Who's An FMC Vendor?Who's An FMC Vendor?

We've got to turn this conversation around and start looking at in terms of what the users need rather than what the vendors have.

My pal Zeus Kerravala from the Yankee Group had a go at my FMC/Mobile UC Vendor Positioning Matrix. If someone as astute as Zeus missed the point, I want to make sure I've stated it clearly.Zeus, you are incorrect in thinking that Aruba, Sprint, and DiVitas should not be considered as competitors. The problem we have had in FMC is that kind of "silo thinking". My matrix is not just a collection of vendors who have tried to associate themselves with FMC/MobUC, but folks who are actually selling some type of solution, however lame it might be. Categorizing products as mobile UC client, multimode convergence, etc. as you suggest is exactly the problem, and the type of mindset we have to break out of.

The whole purpose of the study is to define and assess the full range of options in the FMC/MobUC space, and identify their capabilities and limitations with respect to user requirements going forward. Any radio technology will allow for mobility. We should be thinking in terms of who's mobile, where they are going, and what do they have to do when they get there. That vision must include mobile communications enabled business processes (mCEBP) and not just the mobilized UC-U capabilities the vendors like to demonstrate at trade shows. Once you define the requirements, then you start looking at the full range of options and evaluate them objectively. The problem is that we've been thinking along the lines of what the vendors offer rather than what the users need.

With regard to the observation that Avaya and Cisco are not FMC providers because they partner to provide their dual mode FMC, there is an assumption that FMC refers exclusively dual mode Wi-Fi/cellular FMC. The "F" in "FMC" stands for "fixed," which is a reference to wired networks. The literal definition of FMC is any solution that integrates cellular service with a private network, either wired or wireless. From that perspective, any PBX's extension-to-cellular feature that integrates the cellular service is "FMC;" Avaya's oneX Telephony/Mobile UC clients or Cisco's Unified Mobile Communicator may do it a little better. In reality, extension-to-cellular with a native cellular handset is used far more widely today than either the dual mode solutions or the PBX vendors' mobile clients.

Obviously I know that Avaya and Cisco partner for their dual mode solutions, and that's factored into their positions. Siemens gets more weight for their dual mode offering because they developed it, and hence will have more control with regard to how they integrate it into an overall FMC/MobUC strategy.

So when you get down to it, I'm actually doing the opposite of what the vendors want. They're offering a grab bag of piece parts--the "used car lot" approach. The winners in the FMC/MobUC will be the vendors who deliver the best user solution, over the best mix of wireless networks, for the widest range of requirements. That's what's reflected in their positioning. The cellular carriers, PBX vendors, WLAN switch vendors, and third-party adjuncts all have some part of the answer. We've got to turn this conversation around and start looking at it in terms of what the users need rather than what the vendors have to sell us.We've got to turn this conversation around and start looking at in terms of what the users need rather than what the vendors have.