Meanwhile, the vendors do what they always do--modify definitions to fit their product offering. The IP-PBX vendors want enterprise customers to believe that the first thing to do when developing a UC strategy is buy a new IP-PBX.
I find it remarkable how senior executives from vendor organizations brag about their "poster child" UC success stories with one definition of UC, while their marketing teams use another definition. At the past three VoiceCons, keynote speakers from Avaya, Cisco, IBM and Microsoft have all used UC definitions very similar to the definition UCStrategies.com introduced over two years ago--"communications integrated to optimize business processes." And, of course, these definitions are aligned with the views of Gartner, who published their first UC Magic Quadrant in February 2003 with this headline: "Unified Communications is emerging as an enabler for business process improvement."
But while they understand what UC is all about, many vendors are not ready to change their business models to support what they know is looming on the horizon: Lower-priced PBXs that are an element of an enterprise communications model rather than PBXs as standalones existing unto themselves.
This puts most IP-PBX vendors in an awkward position: They need to continue selling expensive PBX solutions while they add products and services that will offset lower prices once PBXs become a call control feature server in a UC environment. Shareholders of public and private companies are not pleased when earnings drop as new business models evolve, which goes a long way toward explaining why Avaya went private, why Mitel did not go public on the back of the Inter-Tel acquisition and why Siemens Enterprise Networks sold for a low price.
My colleague, Blair Pleasant, develop the list below of UC Components, and it helps explain the challenges facing PBX/IP-PBX vendors:
Note that that list makes no specific mention of PBXs or IP-PBXs, a fact you'd never know if you visit the websites of most IP-PBX vendors. On those sites you'll find case studies that show a new PBX as integral to a UC solution, and that claim cost savings (toll reductions or consolidation) or improvements in a business process to justify the UC investment. However, when you look closely at these case studies, they depend on the respective vendor's configuration, rather than new functionality.
IBM and Microsoft take a different tack, but only slightly. For obvious reasons, they pay less homage to PBXs in their case studies, and focus instead on the specific advantages achieved by integrating communications into business processes. They also show how existing PBXs can be leveraged to justify the UC investment and in familiar ways--consolidation, toll-bypass, or conferencing in-sourcing.
But if you start down the road toward UC from a particular technology point of view--particularly, a PBX--you're missing the mark. UC is not about IP-PBXs or even about VoIP on an application server. Instead, it is about reviewing business processes, looking for situations where human latency creates delay in response time, or where inefficiencies in the existing communications system create "hot spots." Once you have that list you can analyze how integrated communications could improve the process--with or without a new IP-PBX.
Please, do yourself--and your company--a favor. Repeat after me: Unified Communications has nothing to do with buying a new IP-PBX.
Note that that list makes no specific mention of PBXs or IP-PBXs, a fact you'd never know if you visit the websites of most IP-PBX vendors. On those sites you'll find case studies that show a new PBX as integral to a UC solution, and that claim cost savings (toll reductions or consolidation) or improvements in a business process to justify the UC investment. However, when you look closely at these case studies, they depend on the respective vendor's configuration, rather than new functionality.
IBM and Microsoft take a different tack, but only slightly. For obvious reasons, they pay less homage to PBXs in their case studies, and focus instead on the specific advantages achieved by integrating communications into business processes. They also show how existing PBXs can be leveraged to justify the UC investment and in familiar ways--consolidation, toll-bypass, or conferencing in-sourcing.
But if you start down the road toward UC from a particular technology point of view--particularly, a PBX--you're missing the mark. UC is not about IP-PBXs or even about VoIP on an application server. Instead, it is about reviewing business processes, looking for situations where human latency creates delay in response time, or where inefficiencies in the existing communications system create "hot spots." Once you have that list you can analyze how integrated communications could improve the process--with or without a new IP-PBX.
Please, do yourself--and your company--a favor. Repeat after me: Unified Communications has nothing to do with buying a new IP-PBX.
