January 2001

Enabling The Extended Enterprise

BY KEVIN MAYER

GRADUALISM
The result? Some-thing of a compromise, a commitment to gradualism, as dot-coms repositioned themselves as click-and-mortar enablers. Gradualism, then, may be the fate of a technologically driven (and hype-burdened) trend. And gradualism may so temper enthusiasm that claims of exponential growth disappear, to be replaced by ... what? Well, one would hope that gradualism and moderation could be embraced more than grudgingly, since that is how change often occurs. But it is, perhaps, inevitable that by the time the tortoise wins the race, the crowd has deserted the finish line, taking their celebrations elsewhere.

But what has all this got to do with the extended enterprise -- the nominal topic of this column? Well, some might question whether it's appropriate to focus on the enterprise at all. These days, all the "buzz" is on the service provider side of the equation. And the buzz, taken to its extreme, insists that virtually all communications functionality can and should be outsourced, so that the enterprise may focus on its core competencies. The buzz also has it that small and medium-sized businesses should take advantage of enhanced services, so that they might emulate the enterprise, while creating the illusion that they are indeed large companies.

So that's the buzz. Do we need take it seriously? I'd say yes, but I'd add a qualification or two. No doubt many businesses will outsource their communications functions. But not all businesses will do so. And not all businesses which decide to outsource will choose to outsource all of their communications functions. Some may resort to "co-sourcing"; that is, some businesses may outsource selectively, delegating some communications functions while retaining others.

CO-SOURCING
Curiously, despite all the buzz about outsourcing and hosted applications, what's truly different about the new communications solutions is often overlooked. Consider this: those who promote outsourced options usually disparage traditional Centrex and the legacy PBX. Instead, they cite the advantages of IP Centrex. But is that a fair comparison? Wouldn't it be more fair to compare IP Centrex to the IP-PBX? Moreover, wouldn't it be better to create new names for IP Centrex and the IP-PBX? These names cannot help but emphasize the similarities to traditional platforms, when in fact we need to recognize that the similarites between packet-based and circuit-switched architectures are far less compelling than the differences.

The key difference is that we are no longer talking about boxes, or communications paths constrained by the centrality inherent in circuit-switched architectures. With packet-based architectures, we may implement more finely distributed communications solutions, which may blur the distinction between in-house and hosted options. Ultimately, we may see yet another manifestation of gradualism: hosted solutions won't necessarily obviate in-house solutions; instead, hosted solutions and in-house solutions may co-evolve.

So, instead of a revolution, we have a migration towards a compromise, and the migration may itself be gradual. For example, an enterprise may recognize that if it really wants to escape the constraints of a PBX, its options go beyond IP Centrex. For the enterprise needs little more than a LAN, a gateway, a firewall, and a server running call control software. And, interestingly, the server running the call control software needn't assume any primacy of place within the LAN. To be fair, however, it remains to be said that service providers may benefit from the realization that it hardly matters where the call control software resides. That is, it may occur to the enterprise that the software could as easily run on an applications server sitting somewhere in the service provider cloud.

GRADUAL SELECTION
Enterprises, not to mention small and medium-sized businesses, will be in a position to let their business processes determine the nature of their communications systems, and not the other way around. And so, if it suits the enterprise to take a gradual approach, to be selective about which communications capabilities it acquires, then there may be no compelling technological reason why it shouldn't. For example, the enterprise may or may not outsource its messaging capabilities. Or the enterprise may experiment with telecommuting or remote access solutions. Or it may implement extended PBX functionality. Or it may allow selected employees to take advantage of "follow-me-anywhere" capabilities, or enterprise-oriented WAP solutions.

Ideally, the enterprise could be very selective about which new capabilities it would assume; that is, the enterprise needn't be presented with a significant investment that would oblige the enterprise to embrace or renounce specific capabilities for the duration of the investment's amortization. Basically, the idea is to enable gradual, discriminating, stepwise enhancements. If such options were available, any one initiative or enhancement would become a low-cost, low-risk proposition. Some would work; others, not. But imagine: an enterprise could extend itself adventitiously. And, to the extent that an enterprise's enhanced capabilities could be equated with actual growth, you could liken the enterprise's growth to the spread of a weed. The enterprise (forgive the comparison) could encroach on markets the way dandelions encroach on otherwise immaculate lawns.

Do communications options already exist that would enable selective, gradual enhancements? In a word, yes. For example, there are more than a few vendors offering unified messaging solutions to service providers. These service providers, in turn, provide the messaging capabilities to businesses on a subscription basis. (Also, there are companies that would provide these capabilities themselves, acting as ASPs.)

Vendors offering these solutions include blue-silicon, Commtouch, CTI2, iPlanet, MessageClick, Software.com, and Voice Mobility. These solutions are typically presented as "unified communications" platforms, enabling free translation from medium to medium (e-mail to voice, for example, through text-to-speech), as well as alternative means of access and delivery (encompassing phones, mobile phones, and remote clients of various types). In addition, many of these solutions include notification and dynamically configurable follow-me functionality, plus integration with calendars and task lists.

Another notable development is the extended PBX. Check out recent announcements from MCK Communications, which, with its PBXGatewayII, consolidates several of its remote PBX offerings, including the option of turning personal cell phones into virtual PBX extensions.

What's next? Well, while businesses absorb the implications of unified communications and extended PBX functionality and how these options may blur the line between in-house and hosted capabilities, they may also want to look forward to services that are, perhaps, most appropriate for service providers -- services such as content delivery and transaction services. (We invite readers to check out our next issue, which will include a column on content delivery.) These services are often beyond the scope of all but the largest companies. But then again, even the largest companies may choose to delegate the delivery of such services to entities such as ASPs.

[ Return To The January 2001 Table Of Contents ]

Pent-Up Supply

Technology and solutions providers often speak optimistically of pent-up demand -- impatience on the part of customers or end users who would just as soon get on with building their futures, if only they had the right tools. But what happens when there's pent-up supply? How do we react when creative solutions gather more dust than enthusiasm?

Pent-up supply may be underappreciated, since many assume that if a particular offering struggles or fails, well, there must be a good, rational, economic reason why that is so. Or, some might say that an indifferent customer is a latter-day Luddite, a so-called late-adopter who shouldn't occasion too much concern, not when the focus should be on early adopters or mainstream prospects.

But sometimes I wonder if we put too much faith in rationality or, at the least, the ability of end users to appreciate a low-risk proposition that offers a potentially large payoff. I suspect that it is hardly a given that good tools and creative solutions will ultimately win recognition. Just one example: teleworking. (A pet peeve of mine.)

What is rational and economic about requiring an employee to drive a 3,000-pound car to and from an office every day, burning unconscionable quantities of irreplaceable fossil fuel, filling the air with noxious fumes and greenhouse gases, and consuming hours of valuable time, when instead the employee could simply exchange a few electrons through a wire, or a few photons through an optical fiber? If rationality and economics dictated the decision to institute teleworking, far more people would be working from their homes at least part of the time, not only avoiding the costs of commuting, but the costs of maintaining surplus office space.

Teleworking, clearly, has a long way to go before it achieves mainstream acceptance. Doubts persist about productivity and the ability to cultivate a corporate culture, even though early adopters have demonstrated that these concerns are much exaggerated. What might overcome the resistance to teleworking? My guess: over the long term, international trade agreements will gradually force nations to reallocate the costs of burning fossil fuels, so that those with the discretion to lower greenhouse gases may be penalized for maintaining policies that further environmental degradation. 

[ Return To The January 2001 Table Of Contents ]