• silicon.com
• Special Features
• Unified Communications

By Tim Ferguson, 21 October 2009 09:55

NEWS

Unified communications (UC) implementations bring together a variety of digital communication tools to make it easier for users to collaborate and improve business processes.

For example it might mean bringing together instant messaging, presence information, video conferencing, as well as email, SMS, fax and voicemail to improve productivity, and potentially trim the cost of an organisations' IT infrastructure.

Proponents point to a number of benefits from such implementations: for example UC projects can allow businesses to consolidate the number of communications suppliers they are paying for their various communications services.

They can also help cut costs by reducing the amount of travelling that workers need to do as the use of video conferencing and other comms tools together means teams can collaborate effectively at a distance without having to meet face to face. And, inevitably, cost cutting is getting the most focus at the moment.

As Quocirca analyst Rob Bamforth told silicon.com: "The primary drivers - flexible working and the environment, changing working practices or productivity - they all feature a bit but the number one [driver] is cost saving."

Steve Blood senior VP at Gartner, agreed: "I think the biggest interest is looking at how UC can deliver cost savings."

In addition, UC can also help organisations function more effectively, Blood said: "There are a few organisations that are really looking at how UC can improve business process or make people more productive."

Blood said a major benefit is that UC can bring people together more quickly. Instead of waiting for everyone to be in the office for a meeting, by using UC technology, people can get together virtually using a variety of tools to contribute to a discussion.

So with all these touted benefits, why are many UC projects slow to take off?

Bamforth told silicon.com that most companies are approaching UC with a degree of caution. "A lot of organisations find the whole thing quite complicated and potentially a large investment and are probably looking to step into unified communications, stepping stones at a time and phase it in, rather than doing a whole hog," he said.

Blood added the adoption of UC remains something that has yet to take off in the majority of businesses. He said: "There's only a few companies that have really gone full scale and moved ahead a long way in terms of deploying technology."

The fact that voice over IP is often seen as the starting point for UC could actually be holding back adoption according to Freeform Dynamics analyst, Martin Atherton, who feels UC hasn't moved much beyond the basics.

He said: "UC suffers from a lack of enough understanding to get it beyond the realms of 'it's just IP telephony' or 'oh that's IM isn't it'. Despite extensive use of a broad range of business communications mechanisms - phone, email, voicemail, instant messaging, audio conferencing, video conferencing - there exists a degree of inefficiency in communicating as a result of these largely disparate services."

When CIOs get past these initial hurdles they also need to be aware of the potential pitfalls lying in wait for implementers. Firms need to make sure the technology is deployed to the right teams - as some workers will benefit from it more than others.

Gartner's Blood said: "One of the pitfalls is you shouldn't be giving them to everyone because not everyone is going to use it. Companies should be identifying the user groups that are going to be using this technology."

He said a company with a complicated and distributed workforce might benefit more from the use of UC than a company where everyone is in one place.

Training is a vital aspect: UC systems can easily be put in place without users being sufficiently trained to use them effectively, which inevitably means the technology isn't used properly and the benefits are less significant.

And it also has to be done sensitively, as Bamforth pointed out: "Everyone's got their own best practices. If you throw some unified comms at people who like to have their own workflow and process and all of a sudden they can be reached in any way by anyone at any time, then it's not necessarily better for them, unless they either learn a different way of working or they adapt it to suit their way of working. It's how to adapt the technology to fit the way people work."

Choosing the right technologies is another area where it's important to make the right decisions. Throwing in all types of technology will result in unnecessary cost and work - do you really need to add in faxes if you never actually receive any?

UC might be still in the early phases of adoption - but soon it could be something new starters expect of an employer, according to Gartner's Blood.

If, for example, they're used to using instant messaging or presence information they may feel that working for a company where this technology isn't used could be an issue - so UC could play a role in making companies desirable places to work.

Ultimately UC is about communicating more effectively. Businesses will see where the bringing together of different communication technologies could help them and also where it might be less valuable.

Rob Bamforth said: "The thing to do is not to invest just for the sake of unifying comms but look for concrete value you're going to get out of it. It's not specifically a matter of one technology or another, it's just a raw need for people to be able to communicate in all sorts of businesses, large and small."