Unified Communications = Emperor's New Clothes?

I've just come back from a Unified Communications conference, I was speaking. Unfortunately I was speaking last which means I spend the whole conference worrying about my presentation. It's not that I mind presenting, but the last thing I want is to boringly repeat what everyone else has said previously.

This time, I realised that wasn't going to happen. Most of the talks were about what had been done using the big-boy tool-sets from Microsoft and Cisco. My talk was about what I'd done without spending any money or at least very little.

An analyst from Forrester opened proceedings, and at one point he said that unless you had a single unified interface then you hadn't done Unified Communications. I fundamentally disagree with this. It isn't the interface that counts, it's the user experience. At work, we use all the elements of Unified Communications, they're just not wrapped up in a pretty package with a Microsoft or Cisco badge, instead they're mostly free or open-source. The only exception to this is the Telepresence system we use for the board - that was just a JFDI, fair enough.

There was also much talk about how to justify the cost of implementing UC, and how you could demonstrate ROI, but in my view, what's the point? I'm finding it far easier to implement something for free, get take-up in a viral manner and then once its established and a necessary part of the company culture, then if it's really needed go asking for money.

One presenter talked about being more efficient because he could bring a specialist on to a call by using IM or roping him in to the conference call. It may be effective for the presenter, but for the poor specialist who's just been disturbed and drawn in to a conversation he's had no preparation for, it's anything but effective or efficient.

I feel a bit of a heretic, but surely as IT leaders we should be providing a toolset that enables our customers to communicate in the manner they wish in a cost-effective manner rather than worrying about whether it happens to come under a banner of Unified Communications.

Process for Process Sake

I've just come back from a trip to India to see one of my outsourced teams. I always find these experiences very interesting and this trip was no exception. We ended the week with a dashboard containing over 40 actions that would significantly improve the service if they were all completed. In addition, I got a real appreciation for the off-shore skill sets in my team and also the opportunities for utilising other skill-sets in the off-shore company's capabilities, particularly in the process re-engineering space. I hope they got a sense of being part of my company and making a difference.

Many times I've heard that the Indian outsourcers excel at following process, but if needed to go outside that process service dips quickly. Whilst not seeing this slavish following of process within my outsourced company, although the BPO team were definitely process geeks par excelleance, it was very evident in other places.

A great example was in the security checks at the hotel entrance. The security team were required to check every car for bombs. One security guard was equipped with a mirror-on-a-stick for checking under the car whilst the other was charged with checking the car. The security guard equipped with the mirror checked under the front, but not the sides or rear. The security guard who checked the car, just looked in the boot, didn't open or check anything (at one point we had 45 small white boxes all containing mugs - presents for the off-shore team - all about the right size to carry a grenade) but he didn't open and check a single one.

It was clear that the most important thing for the security guards was to complete the car-checking process, not actually be effective in ensuring the car didn't have a bomb on board. Process successfully completed - check, actual likelihood of finding a bomb: zero. All our bags were x-rayed on the way in to the hotel so perhaps it didn't matter that much. What was interesting though was that whichever hotel we went to the process happened in exactly the same way, quite clearly a fantastic, repeatable and quality process, but with very little benefit.

It takes me back to a presentation I gave a while back on incident processes. To emphasis why the process was required I used an example: Nobody ever buys a drill because they want a drill, they buy a drill because they want to make a hole, probably in a wall. Similar having a process for process sake is pointless, the process must properly beneficial otherwise don't bother.

The other thing that struck me about India was the absolute contrasts: Hot (outside)/Cold (inside), High Tech/Low Tech, Throw-Away/Make-do & Mend, Chaos/Order, Quality/Tat...

Must go back, see more.

Being an avid biker made the roads very interesting because there are thousands of motorbikes. Best I saw was 2-up with the pillion carrying a bicycle!!

Just Learn to Type... PLEASE!!!

So, a bit of a hobby-horse this one. Why don't companies make it a pre-requisite to have at least a reasonable level of typing and Office suite capability? Or, at the very least ensure that the new essential recruit has some relevant training.

Eh?

Ok, let me explain myself. I have what I consider the massive fortune of being able to touch-type at 60wpm. PAs shudder when they see me touch type because it's certainly not classical touch-typing, but it's still very effective. I can even do what many men can't - I can type and listen at the same time! I scared my CTO the other day with that one!

I can type an email, review it, cogitate on it, edit it and send it in about 1/3 the time that the majority of senior managers/directors can. This gives me more time to do other things, to think, to lead, gaze at my navel, whatever.

I had one manager who if you received an email from him any more than 2 lines long meant he had put his heart and soul in to it because it would have been painful and long to create. I never took his emails for granted! But he spent so long typing that it left him very little time for anything else.

However much we like it or hate it, typing and the ability to use the basic office suite effectively and efficiently is critical to a senior manager's success.

Surely if everyone could type fast, everyone would just write more? Possibly, maybe it would generate more emails, but I still believe they would be more effective overall.

As for office suite knowledge, I think I can illustrate that very easily: I had a call from a function the other day demanding Office 2007 because Office 2003 just wasn't letting them edit their documents the way they wanted to. I went and had a look. As I suspected it was a lack of knowledge of their existing toolset that was the problem, not Office 2003 letting them down.

Yes, you can see it bothers me. But if we senior leaders don't sort it out, before long Generation Y or whatever they're called now will come in and trounce all over us because be assured they will be able to type, and type fast and they'll have been using the Office suite since Year 1 at school. You can't survive in the on-line world if you can't type fast and that will come to the office without a doubt.

And no, voice recognition is not an option. Face up to reality, Go and find Mavis Beacon's Typing Tutor and learn to type, you will never regret it.

Oh, this post written and published in about 20 minutes.