/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:”"; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”,”serif”; mso-fareast-font-family:Batang;} Shai Tsur wrote a post in BloGiza a few weeks ago wondering if too many communication options lead to worse communication. Shai writes this in respect to social media and the explosion of choices to interact with friends. I immediately thought of unified communications and enterprise communications.

Too many options. (CC)

In a recent No Jitter post, Irwin Lazar analyzed a recent survey of over 130 IT executives in which participants were asked about unified communications. While everyone seemed to be interested in unified communications, integrating various communication applications and delivering unified communication services to mobile workers, the confusion still remained.

Following from Shai’s post, I would say that over the last couple of years I have developed a growing addiction to unified communication. Where a few years ago my main channel for interaction (inside the enterprise) was the plain old telephone followed by e-mail, nowadays it increasingly includes instant messaging (via Office Communicator, that is installed in RADVISION), video conferencing (using VTA from Cisco, which is also installed here) and using my mobile phone, both for communication (audio and video) and for using instant messaging and e-mail.

The conclusion, however, is quite similar to that of Shai’s. As no real framework governs over all  this vast variety of communication tools, communicating with peers is great in theory but still inefficient in practice.

A “classic” communication tool. (CC)

If I try to reach a colleague in order to ask a question, I will probably call his desk phone. If he’s not available, I might call his mobile (probably depending on how well I know him and how urgent my question is). Otherwise, I might either leave a message on his desk phone (or his mobile phone) or send him an e-mail. If he’s on my buddy list on the company Communicator and he is available, I might drop him a note there. And then I’ll wait.

Now if I’m sitting at my desk, anything can happen at this point. My colleague can call my desk phone, reply to my e-mail, reply to the chat or call my mobile. If I am leaving my desk for any reason, receiving a reply from that colleague becomes even harder. This can become a “cat and mouse” game that can spread over the entire work day.

The Unified Communication vision and strength is in the unification of all of the available (and future) communication tools into one “framework”, as Shai described it – One interface, one portal to access, one mailbox to check. It means that if I am looking for someone, I need to use just one number, a “leading number”, and the communication system will find the person I’m looking for, no matter what kind of communication tool(s) he/she is using.  It means that when I’m back at my desk, assuming I haven’t been contacted yet, there is only one place to check for messages, no matter where they were left for me (chat, voice mail, video mail, SMS, etc.).

More is less… (CC)

Many have tried to explain why “more is less.” There is really no point in giving someone more options if it makes his life less effective. When it comes to means of communication, it seems that synergy is the key for success. Give me more options, but make them inter-connect with one another. Give me mobility, ability, but make it simple, easy.

One should not be forced to think about what means of communication to use. One should simply choose to communicate. And in that case one really shouldn’t be bothered with the fine details. This is my our job.