Unified Messaging?Unified Messaging?

Survey data continue to show it's one of the top-rated applications for UC. Why is that?

In giving a presentation last week on UC Market & Technology Trends, I showed some data from the most recent Information Week Reports survey of IT professionals on UC adoption and attitudes. Most of the trends represented in the data were easy enough to explain, but one, I'll have to admit, stumped me: The enduring importance that’s attached to Unified Messaging.

When Information Week asked the survey respondents late last year to rank the importance of various technologies in a successful UC implementation, there were basically 3 foundational technologies: Voice Over IP, Web Meetings, and Unified Messaging. (I discounted the survey's highest-rated response, "Collaboration," since that's really a goal of all the technologies, rather than an actual technology itself.)

Then, when those who’d already implemented UC were asked, "Which of the following technologies is, or was, the top driver in your decision to move forward with your UC initiative?" UM was the clear winner, garnering 26%. The next-highest was the nebulous category of "Collaboration," at 24%. No other technology scored above 8%.

The only complicating factor in this picture was a question that asked to what extent certain UC technologies already were deployed. In this instance, "Collaboration," VOIP, web conferencing, instant messaging and room-based videoconferencing all scored above or near 70%. In contrast, UM was reported as already deployed in just 56% of respondents' networks.

So what's going on here? Is the integration of voice mail and email really more important than room video or instant messaging? And if so, why is there more of those other technologies already deployed, and less UM? And anyway: Unified messaging? Really?

One factor, I think, is that UM is a personal technology; lots of enterprise users may have no need to ever be part of a room videoconference (or even a desktop videoconference, for that matter). But UM, when it rolls out, is likely to roll out ubiquitously and benefit everyone. So then what about IM? Personally, I think IM is way more useful and productivity-enhancing than UM—but maybe that's just my bias. Another factor may be that if a user really wants IM in their work environment, they can get it via Skype or a public IM service. UM is tougher: It requires a system-level integration, which also may be why it looms large in the minds of communications/IT managers.

In fact, users (who don't tend to think in terms of what requires a system-level integration) probably don’t understand why they don't already have UM in their enterprise email system, since they almost certainly have it in their personal (and business) cellular service. And they probably make their awareness of this discrepancy known to the teams that manage the communications system.

I think the question of UM importance and implementation tells us something about BYOD/BYOS (bring your own device/service). If "supporting" a BYO-function means just letting the user do whatever they want and resigning yourself to dealing with the fallout—sure, you can get something up and running pretty quickly. But what BYO probably should mean is something closer to: Letting the user adopt technologies they found on their own and found useful—but not allowing that adoption until the proper governance and management systems can be put in place at the enterprise level. If that becomes the standard, UM may not look like such an outlier.

In the case of UM, the application itself has to be enabled centrally, whereas with a lot of BYO, it's just the management and policy enforcement that IT should be able to control. But either way, the principle is the same: IT must be the gatekeeper.