[March
17,
2000]
Unified Messaging Meandering
Three readers messaged me during the past week, and all of them wanted
to know my humble opinion about which is the best SOHO messaging software.
However, each call arrived at a time when I happened to be quite busy and
on deadline -- as we all are -- and so each time I provided them with a
handful of the product names off the top of my head.
But... (and this is Point One for today):
As the deadline of this column neared, I began to feel guilty for not
giving each caller -- nay, each reader, and each of the millions of SOHO
proprietors -- a more detailed, definitive answer. After all, thats why
you come here every other Friday, right? So, before I choked on all of the
commas and em dashes in this already too-wordy paragraph, I compiled this
chart of 18 (count 'em!) SOHO messaging solutions from 12
vendors. Im sure there are many others available, but these are some of
the more popular. (Look for full reviews of many of these packages,
starting with the 01 Communique and LOREDEC products, in upcoming issues
of Communications Solutions
magazine.)
Turning left onto Postulation Place, I found Point Two:
Although these 18 products all do mostly the same thing, some of them
have unique features, like speech recognition, music-on-hold, VoIP,
videoconferencing, etc. But one thing thats rare among SOHO-oriented UM
products is Microsoft Exchange integration, or "true" UM.
(A quick primer for those who dont know: although we call them
unified messaging, most SOHO solutions are actually integrated messaging.
Without getting into the gory details, the basic difference is that
integrated messaging takes message types from different sources -- called
message stores -- and puts them into a single interface. "True"
unified messaging actually creates the different messages in a single
message store in the first place -- usually its Microsoft Exchange or
Lotus Notes. Either way, the result is the same for end users, but true UM
is much easier to implement, manage, and scale. And, dont ever use
"IM" for integrated messaging, because IM is already taken for
"instant messaging," which is an entirely different technology,
for another column.)
While making a pit stop for a Coca-Cola, I found Point Three:
You may wonder why implementation, management, and scalability are
things that you should care about. Those are big business concerns, and
yours is a small business, right? Wrong! For every 100 SOHO owners youll
meet, most will admit that they dream of eventually becoming a big
business owner, and the rest theyre probably lying. Regardless, in
the meantime, why not run your small business like a big one?
I then made a legal U-turn, got bored, made another legal U-turn,
drove on some more, and crashed into Point Four (don't worry, there were
no serious injuries):
Because no one has made it easy yet, thats why. Its not just
SOHO owners who prefer to focus on their product or service, big
businesses do the same thing -- thats why the smartest executives hire
IT staff or outsource the job.
Ooops... I got lost and ended up in Flanders, NY, home of the big
duck. Here, I found Point Five:
Perhaps the compromise between the ease and cost of small UM software
and the complexity (and cost) of big UM software is service-based UM.
Service-based UM, also known as virtual assistants, are products that
provide Web and telephone access to personalized (and sometimes, truly
unified) mailboxes which reside on a service providers network. In this
case, there are some great advantages: having built-in and rules-based
find-me/follow-me features; speech-enabled commands; contact/appointment
management; a single telephone/ fax number and e-mail address to
distribute; and not having to invest in your own hardware, software, or
maintenance staff. There are downsides, too: often monthly or annual
subscription fees; security (people who you dont know could have access
to your messages); and relying on the QoS of a network that you do not
control.
My favorite example of this is Portico.
Portico is expensive, and a quick search engine session will find you
plenty of simpler, less expensive options. I attempted to maintain a
comprehensive list of these vendors when the category debuted about 18
months ago, but alas, so many similar vendors appeared that I could not
keep up.
It all finally came to a halt here, on your computer screen:
Having to choose between a SOHO premise-side solution, a big-time UM
solution, and a service-provider UM solution is not easy. All three types
of UM offer unique advantages and disadvantages. Even more choices will
become available during the next few years, many of which will also
incorporate PDA clients. For now though, consider the concept of service
provider-based big company UM (which is a long shot, but could work given
the proper security and QoS guarantees), or the concept of
"true" UM for the SOHO (which is a more realistic goal, if
someone comes along whos got the chutzpah to make it easy to install
and manage).
Now its time for your opinion. As a SOHO owner or reseller, which
solution appeals to you the most? Why? Which solution do you think will
appeal to you the most in the future? Why? Go ahead and click the link
below to e-mail me a reply; the best of which will receive future
discussion right here.
Evan Koblentz welcomes your comments at ekoblentz@tmcnet.com.
|