Is UC the Best Solution for Collaboration?

Is UC the Best Solution for Collaboration?

By Jon Arnold September 30, 2015 4 Comments
Jon Arnold 2014
Is UC the Best Solution for Collaboration? by Jon Arnold

Waves of disruption seem to be the norm in the UC space these days, and we touched on some during our last podcast. For a while now, the UC vendors have been emphasizing collaboration, to the point where UC&C has become the moniker of choice. While the technology keeps maturing, adoption has lagged expectations, largely because the value proposition is so hard to pin down. My view is that this shift reflects the fact that collaboration outcomes now resonate more as a value driver than the impact UC has on IT and the networks they manage.

To varying degrees the UC vendors we all know have extended their platforms to address collaboration needs but is this sufficient in today’s market? Even when cloud-based, these solutions still have legacy DNA, and given how broadly collaboration can be defined, getting an exact overlap between the solution and the problem is really hard to do. Exacerbating the situation is the difficulty that business decision-makers have defining collaboration, not to mention tying it to specific outcomes so they can measure ROI.

The UC approach to collaboration

Given these challenges, most vendors have tried to address collaboration by enhancing their existing UC platforms with new capabilities rather than wiping the slate clean and building a solution from the ground up. This works to some extent and will keep a segment of the market happy, namely the fast followers and laggards who don’t really have a firm handle of what forms collaboration can take today.

Cisco and Unify are the most notable exceptions, as they have taken the ground-up approach with Spark and Circuit, and more recently, Interactive Intelligence has followed suit with PureCloud. These solutions are based on a very different premise than UC, namely being cloud-based, mobile-centric, and built around short-form communication, often text-based. While it’s not clear if there’s a viable business model here, these vendors recognize that collaboration in 2015 is different from even just a few years ago.

The appeal has always been there to have an integrated platform where all your workplace applications are in one place, accessible from any Internet connection. By supporting a rich mix of voice and text, as well as real time and near real-time, these platforms would appear to be a killer app. Google tried with Wave and did not succeed. Cisco had variations in the form of WebEx Social and Quad. More recently, Microsoft tried bringing Yammer into the Office environment to foster collaboration, but that was short lived.

Clearly, these approaches to collaboration are not working, either because the timing was off, or big vendors are simply too hamstrung by their installed base and internal culture may just not be aligned with what today’s workforce really needs. Full credit is due for what Cisco and Unify have done with standalone collaboration solutions, but these are really the exceptions among the established cadre of UC vendors.

The next wave of collaboration

By now, you should be familiar with the momentum coming from a new class of companies building purpose-built collaboration platforms. Slack is the runaway success story, but many others are growing quickly, such as Fuze, HipChat, Redbooth and Bitrix. With freemium models being common here, it’s not clear how viable these players will be, but for now, anyone looking for a collaboration solution needs to at least acknowledge this parallel universe that exists outside the UC realm. This trend could just be a blip, but I think they represent the vanguard for what collaboration is going to look like as Millennials come to dominate the workforce.

Of course, these solutions only address part of the collaboration problem set, so they really aren’t UC-killers. If anything, they should be viewed as savvy complements to UC that can be part of an overall collaboration strategy. To see that, however, both businesses and channels need to understand what they’re doing differently from UC vendors. In short, I see three things.

1. They are solving today’s problems with today’s tools. These companies exist because they got tired of the limitations of legacy applications such as email and telephony. Not only are they inefficient in terms of connecting quickly with people, but their business utility is diluted by all the personal use activity clogging up inboxes. When it comes to internal collaboration where ad hoc group work is the norm, these applications cannot compete with IM, chat, video, etc.

2. These platforms are sticky – really sticky. Slack claims users are engaged 10 hours a day, and while that sounds amped up, what drives this new form of collaboration is having persistent communication. This is the thinking behind Spark and Unify, and it’s totally native to these collaboration platforms. To collaborate effectively, the applications need to be where the people are. Some people may spend 10 hours a day on email, but you can’t collaborate there. They certainly don’t spend that much time on the phone, but their mobile devices are always on, so if all their collaboration applications are just a mouse click or a finger touch away, that’s what they’re going to use. Arguably, UC can do all this too, but mobile integration has never been a strong point to date, putting those vendors behind the curve for what these end users are gravitating to.

3. They let end users define the experience. Whereas UC vendors provide a fully integrated solution that leverages their portfolio of applications, these providers are largely a conduit for a multitude of third party applications that end users can pick and choose as their collaboration needs dictate. The list is growing constantly, and includes many of the standard applications you’ll find in any UC platform, but also many others that are specific to either a business line function or a vertical market. The key value-add is having search across all these so team members can keep track of everything and everyone they’re interacting with.


There’s more than one approach to collaboration, and collaboration itself will continue taking on new forms. Nobody has a total read on where this space is going, but it’s clear that UC is not the only model around which a collaboration solution can be built. As such, channels need to think more broadly when businesses ask about how their employees can collaborate better.

Regardless of how current businesses are on these trends, it’s not really fair to them to only offer collaboration solutions as part of a UC offering. The value-add opportunity for channels comes from knowing the broader landscape, and being able to offer options that blend the old with the new so to speak. If you don’t do that, your customers will eventually come across these other offerings, and if that does the job they’ll have less reason to do business with you.


4 Responses to "Is UC the Best Solution for Collaboration?" - Add Yours

Tim Banting 9/30/2015 10:30:29 AM

Good article Jon- thanks for posting. I am not seeing customers swapping out one perfectly good phone system for another, nor am I seeing many upgrading just for the sake of staying current. What is interesting is the way in which companies are investing their IT dollars in new tools that offer new business value.

While I have no doubt there are many companies that still rely on telephony, I would suggest phone utilization is declining. I suspect people prefer to chose when to communicate rather having their workflow and productivity interrupted to answer a ringing phone.

These collaborative, social, and persistent team sites offer a great way to interact when it suits people, a good way to capture and share information, and many of them are now offering VoIP and video capabilities (or at least integrating with other services that provide them).

Plenty of disruption ahead for traditional vendors in the telephony, UC, file sync and share, social networking and email market ahead!
dave michels 10/1/2015 7:07:03 AM

In response to the headline: NO!
Bennet Bayer 10/1/2015 11:25:37 AM

As my colleagues comment, "no!" I love UC, after more than 20-years in the field however, I am still waiting for it. Collaboration covers a wide swath. Where is Enterprise Social within this discussion? UC is a set of tools...a toolbox. I believe in CEBP more than UC as a solution and even more so on the cultural dynamics involved. Technology (UC) needs to solve the business problems. Apps such as WeChat have a larger impact than all of the UC market combined which I believe support my point of view.

With SDN coming and business applications becoming virtualized, I suggest UC needs to evolve in order to become more relevant.
Christopher Cassidy 10/1/2015 1:11:50 PM

The limitations of traditional design make the term "Unified" an oxymoron because, with rare exception, the underlying technology is not unified. The Collaboration applications Jon refers to above present different versions of Collaboration but none aspire to an actual UC solution that requires building in traditional voice and contact centre functions with Presence, IM and Video. The question above raises the issue is UC a necessary part of Collaboration? Obviously one can collaborate without a full UC solution; however, such a path is inherently limited in a multi channel world. Only a UC platform that unites disparate modes of communication (voice, fax, sms, email, presence, video, IM, screen sharing, etc) with an simple and intuitive user experience can escape the limits of collaboration offerings. That solution will revolutionize the industry.

To Leave a Comment, Please Login or Register

UC Alerts
UC Blogs
UC ROI Tool RSS Feeds

Related UC Vendors

See all UC Vendors»