These are rather interesting times in the trials and tribulations of the phenomenon called “Unified Communications”. I don’t know what the reasons for this are, but whatever they are, “UC” seems to be stuck looking for identity and searching for a raison d’être (that’s French for why do I need this stuff). 

UC is defined in www.ucstrategies.com as “Communications Integrated to Optimize Business Processes”.  Not a perfect description but a reasonable working definition that gets across the notion of integrated communications to improve organizational effectiveness.

In the last few weeks the pages and blogs of UC Strategies and some other sites following UC such as www.nojitter.com have been replete with a stream of whining and kvetching (not French for constant complaining). Including:

• Why the low adoption rate of UC to date?
• There seems to be questionable user value from UC, or, if you will, “where’s the beef?” (Thank you, Fred Knight)
• The UC definition squabble—it’s not VoIP, it’s not just messaging, it’s really presence-focused, it’s all about mobility, it’s not a “real” UC solution unless it contains the following elements……
• The recently identified problem of “human latency”. UC would be great if it wasn’t for the inability of those darn humans to switch modes. (Perhaps there’s a blue pill for that?)

Boys and girls, it’s time for all of us to take a deep breath, The UC analysts “doth protest too much, methinks.” (Thank you, W. Shakespeare).

We have great expectations for our UC “baby”, but we’re pushing the kid into graduate school before it can walk. Here’s the thing, UC has been talked about for years but it is a work-in-progress and one needs to understand that these capabilities are in an early stage of development. Consider VoIP, “it’s so 1998” and no longer “hot”, but transition to packetized voice is ongoing and hardly complete after 10 years. Further, moving to VoIP is a replacement scenario--much of it in a “like for like” manner-- and industry does know quite a bit about voice communications and where it’s been. 

On the contrary, transitioning to UC is a “value-add” scenario and it is a complex one. The complexity and newness of UC no doubt contributes to the multiplicity of opinions as to what it is and why one might need it. The recent chatter just adds to the complexity and confusion about UC. Simply stated, if the UC advocates are so confused, it will just add that much more uncertainty and doubt to potential UC users and buyers. Stirring in notions like “human latency” and dogmatic interpretations of what UC is--or isn’t, are a disservice to the growth and understanding of UC and violate the KISS principle. That energy would be better spent by researching the value-added of UC methods to the missions and results of organizations deploying them.

The bottom line for me is that the road to Unified Communications should be interesting and exciting. Let’s attempt to demystify it. Let’s give the journey a chance. Try to ignore the hype, the overselling and the pseudo-science and religion around UC. We are after all talking about communications services and applications not the meaning of life.

Your comments are welcome.