About a month or so ago, I saw the following post on Information Week: http://www.informationweek.com/news/telecom/unified_communications/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=225700490.
I found the article to be enlightening and thought I would post my thoughts regarding some of the items brought out by the article.
First, I find that companies really have to understand what their Unified Communications (UC) goals are since the term UC means different things to different people. When I talk to people about UC, I look at the entire communications "stack" and how the experiences for the end user can be streamlined. This includes IM, email, voicemail, web and video conferencing and Voice over IP (VoIP). I find that too many people look at only one or two components initially (like IM and web conferencing) and don't architect or plan for future expansion. IM and basic web conferencing does not require much network bandwidth nor server horsepower. However, if video conferencing and VoIP is utilized, the bandwidth consumption is higher and latency becomes a more important factor. The architecture for IM and web conferencing will be much different than if VoIP and video conferencing come into play.
Another big issue that was brought up in the article is training for the end user. I find too many companies do indeed roll out technology without providing proper guidance or training for the end user. When this happens, the technology either does not get used or the full potential is not realized. To be successful, companies must include training as part of the equation. I would argue that the training must come before the solution is deployed. This way, the users know what is coming and will be able to immediately take advantage of the new solution the moment it becomes available.
Companies need to do the proper research to figure out what UC components will provide the most benefits. No two companies are the same so don't make the assumption that just because your buddy's company deployed solution XYZ, that your company should do the exact same thing. Sometimes more is less and less is more, but you must make the choice based on your own needs. Working for a great technology like Microsoft, I am spoiled in that I get access to all of our UC technologies (solution). I can't imagine what I would do without Outlook 2010 for my email, Communicator 14 (or is it 2010) for my IM, presence, VoIP, web / audio / video conferencing. I love that voicemails show up in my inbox which in turn synchronizes to my Windows Mobile 6.5 phone (HTC HD2). Being a mobile employee, all of these components is an absolute necessity for me and helps me to be productive no matter where I am at (home, plane, hotel, etc.).
In conclusion, UC solutions can definitely provide cost savings as well as productivity boosts, but it is not just the technology that must be considered, but the end users. Proper planning / architecture combined with end user preparation will give companies the most bang for the buck.
Harold Wong