A Result By Any Other Name Is Still a ResultA Result By Any Other Name Is Still a Result

As to moving past UC, I think we should focus on moving "into UC" to harvest the value, before moving on.

Editor's note: This originally appeared as a Comment to Allan Sulkin's recent post, Time to Move Past UC? We're highlighting it here to keep the debate going.

Yes, Allan, as you and I discussed last week, the prize in the Cracker Jack package is a good analogy to the way that many suppliers are dealing with the new communications capabilities used by enterprises. Since Cracker Jack was introduced in 1893, the prizes have changed, but the underlying theme of sweetened confections remains the same. I haven't seen any UC licenses in Cracker Jack bags lately, but who knows--it could happen. The analogy is also great in that for several decades it seems that PBXs have been marketed based on their cumulative lists of features; the PBX with the best list (prizes) wins. So, it makes perfect sense that the new communications functions are being added to the lists.I agree that marketing brands are not the point. However, for the sake of the customers, it seems important that as analysts (e.g. your community) and consultants (e.g. my community) we continually clarify the important issues in the market. In this case, there are two important issues, seems to me:

1. New modes of communications are now possible and prevalent. Voice calls are now outnumbered by e-mail (5x) and IM (4x). Presence is far more common with IM and e-mail than on phones, but is even more valuable if the users (or at least their phone's) on-hook (busy) or off-hook (available) status is known. Software capabilities, no matter what they are called, can now integrate communications with application software and business processes. And, very importantly, the new multi-media devices known as smartphones (Blackberry, iPhones, Nokia, et al.) are more powerful than PCs were when the web first emerged and have far surpassed desk phones in both numbers and in cumulative voice minutes. All this looks like a "sea change" to me.

2. The results are what matter. The real measures are whether businesses are actually making changes with these new tools. Bob Hafner, Gartner VP, presented "Case Studies from Communications Enabled Businesses" (per my post this AM), which described specific, financially justified business improvements from "communications integrated to optimize business processes." He highlighted cases enabled with systems from: Send Word Now, BackFlip (twice), Microsoft (twice), Avaya, Cisco (twice), and NEC. Clearly, not all of these are PBXs.

So, there's a major change in the communications component of business. I have not used any labels for that major change to this point, but I happen to call it Unified Communications (UC) and Gartner enhances that with the term Communications Enabled Business Processes (CEBP). If the name is being applied to core telephony, I can respect the point that core telephony is a valuable component of UC; or, if the core telephony products need to incorporate the values of UC and CEBP to justify the investment, that's fine too. But whatever the name, the point is to advise enterprises that new solutions and new value are available, and that's what we do 24/7 at UniComm Consulting.

My recommendation to anyone who is interested is to follow Bob Hafner's lead and analyze the case studies (index at: http://www.ucstrategies.com/unified-communications-case-study-library.aspx). Let the results speak for themselves. As to moving past UC, I think we should focus on moving "into UC" to harvest the value, before moving on. Trust that you agree. Your non-anonymous friend, Marty Parker, co-founder UniComm Consulting and UCStragtegies.com.As to moving past UC, I think we should focus on moving "into UC" to harvest the value, before moving on.