Due to the proposed scale in this project we have developed around 15 different documents, comprising of over 15,000 words and 300 slides.  We had 50 slides alone that described the process on how we chose a headset, which included sending different headsets to 3 different continents and charting to see who preferred mono or duo wired devices.

If anyone would like further information on how to shape the project or how we are currently deploying then please feel free to contact me here

Eweek article here

Information Week article here

Below concentrates on the three elements that the articles covered; Demand, Use Cases and Savings.

Demand

In a survey of 1,000 of the participants, 93% said they would recommend Lync to colleagues, 78% thought their productivity was enhanced, and 75% were willing to give up their landline phone if they were provided with Lync. “I thought that last one was the punchline,” Yochem said.

The survey was sent to pilot users from all business units and geographies.  The response rate at the time was over 70% of pilot users. We also gathered around 100 quotes, around 90 of which were positive and 10 providing constructive feedback, such as; mobile client is required etc etc.  The survey also helped us build a picture of the user base which tailored our training approach.  We found for example circa 50% of users required little help with the new technology, a further 20% found the technology to be daunting but helpful after receiving mostly virtual/online training, the remaining 30% of users were more difficult to reach.   Some of that 30% just seemed to reject all forms of technology.  They were the people who had their emails printed out for them.  It was interesting to note the consistency of the numbers across geographies and business areas.

The biggest and most pleasant surprise was the latent demand that was already within the business for the technology we were deploying.  The twin factors of globalisation and consumerisation of IT are creating significant demand for improved communication capabilities.  The demand factors are just as relevant for large organisations as for small business.  Implementing a new and feature rich communication capability is like pushing at an open door.  The only real challenge is managing expectations of users.

Challenges:

• Pilot demand – If you implement your pilot correctly then within a matter of days or weeks your pilot will be oversubscribed which will create an issue of having to constantly manage requests and often turn people away.  As soon as you give the technology to 10 people they will almost certainly ask for 2/3/4 people more.  Before you know it you have a 400% increase on your hands and it simply cascades.
• Moving from Pilot to Production – Be ready to move quickly from pilot to production.  This is very easy to write and immensely difficult for large IT organisations to do.  Often IT business cases and procurement of solutions take 18 – 24 months by which time you’ve completely mis-managed your user base and you will end up buying something that is already superseded in both the consumer and business market.

Use Cases

– The time required for sales training on a new medicine was reduced by 75%. A likely interpretation is that it wasn’t so much the training that went faster as all the meeting logistics and travel that were eliminated, Yochem said.

– A supply chain team reported the time required to complete routine transactions with suppliers shrank from days to minutes once a federated Lync connection was in place.

– A global research and development team reported it was much easier for them to set up videoconferences. Even though AstraZeneca has high-end videoconference rooms available, making Lync available at the desktop eliminated a lot of the overhead of scheduling video collaboration sessions.

We went through a lengthily period of creating a business case for the pilot and move to production and as is normal we created a number of use cases on how the technology could be utilised by the business.  While we were in the right ball park with what we created, we were totally blown away by the number of user created use cases.  I’m know for sure that if I took some of the cases to the finance guys before the pilot they would laugh me out of the office for being either too fanciful or technology driven.

• Using video conference to remove errors in the R+D process between the UK, US and China
• Using video so managers can communicate from a remote location with sealed manufacturing units (boy were we popular with the manufacturing team when we installed the camera which they thought was there to ‘snoop’ on them)
• Integration with 3D virtual worlds to aid training
• Senior leaders joining video conference calls from home where before they would have had to travel into offices at 3 or 4 in the morning, sometimes in locations with challenging security situations
• Line managers no longer feeling guilty that they don’t know what their direct reports look like and not being able to travel to see them
• Building presence into machines that can communicate their current manufacturing status to a management dashboard
• Using instant messaging as a helpdesk and skill finder

Challenges:

Savings Generated

In addition, although the focus of the pilot was on improving productivity rather than saving money, “we’re very interested in some of the savings we’ve seen,” Yochem said. One of the participants in the trial who goes on regular two-week trips to China saved $600 in communication costs alone, she said.

No doubt if the technology is implemented correctly the business case for unifying onto a single communication platform for your business is soon justified.  Savings are delivered through a combination of retiring existing platforms, substituting away from expensive products, aiding business with travel reduction cuts and real estate rationalisation.

Challenges:

To unlock these savings however the project team need to be intune with existing IT teams who manage budgets and are willing to retire and trust the new platform.  In addtion for the travel and real estate savings the project must be an enabler for projects managed and owned by travel and real estate teams.  IT just can’t drive these savings.

I’d be interested to know if anyone else has had similar experiences running such projects, if so please leave or comment or get in touch.

• Make calls to landlines and mobiles with high reliability, quality and meeting regulatory requirements
• Voicemail accessible from anywhere
• An Audio Conferencing service
• Share instant messages
• Have 1 on 1 and multiparty video conferencing
• Host a web conference with the ability to share desktop and content (including interactive content such as videos), potentially to hundreds of people
• Up to date and immediate presence availability for all users
• Integration into the office applications – not just simply Microsoft but also other systems
• To do all of the above with both internal and external users without any need for heavy configuration
• To be able to do the above on any PC/iOS/Android /HTML5 device, accessed on the corporate network and on a users home machine
• Integrate and extend into an existing communication system to allow for a gradual migration
• Integrate into internet communication platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and Skype
• Users should not need to enter multiple systems/accounts
• Business agility – how easy is it to open a new office
• The system should contribute to a reducing business administration cost base
• The underlying network should support good quality voice and video communication
• Users should have access and can be contacted on a global basis

I’d be interested to know if you think I have missed anything from the above, if so let me know.

If your company system can provide all of the above then you shouldn’t care what it is called, just give yourself a pat on the back and keep providing the fantastic level of service.  If however you are like most orgainsations and some way away from achieving all of the above take a step back and evaluate where you are.  The chances are you will be in the process of procuring a communication technology, such as PBX, Video or Audio Conferencing.  Just make sure you demand of yourself that the system you are buying can get you on the right path, because if not you will continue to provide a fragmented, overly complex and costly communication estate while one of your competitors is doing something different.

Please note not a single mention of Cloud, specific vendors or interoperability/open standards.  Cloud is not a feature nor a capability; it is a delivery mechanism that can and should be factored into the cost and reliability evaluation – it is also a phrase that has been warped by our industry to become an almost useless and meaningless phrase.  The same applies also for interoperability and open standards, they are used in so many different ways they become empty words when used within our industry.  It is interesting to me as well that people who lack knowledge or experience of the communication industry often rely on such buzz words as crutches to sell a particular piece of technology – listen for the words carefully they are quite a good way of filtering people out who don’t really understand what they are selling/saying…

I’ve included some quotes below from an Information Week article and a roundtable discussion from the Wall Street Journal article:

Lets start with the premise that the IT landscape has fundemtnally changed over the past 5 years and you need different skill sets within your department (WSJ)

The focus on business has become extremely important. An IT professional can transform the way business is done. This is very, very different from the profile of the people we would hire five or more years ago.

The IT department is no longer the king of technology.  Consumerisation has created a push business model where business people are constantly knocking on a CIO’s door.  IT has to embrace this change, if you don’t the business will find someone who will.

From a Unified Communications persepctive it is interesting that a CIO with such a vision highlights video conferencing as a key aspect of an IT provision (IW);

Another example is the ability for people to video-connect anytime, anywhere, any place, because we are a truly global operation. We may have teams working on a new business initiative in China, a commercial plan is developed in Europe, and commercialization [happens] in the U.S. For these people to come together instantaneously without having to fly or without having to plan—this is what is going to enable us.

I think you could take the above paragraph from 95% of the Fortune 500 and it would be an accurate statement of how they are wanting to operate.  They are literally turning their organisational model inside out. Yet if I was to survey those Fortune 500 I’m willing to bet that a significant number of them will complain about their video conference estate.  Even with significant investment most large organisations believe their VC estate is too cumbersome to operate, not fit for purpose and doesn’t have the required network to support.  You then often find the IT department state that video is just a gimmick that no uses anyway.  Well here is a CIO that is as close to the business as he can be and he’s committed to delivering high quality video to as much as the work force as possible.

Moving away from communication and onto data.  P&G want to invest in real time data.  I’m fully committed to this aim as well.  Consumers are living in real time.  They comunicate with their friends and families in seconds yet they typically communicate with the businesses they buy from in days and weeks (and on a separate point they communicate with their governments in months and years but that is a different story).  This will not be acceptable in the communication age.  For a business to respond in real time their data has to be accurate and available in real time (IW);

In terms of data, this strategy needs the right real-time data. What’s real time? The goal P&G’s working toward is that as soon as data is collected, it’s available for use, Passerini says. P&G isn’t after new data types; it still wants to share and analyze point-of-sale, inventory, ad spending, and shipment data. What’s new is the higher frequency and speed at which P&G gets that data, and the finer granularity. Passerini says P&G has about two-thirds of the real-time data it needs.

If P&G really do have 2/3 of data in real time they are probably producing significant competitive advantage within the market place.  My experience with large organisations is that they often don’t even know where their data is or what they are generating let alone have it available in real time (WSJ);

The other example is the ability to predict, do modeling and “what if” analysis. We’re creating some automation to [analyze] what is happening, why it is happening, so that we can focus all of our energies on how to improve what we have to improve. This will give us an ability to predict or to stay in control of sales volume, market shares, much, much better and be more specific, surgical, in the interventions we make.

In my view P&G have the exact blueprint for an IT department:

• Find business people who can talk IT and employ them rather than IT personnel.  There may not be that many available on the market but its ok you don’t need too many to run a large IT department
• Concentrate  and focus investment on real time data and communication
• Don’t fight consumerisation – ride it and use it
• Continue to cut costs in the department and invest those savings

In the articles Passerini didn’t mention the normal fodder for CIOs, such as; data centres, service levels, security but I guarantee they are the issues that under performing IT departments land on their CIO every day.  I know where I’d rather be focusing my time on.

Cisco and Microsoft have many ties and joint working agreements (as the Cisco blog mentions) and for Cisco to officially complain will almost certainly sour those relationships.  I thought the working relationship had improved over the past 12 months but I’d assume this will be a set back.

Cisco might like to think they are a competitor to Microsoft and mention them in a great deal of their market information, where I don’t really see the same focus on Cisco as a competitor within the wider Microsoft machine.  Sure the MS UC teams talk about Cisco but outside of Lync I just don’t see the same recognition of Cisco.  You always hear Microsoft guys whisper about teams being hauled in front of Balmer for losing a deal to Google, I’ve never heard of a similar fate for losing to Cisco.  Maybe by poking the big Balmer bear on a key acquisition Cisco might get more competitive focus within Microsoft.

And my thoughts on the substance of the request.  I’m in no doubt that Lync/Skype integration would prove a popular selling point for Lync (if MS ever officially announce such a thing) just as the Cisco acquisition of Tandberg proved popular, but neither purchase creates a market distortion:

Microsoft’s plans to integrate Skype exclusively with its Lync Enterprise Communications Platform could lock-in businesses who want to reach Skype’s 700 million account holders to a Microsoft-only platform.

This is patently absurd.  If a business wishes to reach the 700 million account holders it downloads Skype for free on any platform they choose and contacts a user directly from Skype without any need for Lync.  Far more likely in fact is that a company can contact a Skype user via their corporate Facebook account – how is this possibly locking anyone into a Microsoft platform?

In addition the various regulators rightly highlighted that internet platforms can quickly dissipate, consumers are not locked into Skype.  Apple and Google already have similar products, Twitter or Linkedin if they so wished could easily deploy a video platform – Vidyo I’m sure would be more than willing to spin something up for either platform.

Then I think there is the technical legal point that Cisco’s own blog post highlights.  Cisco state that the current industry today lacks interoperability.  They are dead right but if that is the case how can the EC justify that a merger of two systems, one of which is already closed, create any further industry degradation?  If the EC forces MS to open Skype then Microsoft lawyers will rightly demand that all other video systems are forced to be open and interoperate due to legal precedence.  Sony, Wii and Xbox, Apple’s Facetime, Google hangouts would all be forced to interoperate.  Can I use Google hangouts to join a Cisco Telehealth VC session today ?  The courts simply could not enforce such a ruling.

I just don’t understand why Cisco have done this, it makes them look desperate, it probably damages working relationships, I’d be amazed if their appeal stands any weight and they might just have woken up the Microsoft machine.  Cisco stepped away from the network space with PostPath and Flip and lost billions.  Focus on your own strategy and products rather than making ill conceived requests.

The major issue that Microsoft must face and halt is the erosion of  the Windows Platform dominance which amongst all else is posing a major challenge to the Office franchise. The Office team are constantly being told within Redmond that they have to be ‘first and best with Windows’ but their customers are giving them a very different message. Customers are saying; we still rely on your Office software but we want it to be available on all major devices and operating systems ie Apple and Android.

This problem will not go away in 2012, even if Windows has the most successful launch.  Due to the general lag of the IT industry Android and Apple growth will only increase within the Enterprise in 2012. The calls from enterprise customers are only going to grow louder. How Microsoft respond will be fascinating – do they attempt to stall and give a ‘Wait for 8′ message or do they allow the Office team to invest further in iOS and Andoird?

Microsoft represent the best elements of consumer and Enterprise IT and they are in position to help Enterprise drive into consumerisation of IT but they can not let the dominance of Windows ‘best and first on Windows’ philosophy win out.  Ultimately if the non Windows franchise have to wait and stunt their non-Windows development Microsoft may find that the entire market has moved on without them.

I find Microsoft a fascinating company to observe.   They are so large and such an integral part of consumer and Enterprise IT you see different contradictions and tensions within the same organisation you tend not to see in other technology companies.  There is nothing more interesting than seeing the tension between products that are OS agnostic who wish to exploit the new devices and the Windows machine that attempts to squash this by insisting on the ‘best and first on Windows’.

Ultimately HTML5 may be the answer, it seems to be the one standard that  Apple, Google and Microsoft all broadly agree on.  Perhaps Microsoft developing a rich set of Office applications that work on all HMTL5 browsers and devices could be the big story of 2012.

Finally the iPad and iPhone are fully available within the Apple App store

Anyone seen the Symbian client?

Microsoft Android App now available in the Android Marketplace from here

Microsoft Windows Phone App now available in the Windows Phone Marketplace here

It is worth noting the first warning on the application download that you do need either an On Premise Lync installation with an Edge Server or Office 365 to take adavantage of the mobile clients.

The On Premise Lync pre-requisites will require some effort and skill set to enable. Although there is a wizard, it is misleading, you simply can’t run the wizard and be ready to install. There are other tasks to complete, I’m certainly not skilled enough top explain what these tasks are but a search of twitter on the #lync hashtag will bring up plenty of helpful blog posts.

Office365 also require some changes in the admin panel – the addition of Cnames for lyncdiscover is an example, be sure the read the documentation.

We are still very early into this technology life cycle.  I anticipate MS will attempt to embed Kinect into some of their products slated for a 2012 release such as Office, Sharepoint, Lync, Windows8 and Exchange but these are likely to be further early stage concepts rather than deeply embedded features within the product.

I would anticipate incremental development with Windows8 and a major push to embed Kinect into their post 2012 release of Office products which would be around 2014/2015.  This should give enough time for three important factors to mature which are not available today:

• The sensor technology must improve (and I’m sure it will).  At the moment we all put up with the limitations because we are excited by the potential.  Mass adoption will not be so forgiving.  The technology must work first time, especially if it is to be deployed to business
• A wider developer base will be available so business can exploit Kinect’s potential by hiring developers and service providers to deploy into their specific business environment
• The camera must be smaller and built into laptops/slates.

I emphasise that Microsoft hasto view this as a start of the Lync mobile journey and not an end.  Mobile and Tablet adoption is simply moving too fast within the corporate IT system for Lync to fall behind on these devices.  For Lync to justify its licence fee and be the unified communication platform in an enterprise it must provide feature parity with the desktop version.

This is no easy task for Redmond, especially when the Lync team have to go and invest in non Windows platforms.  While the Lync team understand the need for a broad base of clients I’m not so sure this message is well received by their Windows counterparts.  Future Lync mobile and tablets are for another day, lets take a look what Microsoft will be delivering this week.

First off a broad and comprehensive set of clients, including iPhone, iPad, Android, Nokia and Windows Phone.  The Blackberry client was developed by Blackberry themselves.   The iPad and iPhone clients are probably the stand out in terms of look and overall feel.  The functionality revolves around three core components (a much more detailed feature list and comparison can be found below):

• Corporate address book with the ability to see presence and share instant messaging (individual and multi party).  This is the core element of the clients.
• Call from work – while voice and video calls can not be started the clients do have the ability to initiate a standard GSM call, with the Lync server calling a mobile/cell upon request by the user.  Single number reach can also be enabled.
• One click to join Lync conference calls – this will be very popular, attempting to input conference pins on a mobile is a frustrating experience, as long as you have a data connection the mobile client will take all that entry away from you with a single click.

He said so many great things in his time but this one rings out for me as I talk to people within corporate IT functions:

You can’t just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they’ll want something new.

If I hear one more Senior IT manager say ‘well what does the business want’ I think I will explode.  Dear IT manager the company pays you as the expert to know what they want and deliver it before they know it.

We found that there were essentially three skills levels within the organisation relating to Lync:

• Beginners, people who had never logged onto an instant messaging system at work and I would assume at home.
• The majority, people who do use instant messaging and most likely communicate at home with Skype but require information on how to use features such as voice, video and web conferencing.
• Advanced users, possibly the smallest constituents but extremely important.  These guys get the technology and are starting to think how they can embed it in business processes.  They typically push us and Microsoft much harder on what the technology can do eg why can’t Skype and Lync share IM’s now?  Why can’t I get fully featured Lync on mobile and iPad now?