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.
No comments:
Post a Comment