The CIO's Perspective on Unified Communications

By Gaurav Patil and Hyoun Park
TechNewsWorld
06/26/10 5:00 AM PT

The decentralization and extended nature of business has pushed the need for improved and converged communications. Employees increasingly struggle to collaborate with remote colleagues, and even if these workers have a phone number or email address, these communications technologies are not sufficient to provide a meeting environment that is comparable to face-to-face meetings.

The top pressures and strategic actions identified by Aberdeen's study of Best-in-Class companies indicate that unified communications (UC) must support both internal and external business pressures. Although companies have traditionally used a bifurcated approach of externally-facing contact center and internal-facing telecom deployment for employees or business-driven features versus user-driven features, this approach is increasingly irrelevant as similar communications approaches become relevant both for internal and external users.

In the September 2009 Aberdeen benchmark report, "Delivering Customer Service Via the Contact Center and the Web," the top pressure for improving customer service was identified as the customer demand for faster service issue resolution. To meet this demand, the top strategy implemented by leading achievers is to integrate service data into enterprise applications to increase organization-wide access to customer information. This need to integrate communications and real-time inputs with enterprise applications provides an external justification to improve communications.

However, this same strategy also provides employees with internal communications processes to aid product innovation, marketing, and supply-chain departments. As companies seek to improve ideation, create a targeted messaging focus, or optimize order-to-cash capabilities, this messaging integration allows companies to bring real-time input associated with revenue-producing customers to the rest of the organization.

Business Context for Unified Communications

The UC market has often confused increased functionality with business alignment and productivity. To avoid this confusion, Aberdeen analyzed 299 organizations and identified the top 20 percent of companies that had improved customer satisfaction and workforce efficiency metrics due to communications deployments as "Best-in-Class." These companies were used to benchmark UC implementations that improve productivity and customer satisfaction from those that simply represent technology bloat and employee confusion.

To better understand key strategic concerns, Aberdeen's UC community was asked for the key pressures that drove the need to improve communications.

Increase Responsiveness to Customer Needs

Contact center technologies gained ascendancy as a strategic and revenue-generating component of enterprise communications. As the enterprise saw value in the application integration, multi-channel communications, and enhanced visibility that led to improved customer service and sales, the business case was made to bring these technologies to all employees.

In today's enterprise, employees from many different departments are responsible for helping customers, and every employee represents the branding and strategic message of an organization. Twenty-eight percent of respondents identified customer service as a key task that they performed through unified communications, even though only 3 percent self-identified their business role as customer service. To make sure that every employee is able to deliver on those promises, they must have appropriate communicative and collaborative abilities, many of which have originated in the contact center.

To corroborate the top strategic pressure found in this unified communications research, the March 2010 benchmark report, "Providing a 360-Degree View of the Customer," studied companies with optimal customer service practices. It identified companies that were able to increase customer retention, reduce time to search for customer data, and increase net client value on a year-over-year basis. Companies succeeding in all of these tasks identified the need to create new means of communication with the customer as their top strategic action. Through customer preferences, these top customer service organizations were able to improve key performance metrics that affected top-line growth.

The Need to Manage Decentralized Workforces

The decentralization and extended nature of business has also pushed the need for improved and converged communications. Employees increasingly struggle to collaborate with remote colleagues tasked to support departmental needs or provide key project deliverables. Even if these workers have a phone number or email address, these communications technologies are not sufficient to provide a meeting environment that is comparable to face-to-face meetings.

To truly connect employees and improve workforce productivity, the following technologies were identified by the Best-in-Class as the most important to integrate into a communications environment to gain most value: unified voicemail and email inboxes, simultaneous mobile/desktop ring, a unified number for mobile phone and deskphone, presence, PC-based video conferencing, content sharing, shared content creation, and employee profiles with expertise descriptions.

Note the use of both mobility and integrated desktop technologies in providing additional communications value. Enterprise communications has progressed far beyond the deskphone or cellphone as a stand-alone technology.

As these technologies are delivered to the enterprise, they must be easy-to-use, available on-demand, and integrated with appropriate content management solutions and enterprise applications to provide benefits comparable to physical meetings.

Real-Time Decision Making as a Competitive Advantage

Although many companies focus on the cost of telecom and collaboration, the top companies that improve workforce collaboration and customer service understand that today's business environment never sleeps and always requires real-time analysis and response. Accordingly, these companies have aligned their communications deployments and strategies to accelerate time-to-information, time-to-decision, and time-to-action processes. Best-in-Class organizations design their communications deployments based on processes that affect revenue sources, public branding, and service delivery.

UC solutions are also about simplifying the ease-of-use for employees. By providing employees with the communications tools that they prefer both to get in touch with other people and to receive information, companies can improve internal collaboration, rather than simply installing and federating technologies as a proof of concept. Aberdeen's research found that 40 percent of all respondents indicated that the need for internal collaboration was a key strategy for unified communications.

However, the Best-in-Class respondents differentiated themselves through execution. By targeting appropriate contacts to reduce human latency, better aligning communications channels to the needs of employees, and integrating unified communications with other applications, Best-in-Class companies were able improve customer service by 53 percent, increase workforce productivity by 49 percent, and access desired resources in less than one-sixth the time that Laggards could find expert resources.

As the world shrinks and companies expand their geographical footprint, employees must be empowered to act from any corporate location or any place where business is needed. Integrating enterprise applications into a unified communications deployment may be seen as a tactical behavior, but the ramifications of integrated and unified communications can provide organizations with the tools to help customers, manage the extended enterprise, and make real-time decisions.

Click here to read full article.

Let's Deep-Six Facebook and Do Open Source Social Networking Instead - Con: Steven Bristol

By Richard Adhikari
LinuxInsider
Part of the ECT News Network
06/23/10 7:00 AM PT

"The reason Facebook's having problems with privacy have nothing to do with whether it's centralized or decentralized; it's because Facebook has to make money. Facebook realized that even though it has a large mass of users, if it starts charging people for the service, subscribers will drop off. Facebook has to get money from advertisers or investors."

 

Steven Bristol is a partner and "chief nerd" at Less Everything, a company that focuses on building easy-to-use Ruby on Rail Web apps. The company created LovdbyLess, a free open source social network platform, after getting requests from customers. Users download a copy and are responsible for installing and maintaining the software and their own database of members.

Bristol will offer his own arguments in this LinuxInsider debate series exploring the potential of open source to answer the privacy questions surrounding major social networks.

LinuxInsider: Facebook has been battling users, prominent people in the high-tech field and privacy advocates over the question of privacy for years now, and the problem appears to have intensified. Some people contend Facebook's approach to social networking is part of the problem. Could Facebook's approach be one of the causes of its problems over privacy?

Steven Bristol: The reason Facebook's having problems with privacy have nothing to do with whether it's centralized or decentralized; it's because Facebook has to make money. Facebook realized that even though it has a large mass of users, if it starts charging people for the service, subscribers will drop off.

Facebook has to get money from advertisers or investors; investors will at some point want to get their money back, so Facebook's only real options are advertising or asking for charity.

Facebook got into trouble because it leveraged its subscriber base. But I don't think it could ask for permission to do so, because if you ask people whether they want to see an ad in return for their service, most people would say no.

I think Facebook got into trouble beause it's the first company to be large enough to make money selling user information. But the currency on the Internet is information; this is the future, and I don't see another option.

LIN: Would taking an open distributed approach to social network help Facebook resolve the privacy problems it's having?

Bristol: I don't think the open model actually exists. If you want to connect with those social networks in a distributed model, which doesn't exist today, they have to take a copy of your data in order to work. For example, Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) Social connects you to various social networks, and each of those takes a copy of your data.

Think about open source software. They talk about the software being free, but they mean free as in free liberty and not free as in beer; it's free in that someone's able to take it and do what they want with it, but anyone who runs a company has employees to pay.

The money has to come from somewhere, so the only two real models for business that have emerged anywhere in the world are the ad-supported model and the self-funded model.

LIN: Would the distributed, federated approach be better than the walled garden approach?

Bristol: I think it's the thought that once you're in Facebook or MySpace, going to another social network means starting over again, and in that sense, they're walled gardens. In the real world, what else would it be?

It's not like we have some sort of benevolent dictatorship that has created the best social network for all of its subjects and we're all members of that social network and it's very open; a network where, if someone else decides to make something new and different, all they have to do is click some button and they'd be transported into this magic realm.

Look, Linus Torvalds, who wrote Linux and is still its main developer, works for a foundation. His salary, which is substantial, as I understand it, comes from the support of all kinds of companies donating to the foundation. So the guy who created and wrote the biggest open source software in the history of man gets paid to do it. If you cut off the foundation, he's going to have to go to Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) or some other company and work on Linux in the evenings.

The bottom line is, everyone has to make income, and you can't get away from that in this world.

LIN: What about something like Diaspora, where users each have a personal Web server that sits on their computers and stores all their information and shares it with friends?

Bristol: It doesn't work at all because the main data is on your computer. Say you and I are friends, we both sign up and friend each other, and when you go offline, I can't send you a message or interact with you online, if it's true that the data only resides on your system.

Even if they do find a way to make it work, there will be lots of data duplication going on because the data will reside on everyone's machine. Also, ultimately, someone has to pay for the electricity for the servers. Who's going to do that -- investors, subscribers or advertisers?

Click here to read the full article

 

June 10, 2010 8:25 PM PDT

Senators propose granting president emergency Internet power

by Declan McCullagh


A new U.S. Senate bill would grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet.

The legislation announced Thursday says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines, or software firms that the government selects "shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.

That emergency authority would allow the federal government to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people," Joe Lieberman, the primary sponsor of the measure and the chairman of the Homeland Security committee, told reporters on Thursday. Lieberman is an independent senator from Connecticut who caucuses with the Democrats.

Because there are few limits on the president's emergency power, which can be renewed indefinitely, the densely worded 197-page bill (PDF) is likely to encounter stiff opposition.

TechAmerica, probably the largest U.S. technology lobby group, said it was concerned about "unintended consequences that would result from the legislation's regulatory approach" and "the potential for absolute power." And the Center for Democracy and Technology publicly worried that the Lieberman bill's emergency powers "include authority to shut down or limit Internet traffic on private systems."

The idea of an Internet "kill switch" that the president could flip is not new. A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August allowed the White House to "declare a cybersecurity emergency," and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to "order the disconnection" of certain networks or Web sites.

On Thursday, both senators lauded Lieberman's bill, which is formally titled the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA. Rockefeller said "I commend" the drafters of the PCNAA. Collins went further, signing up at a co-sponsor and saying at a press conference that "we cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government realizes the importance of protecting our cyber resources."

Under PCNAA, the federal government's power to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees would become unusually broad. Any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also "relies on" the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the U.S. "information infrastructure" would be subject to command by a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) that would be created inside Homeland Security.

The only obvious limitation on the NCCC's emergency power is one paragraph in the Lieberman bill that appears to have grown out of the Bush-era flap over warrantless wiretapping. That limitation says that the NCCC cannot order broadband providers or other companies to "conduct surveillance" of Americans unless it's otherwise legally authorized.

Lieberman said Thursday that enactment of his bill needed to be a top congressional priority. "For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," he said. "Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies--cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals."

A new cybersecurity bureaucracy

Lieberman's proposal would form a powerful and extensive new Homeland Security bureaucracy around the NCCC, including "no less" than two deputy directors, and liaison officers to the Defense Department, Justice Department, Commerce Department, and the Director of National Intelligence. (How much the NCCC director's duties would overlap with those of the existing assistant secretary for infrastructure protection is not clear.)

The NCCC also would be granted the power to monitor the "security status" of private sector Web sites, broadband providers, and other Internet components. Lieberman's legislation requires the NCCC to provide "situational awareness of the security status" of the portions of the Internet that are inside the United States -- and also those portions in other countries that, if disrupted, could cause significant harm.

Selected private companies would be required to participate in "information sharing" with the Feds. They must "certify in writing to the director" of the NCCC whether they have "developed and implemented" federally approved security measures, which could be anything from encryption to physical security mechanisms, or programming techniques that have been "approved by the director." The NCCC director can "issue an order" in cases of noncompliance.

The prospect of a vast new cybersecurity bureaucracy with power to command the private sector worries some privacy advocates. "This is a plan for an auto-immune reaction," says Jim Harper, director of information studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "When something goes wrong, the government will attack our infrastructure and make society weaker."

To sweeten the deal for industry groups, Lieberman has included a tantalizing offer absent from earlier drafts: immunity from civil lawsuits. If a software company's programming error costs customers billions, or a broadband provider intentionally cuts off its customers in response to a federal command, neither would be liable.

If there's an "incident related to a cyber vulnerability" after the president has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs' lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the U.S. Treasury will even pick up the private company's tab.

Another sweetener: A new White House office would be charged with forcing federal agencies to take cybersecurity more seriously, with the power to jeopardize their budgets if they fail to comply. The likely effect would be to increase government agencies' demand for security products.

Tom Gann, McAfee's vice president for government relations, stopped short of criticizing the Lieberman bill, calling it a "very important piece of legislation."

McAfee is paying attention to "a number of provisions of the bill that could use work," Gann said, and "we've certainly put some focus on the emergency provisions."

Click here to read full article.

 

 

Dark Pulses From Quantum-Dot Laser

An experimental type of laser could lead to faster communications.

By Kate Greene

 

When you think of a laser, you probably imagine a continuous beam of light. But many lasers emit incredibly intense and short pulses of light--these "pulsed lasers" are used in medical and laboratory devices, and in industrial equipment. Now, researchers have developed a new type of pulsed laser that uses quantum dots to emit bursts not of light, but of darkness--a trick that could prove useful for optical communication and rapid chemical analysis.

The new "dark pulse laser" was developed by scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the research institute JILA in Boulder, CO. The NIST laser emits light punctuated with extremely short bursts of darkness. "Think of it as a continuous wave laser, except with a really fast shutter," says Richard Mirin, a scientist at NIST.

This shutter creates dark pulses that last 90 picoseconds. This speed of operation could help scientists probe ultrafast chemical and biological reactions. A dark pulse laser could also be used in a fiber-optic telecommunication scheme where information would be encoded as dark pulses, which tend to be able to travel long distances without degrading in quality.

 

The pulses are generated by quantum dots inside a chip made of ultrathin layers of semiconducting materials. A periodic drop in intensity of about 70 percent is caused by a mismatch in the speed with which the quantum dots and the surrounding materials interact with the electrical current and internally produced photons. Semiconductor lasers are already found in telecommunications systems, DVD players, and laser pointers. But this laser design is different in that it uses quantum dots--atom-sized structures that emit light when excited--to produce dark pulses.

NIST's Mirin says that the group initially wanted to make a bright pulse laser using quantum dots. Quantum dots can be used to make lasers that have a broad range of colors. "It turns out that the process of discovery led us to something interesting with this particular [quantum dot] configuration," he says.

Click here to read the full article..

 

 

How much more malware is lurking in Linux official repositories?

By Adrian Kingsley-Hughes | June 14, 2010, 2:35pm PDT

 

The revelation that the open-source Unreal IRC server download has been infected with malware for some eight months is pretty worrying. But the added discovery that this Trojan horse made its way into the Gentoo distro is real reason for the Linux community to re-examine how trusted repositories are handled.

It’s true that compared to Windows, Linux is pretty safe bet if you want to remain protected from hackers. After all, the 1% or so usage share that the OS enjoys (combined with the fact that many of its users are pretty switched on) just doesn’t make it a worthwhile target to go after.

But there’s a big difference between the OS being a “pretty safe bet” and it being invulnerable. No OS is invulnerable. If someone wants in on your system, and they have the time and resources, they are likely to find a way.

But this is a major blunder. Allowing infected code to make its way into an official distro demonstrates how complacent some in the Linux community have become.

Which leads to the biggest and most important question of all - how can we, as Linux users, be sure that more malware hasn’t infiltrated official channels?

The idea that we can blindly trust official repositories of open source code is slowly eroding. Earlier this year Mozilla discovered that it had been hosting a Firefox add-on that contained malware. This latest incident should underline the need to beef up security to protect users.

Click here to read full article.

 

 

 

JamKo Voice

JamKo Phone Service

The Next Level in Communications

VoIP Poll

Do You Know What VoIP is?

Simple

We Speak To You in English, Not Geek! -TM

Just The Facts - Clear and Simplified