|
|
|
|
Come and Get It
|
 |
|
February 20, 2003
By Sean Doherty
|
>> continued from previous page
So Why the Holdup?
Given these benefits, why hasn't UM been embraced in the enterprise? Clearly there's a disconnect because, of readers polled for this article, only 15 percent have implemented a UM system that combines e-mail, voicemail and fax messages into a single store. Of the 85 percent that are hanging back, just 37 percent indicated that they have investigated or plan to implement UM within 18 months; a majority said that they had no plans for UM or have decided not to implement it.
Why? Our readers stepped in with some answers. Reasons cited include the economy--with limited funds, many enterprises do not consider UM a high priority. Others indicated that the technology has not matured enough to warrant implementation, and some said UM systems will not integrate with their existing communication infrastructures.
We beg to differ. Although it's difficult to second-guess enterprise priorities for IT investment, the efficiencies of centralizing corporate communications and making knowledge accessible from multiple devices and remote locations are compelling arguments for UM.
|
|
In addition, UM is not an immature technology; offerings like Interactive Intelligence's Communité and Cisco Unity 4 have been shipping since 1997 and 1999, respectively. Unity actually predates its Cisco incarnation, beginning life under ActiveVoice's flag. And Avaya's Unified Messenger has been shipping since 1996 (for more on these products see "Plugging the Communications Time Drain,").
These are mature offerings that support major PBXs--from Avaya, Nortel Networks, Siemens and NEC--and that can integrate with your IP infrastructure using VPIM (Voice Profile for Internet Mail).
Second, UM leverages enterprise directories and e-mail platforms from Lotus (Domino and Notes) and Microsoft (Active Directory and Exchange), and uses existing and new PBX technology. This is a departure from the legacy Centrex and PBX systems that run proprietary software and have a limited ability to share information, such as the company's telephone directory, with other systems. Further, these legacy systems commonly require telephone sets provided by the vendors. As a result, enterprises are heavily dependent on the vendors to maintain the systems and provide necessary upgrades to features and functionality. This makes changing vendors difficult and costly. On the plus side, Centrex and PBX systems are mature and have long MTBFs (mean times between failure).
Further muddying the waters is the fact that, from 1997 to 1999, enterprise expenditures on new PBXs increased in response to Y2K issues. Unfortunately, at that time, UM was not on most enterprise road maps because new initiatives, for the most part, took a back seat to Y2K remediation. Salvaging existing systems for the new millennium was the primary concern. Once we got over that obstacle, the recent downturn in the economy threw up another roadblock. Revenues are down, and new technology initiatives are on hold. Since PBX technology is reliable, enterprises can put off further upgrades, even ignore technologies that do not directly impact revenue generation.
But when the economy rebounds, enterprises that can hit the ground running will have a huge advantage. That's where UM comes in, and indeed, analysts are optimistic. The Telecommunications Industry Association expects UM sales and services to hit $3.5 billion in 2005, up from $1 billion in 2001 for a 32.1 percent annual growth rate. And the TIA is not alone. A more recent study by the Radicati Group estimates that 7.5 million UM inboxes existed in 2002 and forecasts 89 million by year's end. Radicati further expects the UM market to reach $8 billion in sales by the end of 2006, when enterprises begin replacing legacy PBXs with new IP PBXs that leverage network infrastructures and integrate with existing enterprise resources, such as directories and e-mail servers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RSS
