There's a channel evolution underway along with the market shift to unified communications (UC). This is very akin to the last major channel transition from PBX dealers and interconnects to converged voice and data VARs in the IP telephony marketplace. I well remember this transition in the late ‘90s when we worked with and recruited channel to ensure successful customer implementations and successful routes to market for emerging IP telephony products. At that time we promoted the template for business success as combining voice application skills with data networking skill sets, including OS training, converged voice/data business models and a shift to working with the IT department and CxOs in companies. In the end, this largely was proven out. Now, roughly 12 years later, here we go again...or do we?

There is no question transformation is happening, as UC becomes more software oriented, data center centric and with functionally more comprehensive in capabilities than just voice.

A quantum leap forward is the requirement (opportunity) to integrate business communications to a multitude of business software applications and business processes. This is no easy matter. The prototypical channel model this time around will be or will include an element of the software/systems integrator. The provider will be competent in understanding a customer's environment and business issues, proposing IT/communications solutions, implementation and service, but also willing and able to roll up their sleeves and provide skilled IT people to conduct projects within the software spaghetti and business systems of the data center — a key skill being able to integrate between systems and do the IT work to improve the clients business processes.

However, there is a difference this time around: the time domain. UC is emerging; however, it is much more of an evolutionary transition than revolutionary. With IP telephony, you could not step onto a LAN with voice until you had data networking skills to do the work — on network assessments, subnets, addressing, security provisioning, QoS support, etc.

With UC, much of the reseller community today has already been implementing aspects of these applications for several years, almost by serendipity growing into this model. Yes, a software integrator element is necessary. Yes, you need a much broader set of skills in software integration, with specific vendor accreditations and even coding skills. And yes, the service business model and approach to the customer must change to be more business consultative and process benefit oriented. Some will not make it, for various reasons, just like before. Some are already there. Software integrator entrants see opportunity and are adding communications products and skills to their offering.

With the UC evolution, resellers have the opportunity to grow into this business model and adapt as their customer base and chosen market focus dictates. This is much different to the IP Telephony evolution. But it should not be taken lightly. In my opinion, it is channel evolution, rather than channel revolution. Not only should end user businesses plan ahead for need and adoption of UC including assessment of their implementer, but so must the channel, to realize the opportunity ahead. It appears to be much more subtle than the shift to IP telephony was, but in the end result will be much more profound in its impact.

Kevin Johnson is director of analyst relations at Mitel.

I am intrigued by ongoing trends in the centralization of business applications in the corporate data center. What's old is new again harkening back to mainframe-terminal server days, but with a spin — being able to leverage the technology of today and improve how businesses and users work. Benefits are lower cost, improved security, easier IT management and greater business control over the user's computing environment. Along with this are various computing architectures that support this, like Sun Microsystems’ Sun Ray solution. It takes centralization to the extreme through hosting and virtualizing all applications, user files and the user's computing session. The user is provided a small thin client computing unit at the desktop, which is effectively a session manager and transmits keyboard, mouse, and display information back and forth between the user and the data center. It can be set up to work in the office or with mobile/remote access.

Call control and communication applications can be integrated into this environment, hosted in the data center and integrated with a softphone or IP telephone at the desktop. One login and all your computing and voice services turn on. Pretty cool.

So why would customers want this? Well, if an organization is looking at or committed to a centralized computing/thin client model already, adding voice to this architecture is a no-brainer and brings additional benefits. Think of a customer service group or general call center. Agents routinely log in and out of this environment, in the office or from home, and in some cases use a desk sharing arrangement as well. With this integration, all phone features travel with the agent no matter where they are on the corporate network, including phone extension and — where applicable — even mobile device. From an IT perspective, all applications are managed centrally and the seemingly endless stream of help desk calls on PCs, repairs and software malfunctions are eliminated.

I could go on, but suffice it to say there are lots of good reasons to implement this, especially in different industries like health care, government and education, each with its own unique needs that this fits.

I really like this integrated solution. It deserves a look.

Kevin Johnson is director of analyst relations at Mitel.

Absolutely. However...

As companies make the transition from PBX systems to IP communications systems, a number of reasons and benefits are driving these changes, including unified communications, employee and group efficiency, network savings, business process improvement opportunities and plain old technology obsolescence. Included in the long list of benefits has been a movement under the umbrella category of saving the environment, green initiatives or any of a variety of similar terms and slogans. Call it a sign of the times, as high energy costs have increased public awareness and momentum overall in society to reduce carbon footprints and waste. Power savings, teleworking and overall efficiencies have emerged as benefits of implementing IP-based communications, in addition to helping companies meet their overall environmental objectives and, in today's economy, providing real cost savings.

How real are the power savings? Comparing power consumption for PBXs vs. current IP communications systems, there can be a savings of up to as much as 50 percent. Not bad! In addition, there are related positive impacts such as reduced air conditioning requirements in data centers, reduced sizing and power of support equipment like back up power units and data switching equipment. Also, let's not forget reduced truck rolls for multi-site companies, generally captured under reduced maintenance costs and technician efficiencies, but also resulting in less gasoline consumed (and carbon emitted). All in all, definite positive benefits to a company. A number of vendors have seized on this and made a big deal of comparative benchmarks. My take on this is that this is over-the-top and over-hyped.

Why am I saying this? Mitel has one of the most favorable positions in the market in IP communications system power consumption. And while power savings definitely deserve scrutiny in the overall purchasing decision, it is one factor of many — including cost and TCO analysis — in the overall consideration of whether or not to implement IP communications systems. Make sure you factor in all benefits according to priority in your decision, including power considerations.

Kevin Johnson is director of analyst relations at Mitel.