Davide's space

"Unified communications" is one of the hottest buzzwords in the communication industry as vendors and distributors are looking to excite end users on how this technology will change the way business communicates and competes. It is aggressively being pushed by noted heavy weights ( Microsoft/Cisco) as MUST HAVE technology and not simply cool technology .  Cisco, Microsoft, and several small players such as esnatech, AVST have all got the UC Stuff.  What we see in the horizon is new vendors looking at it and seeing if they can take advantage of the hype, Apple and Google are on the side lines looking in but strategically looking how to get in BIG.  

UC still seems unclear and hard to position with end users as every vendor has their own definition of what this must have technology is based on what they are trying to sell.  Really UC is not a product but a process that can vary differently a based on who is using it and how a business processes workflow. it ranges from a simple definition of :Using the same network for voice, video, and data, or for mobile users it it really boils down to:  Using the same device for all forms of communication, For many vendors trying to push large bandwidth and ex pensive devices it is around the amalgamation of voice, video and text for a seamless flow of communications, but in the end it really is about unifying your core business processes so you can automate simple non critical task and increase communication flow to access live resources at critical stages to enable decision making and streamline your business process. Finally there is a wealth of other definitions that are all correct as they address a specific customer or users need to unify some form of communications.

Really because of all the different type of interpretations based on vendor marketing unified communications is truly in danger of becoming a industry buzzword instead of industry changing technology just like  all the other BIG marketing terms such as Web 2.0 and even "Going Green". The problem is the definition can be changed to suit your immediate purpose. 

From a vendor and UC VAR perspective this is good, simply position yourself as a leader in UC and you're a leader in just about anything related to UC, voice, IM, Presence, mobility, video, collaboration, etc.. 

What is amazing many In my opinion, is that TRU Unifying of communication access has been around for many years from several independent vendors such as esnatech, AVST, and interactive Intelligence who truly offer UC solutions that have NO dependencies such as specific  phone systems, email, or business applications. Esnatech for the last 15 years has truly been unifying business infrastructure to streamline the way a business communicates. Now the big boys enter in 2007/2008 and talk about this "NEW" technology but with a caveat...It has to be their stuff! IBM, Microsoft, Cisco, all promote open technology as long as the core of it is their stuff! Microsoft launched their UC suite which is excellent ...as long as all your core applications and devices are Microsoft, Lotus has similar functionality,but with no clear marketing direction.  GroupWise is also in this space, But weak on voice communications and direction. Really outside of Microsoft it is the major voice players making the UC noise- Cisco, Avaya, Nortel, and Siemens.

The real interesting part for all the vendors solutions is the lack of a unified portfolio!  While communication is starting to flow over a single channel, the user experience is still very fragmented.  Many solutions with lots of overhead all linked together with middleware( you hope)

Even Apple has moved into the UC arena with Mobile Me (Apple has existing patents on the iPhone to enable video conferencing!)  They promote Mobile Me as "Exchange for the rest of us".   The line between enterprise and consumer is going to blur whether enterprise companies want it to or not.

As good as it is with single identity, Mobile Me is not open--like everything else from Apple it's closed and controlled and this may hurt their enterprise penetration.  MS Exchange is also tightly controlled,with crazy fragmented  and expensive licensing.  This is opening the door for new and hungry competitors to attack their market dominance .

Google, Is a real threat if they can ever market Google applications properly.  They certainly have the solid basis of a UC product line.  With a Google account I can now get email, chat, instant messaging, and voice chat, and Tie it in with applications from esnatech to link my mobile phone and office PBX to the hosted UC service. Giving them opportunity to penetrate the enterprise.

UC is completely fragmented at the enterprise level (Microsoft is pushing the desktop and everyone else is pushing devices and infrastructure). 

The real question, I think, is whose vision is the most ambitious and most aligns with the future.  I have big doubts about Microsoft, they're stuck trying to defend the desktop which is a losing proposition in the long run.  I'm just speculating about what Google is doing but it has huge potential, then you have a variety of Telecom vendors that are so voice focused they lost site of unification really is. Let us not forget the Groupware vendors trying to re-invent themselves and breath new life by re badging themselves as UC such as Lotus, Oracle and GroupWise. Reality is because UC means many things to many people the winner can not be decided for a while and this means tremendous opportunities for other vendors and application middleware such as the Esna Telephony Office-LinX that truly links infrastructure to applications and is completely agnostic to the environment.

Connect the Dots.. Part 2

People don’t invest in technology to be able to say they have it…they invest in technology for what it will do for their business. There must be a functional purpose. Investments must be justified. What is the impact? Prove it! Arguably there are 6 areas, within any business for which an investment in technology is considered or justified. They are: profitability/expense control, competitive advantage, client relations, employee efficiencies, management tools and company image. Proving validity of your solution must link functionality to the impact in these areas.
A professional salesperson must take the responsibility to deliver this proof. This is not a chance we want to leave up to the end-user. Connect the dots for them. Failing to do so is a disservice to the buyer and the salesperson’s employer. Refer to the Value Wheel diagram below. This identifies six areas of a business that generally any solution will need to address in order to be justified. Our objective is to work with the buyer, building the case, in order to link our product/solution capabilities to the impact it will have for their business.
Theoretically, if a feature cannot be articulated to where and how it will address one or more of the six areas in the Value Wheel it is meaningless. You can bet that the buyer/president/owner /board of directors are concerned about:
• Delivering higher profit margins or conversely reduction of expenses? Where can your solution effect this and how?
• Their competitive advantage or ability to create additional advantages and differentiate themselves? How can your solution provide that? How much profit does the buyer’s typical client represent to them over the term of their relationship?
• Their client relations…customer base retention/erosion rates? What is the current level of client satisfaction? Are client expectations being met? What is the cost of a lost client? What is the benefit of a saved client? How can your solution assist and provide better client experience?
• Employee efficiencies? Is turnover an issue and if so what is the cost? What is the “happiness” factor of the general employee as related to stress in the workplace? How can you address work stress and efficiency issues? What is the value to the end user?
• How does the company validate their performance against service level expectations and accountabilities? How is their consistency measured? If you can improve that, what is the impact to the company?
• The image the company projects to the marketplace? More important, what image do they want to project to their marketplace and how can you help? So what if you have more features.
So what if you have more buttons. So what if your widget is prettier and smaller. What does it mean to the buyer as related to the Value Wheel? You can bet that behind closed doors the buyer’s management team is talking about elements of the Value Wheel rather than features/buttons, etc.
Connecting your solution to elements on the Value Wheel means we must understand the goals, objectives and challenges of the buyer’s business. Furthermore, it means that the buyer must b willing to share information with us in order for us to create. Connecting the dots can be particularly important in challenging economic times as vendors are otherwise likely to experience delayed decisions or hypersensitive price driven decisions. By effectively connecting the dots, a buyer will often conclude that in spite economic conditions, they can’t afford not to invest in your solution.
Don’t microwave sales! Let’s say you are having a group of friends for dinner and will be cooking some nice steaks. You return from the store, prepare and marinate the steaks for two hours. The friends arrive and of course you want to spend as much time visiting with them as possible. How long do you microwave the steaks?
Oh, you wouldn’t microwave your steaks? Why not, it’s much faster? The obvious fact is that th outcome…the taste of the final product is far better if grilled. In fact to microwave a nice steak would ruin it.
Don’t try to microwave sales! Don’t rush it. Don’t cut corners. Take the time to cross the T’s and dot the I’s. Then take more time to connect the dots, earn the business and earn a client for life.
Todd Walker
VP sales
Iwatsu voice networks