policies before making calls. The system automatically kept track of how many calls I made, the outcome of the call, and any additional notes or comments I added.

My experience with the phone calls for one of the propositions was totally different. It was not computerized, and I had to go to the phone bank to make the calls instead of calling from my home. The script was printed on several sheets of paper, and was very complex to follow (eg, if the person answers yes to question 1, go to question 3, which was 2 pages away). The names and numbers of people to call were provided to us on paper, and we had to keep track of the calls and responses on two different pieces of paper, which made it very confusing. At the end of the night we had to manually add up how many calls we made, how many wrong numbers we reached, how many people refused to talk to us, didn’t speak English, etc.

Making calls for the proposition was a very manual process, and not at all easy to navigate through, while calling on behalf of the candidate was all computerized and online, making it much simpler and more user friendly. It was much easier to stick to the script using the computerized process rather than the manual process, so I assume I was more effective while speaking to voters since I didn’t have to shuffle through different pages to follow the script. And because I had to manually record my progress and the results of the calls on two different forms, it was more likely I made mistakes and left out information.

While I didn’t come in contact with overtly hostile voters, not everyone was willing to talk or listen to my spiel (not that I blame them - like everyone else, I don’t like it when I get these kinds of calls). For the most part the people I contacted were cordial, but there were certainly a few who were pretty rude - even when they supported the candidate on whose behalf I was calling. Again, I hate receiving these calls, and I can’t blame anyone who is less than overwhelmed to chat about their political leanings.

What are the lessons learned from this experience? First, provide the right tools for your contact center agents (inbound or outbound). We’ve had CTI for years, but how many contact center actually have CTI implemented? Way too few.  Good tools can make all the difference. Also, make the process as simple and easy to use as possible for the agents - it will make them more effective and productive. A good user interface is important for both agent efficiency and accuracy in terms of reporting and tracking results.

And lastly, respect and value your contact center agents - they have a very difficult job that requires interfacing with people who aren’t always friendly or courteous. Give your agents a big pat on the back - they deserve it.

Tags: Unified Communications, Unified Communications Information by Blair Pleasant
No Comments »

Enghouse Systems Ltd., and its more well-known US subsidiary, Syntellect, acquired Envox Group AB this week. Speaking just of Syntellect and Envox alone, both have communication development platforms, extremely similar products and practices providing speech self-service and contact center solutions to the enterprise and hosted markets.

At first I wondered, consolidation play or something else? Certainly it’s a consolidation play. With more than 1.24 million IVR ports and more than a million contact center agents worldwide; this obviously gives Syntellect a leg up in the market share category. It also broadens their geographic coverage from a partner perspective too. But it is more than consolidation. Without going into deep detail about the nuances of their different product sets, it also gives Syntellect more product options quicker than they might have had alone. For example, Envox has broad support for a number of media types on their platform, which Syntellect does too, but this will give Syntellect support for media such as video and SMS right away. So, whereas the contact center industry vendors talk up video, it certainly isn’t prolific yet, but the addition of this capability will position Syntellect customers to take advantage of video as more uses for it in the contact center become apparent. I also believe this will speed up any potential move on Syntellect’s part of providing customers with unified communications type functionality.

Envox customers will also benefit from Syntellect’s product portfolio as well. Syntellect’s Customer Interaction Management suite brings a fully featured set of multi-media contact center capabilities that can leverage the existing Envox platform ports. Also, Voiyager, Syntellect’s superlative development and testing solution for VoiceXML applications that I have regularly blogged about will be a bonus for Envox customers. If Syntellect could combine Voiyager with some of the development tools that Envox has it would be a knock out. Just a thought, if this merging of product sets is done well.

Tags: Unified Communications, Unified Communications Information by Nancy Jamison
1 Comment »

To build on its movement into the world of UC and its relationship with Microsoft, Aspect announced that it is launching a new professional services and systems integration practice t”o assist organizations with planning, implementing and supporting unified communications products across their enterprises and into their contact centers.”

Aspect announced an important partnership with Microsoft a few months ago, focusing on integrating with and supporting Microsoft’s OCS (and Microsoft is investing a significant amount of money in Aspect). Aspect is integrating its Unified IP contact center solution with OCS to provide capabilities such as “ask-an-expert capabilities” using OCS’s presence technology.

Aspect, which now calls itself a “unified communications and contact center software and services provider,” says that the new services practice within Aspect Professional Services is “designed to help companies create and execute a logical UC rollout strategy, from basic infrastructure through business process enablement, which will improve enterprise productivity and enhance customer-facing business processes.” The new UC practice is intended to support the Aspect/Microsoft strategic alliance, and assists organizations in deploying Microsoft OCS and other Microsoft UC applications from planning through implementation.

The new services practice will include several types of services: UC Strategy, Planning and Architecture, and implementation and integration.

In addition, Aspect is already hard at work supporting the new voice capabilities in Microsoft OCS 2007 R2 (see my UC Strategies Views post on R2, Aspect’s Professional Services Practice - Makes Sense to Me. Aspect will support the voice features that support remote and mobile workers, audio conferencing capabilities, and developer tools, which will be used to create tight integrations between OCS and Aspect Unified IP, with the first integration release scheduled for December.

During my pre-announcement briefing with Microsoft about OCS 2007 RS, I asked about Microsoft’s contact center strategy, since there were no new contact center capabilities or features included in the new release. Knowing that many enterprises purchase their switch (IP PBX) based on the vendor’s contact center offerings, I was surprised that Microsoft acknowledged no plans to introduce its own contact center capabilities. Instead, the company plans to continue to partner with companies like Aspect, Nortel, and others.

Microsoft has made many partnership announcements since it entered the world of unified communications, and I didn’t take all of them very seriously (everyone is a “special friend” to Microsoft). Its relationship with Aspect is different - Microsoft isn’t just partnering with Aspect because it has to and because its customers are demanding it (like in the case of Cisco). Instead, when customers ask Microsoft about its contact center offerings, Microsoft points them to Aspect or Nortel.

So it makes sense that Aspect is building up its professional services capabilities in UC to help customers in their UC strategy and implementation. The more help that’s provided to customers, the better for everyone.

Tags: Unified Communications Information, Unified Communications Information by Blair Pleasant
1 Comment »

If ever there was a time to step back from “business as usual” and look at new ways to work with your reseller partners, now is the time! It doesn’t take a crystal ball to know that customers of all sizes are going to go through a belt tightening exercise over the next months - once they move past the current panic stage. IT budgets are certainly going to be hit hard, which means that your reseller partners are going to be selling fewer products, which in turn, of course, means that you’ll be selling fewer products. 

Now I’m a big believer in “if you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always gotten”. And let’s face it, even in good times most resellers haven’t been knocking the proverbial ball out of the park when it comes to selling your products and solutions. Most vendors have pretty much chosen to ignore the fact that a very large percentage of their reseller partners really don’t know how to sell beyond the training that they received in how to “sell” your products. Most of their sales people are clueless when it comes to discussing a customer’s business needs, or showing the customer how a proposed solution will help that customer reduce expenses or generate additional revenue or give them a competitive advantage or increase profitability.

Unfortunately, in tough financial times, customers aren’t likely to spend money - period! If they are going to let loose of dollars, it will be for solutions that are going to help them survive. And we know that many unified communication solutions can actually be shown to address at least one of the “big 4″ needs mentioned above.  So here’s the opportunity that I see for unified communication vendors….. and other data or voice vendors as well.

Granted it would be prudent to have a reseller channel capable of selling UC solutions.  However, present economic conditions will put the channel into survival mode without the time or funds needed to reshape their sales force quickly.  As vendors, we can shake our heads and watch sales go down; or we can rapidly take some smaller steps to ensure that our channel keeps selling. Here’s one significant step that you can take.  Create tools for your reseller channel that very specifically identify:

• Each general business need/problem that your product plays a role in addressing
• How your product addresses that need (even if it’s as part of a whole solution)
• Where the customer can expect to see cost savings or improvements. Better yet, give them a template for creating an ROI specific to your product/solution.

And if you can do it for vertical markets, better yet!

Think outside the box!  Because the box was built for a different economic environment, as noted on my website (www.sierrasummitgroup.com).  And to tell the truth, that “box” wasn’t entirely appropriate for the UC reseller channel anyway. 

Tags: Unified Communications Information, Unified Communications Information by Pam Avila
No Comments »

The only news from Avaya this past year has been that Lou D’Ambrosio was stepping down as CEO, announced back in June.  Although the former CEO alluded to medical reasons for his sudden departure, I can’t help but think that this happened a year to the date when Avaya was taken private, acquired by SIlverlake Partners, in an 8.2 billion dollar deal.  At the time, it seemed that Avaya was poised for growth.  It had a great team in place, led by a great leader, as was Lou D’Ambrosio, with a strong story, “Democratization of UC”, which he preached at VoiceCon 2008.  My initial thoughts were that this private equity firm was going to make the necessary investments and take Avaya to the next level, becoming a leader in this industry.

Now, a year and a half later, the CEO has stepped down; Charlie Giancarlo, an ex-Cisco executive, has been at the helm of the organization since June; and there have been significant lay-offs and “resignations” of key people at Avaya.  Furthermore, and more importantly, product innovation has been stagnant.  It seems that leadership at Avaya is busy, going through organizational restructuring, or in laymen’s terms, cutting out the fat from the organization.  Although it’s not unheard of for organizations to go through some restructuring, particularly when private equity is involved, the lack of product innovation is happening at a wrong time, when the industry is moving so quickly, and innovation is happening at the blink of an eye. 

Initially, I thought the privatization was a good idea; now, I’m not so sure.  With no official CEO successor (Giancarlo is still interim CEO), and staff being slashed in droves, it almost seems as if the company was being dressed for two options:  (1) To be merged with another company or (2) To reinvent itself.  The latter would be the better option, but it will cost them.  Time to market is everything, and the clock is a-ticking.  Selling it would not be worth it at this point, given the economy and the state of Avaya as it stands now. So what does this mean for Avaya customers?

Customers must assess Avaya’s next moves and figure out what that means for them.  This is a crucial moment for enterprises to start implementing a UC and collaboration strategy, and evaluating the right vendors, who are promoting interoperability, is key.  So while Avaya has been a leader in telephony, I question their ability to take it to the next level of collaboration, as we saw a few weeks ago from Cisco.  UC and collaboration is much more than just telephony, and traditional vendors will need to make the right additions to their product portfolio.  Avaya was on its way, but seems as though it’s fallen off track.  Their analyst conference is next week; stay tuned to this blog for an update.

Tags: Unified Communications Information, Unified Communications Information by Vanessa Alvarez
3 Comments »

This week I went to Toronto in order to attend the ICCM Canada trade show.  This is the third year in a row I’ve gone to that particular show and have provided the keynote session as well as the final session of the event, which is an executive overview of the North American contact center industry.

ICCM Canada is one of the few trade shows I go to anymore.  It’s not a particularly large show and there isn’t a lot of flash and hype like you find at so many American shows.  Instead it is an event that attracts attendees who are genuinely interested in the information provided, who will look you directly in the eye, who aren’t looking for something for nothing and who will generally do what they say they will do without first determining what’s in it for them.  In other words, Canadians.

Like many other contact center trade shows, ICCM Canada was top-heavy with operationally-oriented sessions.  Although conference session topics based upon things like determining the appropriate number of pizza parties to have for agents each month or establishing cake baking as a team building exercise are lost on me, there must be people who get value out of it.  That’s probably why so many contact center conferences have these same old tired conference session topics time after time.  There is typically very little discussion of the industry’s trends, issues or opportunities.   Conferences today tend to be dominated by topics of interest to first line supervisors and below.

At ICCM Canada I was pleasantly surprised by the number of people who made an effort to seek me out to talk about UC and Web 2.0 in the contact center and who stayed right to the bitter end to join me in my locknote address.  The final session of the final day had to be moved to the main auditorium to accommodate the number of attendees.  That tells me something about the dedication of the people who make up the Canadian contact center industry.  Feedback from those people dictated that I spend the majority of the locknote presentation discussing UC and Web 2.0, which also tells me that ICCM Canada probably attracts more strategic and higher level managers.

Over the two days of the conference I had the opportunity to attend or audit several other conference sessions.  I noticed that there was very little audience participation even during the Q & A part of the sessions.  I know part of this can be chalked up to politeness.  Remember, this was Canada where even the radio shock jocks are polite.  But things were very different when the topic turned to UC and Web 2.0 in my session.

As my presentation turned first to UC, then to Web 2.0 and its impact on the contact center, the audience became very engaged.  The several questions I received during the presentation turned into a lively discussion during which I could tell I’d hit a hot button with this otherwise stoic audience.  The session actually went beyond its scheduled finish time.  Remember, this was the last session of the last day.  I didn’t even lose the people who had to face that Toronto commute traffic in order to get home.  I was pleased and impressed.

If you’re not paying attention to the Canadian market due to size, buying power or any other reason, it’s time to reconsider that position.  Historically the Canadian telecommunications market has been an early adopter of new technologies and an innovative user of new communications solutions.  If my experience at ICCM Canada in Toronto is any indication of the potential adoption of UC and other new communications strategies in the Canadian market, my advice is to make a run for the border, eh!

Tags: Mobile UC, Unified Communications Information, Unified Communications Information by Paul Stockford
1 Comment »

Here is an excellent article about the “smartphone” becoming your next computer.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/smartphones/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=210605369

I might rephrase the title to something like “Is The Mobile Handheld Computer Going To Become Your Next ‘Smartphone’? From a UC perspective, you are damn right it will!

As I pointed out in my last post about Citrix and it’s new policy of “BYOC” (Bring Your Own Computer) for its employees, the big hangup for enterprise mobility has been security and device support. Mobility is where the flexibility of UC really pays off most, much more so than at a desktop. So, as I see it, the security concerns for mobile devices can be relieved by “virtualizing” enterprise applications, just like they are starting to do for desktop use. The hosted application servers control access to sensitive information, in a hosted and secure network service environment but where the enterprise can still manage usage and access. That is where the new network infrastuctures of SOA and SaaS are taking business process applications, so we need to include wireless mobility and UC flexibility into that mix as well.

You should keep an eye on the posts of my colleague, Michael Finneran, about mobile devices and whether these should store business applications and data like a desktop computer, or just be a “terminal.” My opinion? The handheld or portable laptop device should always be at least a mobile “terminal.” If you really need to have reliable access, find a wired connection! Otherwise, use any available wireless access. If you have to do real “work,” and want to carry information with you, you will probably want a more efficient bigger screen and a keyboard, so carry a laptop (and your “smartphone” and find a place to dock and sit down!

Of course, we still need the wireless carriers to be more cooperative with consumers, who are also business users, that need mobile access to and from enterprise applications, exploiting Communication Enabled Business Process (CEBP) and self-service portals. That same need will apply to any consumer who is a “customer” of an enterprise business. But, that’s another debate that isn’t finished.

The big issue that is really shaping up is who will supply those “smartphone” devices, mobile operating systems, and mobile software clients to subscribers of wireless services, and how will enterprise organizations be able to exploit and control those devices in terms of access to proprietary business information by authorized business users. The battle for control is just starting!

Tags: Mobile UC, Unified Communications Information, Unified Communications Information by Art Rosenberg
2 Comments »

First, let me say that it’s great to be writing about Unified Communications again! It’s such a dynamic industry, where there’s so much happening, and I love being a part of it, albeit independently now. I’m still here to give you my 2 cents.

Defining UC has been an important exercise this past year, but not really for us, in the industry. Defining UC is important for the potential customers (enterprises) who are looking to implement holistic UC solutions. Creating a definition is needed in order to dispel many of the erroneous myths out there today. It’s also critical because if enterprises don’t understand what UC consists of, then they won’t know what they need, and therefore may not utilize all the available collaborative tools efficiently and effectively.

I want to dispel the most important myth, and that is that VoIP/IP telephony is required for UC. In fact, it’s not. Part of my definition of UC is that either VoIP/IPT and/or presence can be the foundation of UC. Let me repeat that: VoIP/IPT is not a requirement for deploying UC. Enterprises need not wait for their VoIP/IP Telephony deployments to be finished in order to deploy UC. The rate of VoIP/ telephony deployments has slowed, as a result of unforeseen challenges and perhaps, not enough value for the upfront costs of deploying VoIP/IP telephony. Those enterprises that have taken the initiative have left it in the testing phase, and those who have not taken the initiative, have given it thought, but not moving forward. As a result, IP telephony is at a standstill. UC may be the catalyst that VoIP/IP telephony needs to reach mass adoption.

Part of the problem is that vendors are confusing the market. On one side of the camp, we the traditional infrastructure vendors, who are basing their UC platforms on VoIP/IPT, indicating that VoIP is the foundation of UC. On the other side of the camp, we have the non-traditional vendors, who believe VoIP/IPT is just another application on a UC platform. In their case, presence is really the foundation of a UC platform. The presence engine is the place from which all modes of communications can be launched. Neither one is right nor wrong, although each would like to say the other is inadequate.

The fact is that enterprises have different needs and requirements. Some enterprises would prefer to have their modes of communication be based on voice; others are more comfortable communicating through presence, and use voice as a secondary and tertiary form of communication. The good news for enterprises is that there is an option for everyone. There may even be instances in which traditional and non-traditional may have to share and co-habitate. That’s not a bad thing. We are still a long way from making that co-habitation seamless, and interoperability still has strides to make. This nirvana is only as impossible as vendors make it. It’s time they all learn to play in the same sandbox if we want to see UC take off.

Tags: Unified Communications Information, Unified Communications Information by Vanessa Alvarez
4 Comments »

I really do like this industry! It is dynamic, exciting, and full of great minds. But it is also too busy talking to itself. How many definitions are there for UC right now? And is VoIP really a part of UC?

Thinking like a customer, I have to tell you that the definitions REALLY don’t matter to me very much. And I don’t care if VoIP is part of UC or not! In fact, I (the customer) am getting so confused by all of the articles, podcasts, etc. that I probably won’t be able to make a decision whether to buy anything or not!!!!!!!

I sure would like to see unified communications (however it is defined) have the impact on business that it promises. And I believe that it will do that - if the industry can get out of the way! Wouldn’t it be more productive to focus on how various verticals will benefit from UC solutions? As an end-user, I really don’t care HOW you make my work day more productive - I just want you to DO IT! And I don’t care if my new communication system is IP telephony and isn’t part of unified communications - I just want to work from anywhere and have my tools be easy to use!

Many of us depend on reseller partners to get our products into the hands of customers. But we’ve even managed to keep them confused! And if they’re confused, how can they possibly take the UC story to their customers? In a recent white paper on my own web site, I discussed the chasm between the UC vendor and their channel. But now I’m wondering about the chasm between manufacturers and the end-user!

A number of the resellers who attended UCStrategies UC Channel Summit in May, indicated that the conference answered many questions for them - but the vendor presentations brought up an equal number of new questions. We need to “unconfuse” our channel partners! We need to bring clarity to the end-user. We need to stop talking to ourselves!

Tags: Unified Communications Information, Unified Communications Information by Pam Avila
No Comments »

Presence, smresence, what’s the big deal with Presence? Presence is all about connections. If you were to ask a user what presence is, you would probably get a lot of different answers: Presence is telling whether someone is available, online in the case of IM, or in a meeting until 3PM in the case of Microsoft Outlook, etc. Presence equals efficiency, especially for an end user. Contact Centers are the ultimate proving ground for a company’s ROI.

Presence allows anyone not just Contact Centers the ability to pull in enterprise resources to resolve any issue immediately. Efficiency increases when a company can eliminate phone tag, by letting users know, through device presence, if someone is on the phone or available to accept a phone call. Imagine the possibilities if you could integrate all forms of presence (IM, device presence and email) and federation. End users desperately need this type of UC interoperability.

Earlier this year Blair Pleasant wondered about the future of UC without federation. While Federation might be number one on many people’s list; I think she needed to include the importance of presence. Blair wishes for federation, but right now Presence makes my life more efficient because I am not playing phone tag, and I do not foresee the big 3 playing nice in the sand box so federation is way down on my list. Nothing ruins my day more than having left a voice mail at the beginning of the day and by the EOB I haven’t heard from my contact, only to hear that they have been in a meeting in my own building all day. Presence can make my day, by telling me through MS Outlook, that my contact has a lunch break at 1:00, so I will walk on over to the meeting and catch him in the hallway. A much more efficient use of my time than waiting on a return call from a voice mail message I left at the beginning of the day.

I would consider Presence Integration to be more important than Federation when it comes to UC interoperability between multi vendor platforms like Cisco Unified Communications Manager and Microsoft Office Communicator 2007, such as letting an end user know when the contact in your IM client is “in a call”. While many would scoff at that possibility, I call that the “Ultimate Presence Experience”, eliminating phone tag, ensuring reach-ability, eliminating email latency, and eliminating the frustration of how can I connect with someone now. I continue to lead the charge for efficiency through presence, and what better way for all of us to keep our New Year’s Resolution than with UC Interoperability and Integrated Presence!!

Tags: Unified Communications Information, Unified Communications Information by Mark Littlefield
2 Comments »