All of the things you mentioned are potential components or application within Unified Communications. However, UC is not static and can not be adequately defined by listing its specific functions, components or attributes.
Here is my definition:
Unified Communications is an evolving communications technology architecture which automates and unifies all forms of human and device communications in context, and with a common experience.
Its purpose is to optimize business processes and enhance human communications by reducing latency, managing flows, and eliminating device and media dependencies.
Rick McCharles
http://www.ric.ca/blog
not inspiring....
In short, your definition simply brings together several existing markets....e-mail, web/audio/video conferencing, voice (cell/pbx), personal assistant, voice messaging....and just describes them differently. I'm not sure it captures the collaboration power nor the complexity which will require significant services to tame in the corporate environment.
I like to think of it liek
I like to think of it liek this:
The way that networks have been set-up is analgous to the human nervous system. They allow quick routing of emails, phone calls, etc. to the right person. Much like my brain might tell my finger to point, and it points.
Thing is, there is not thinking involved. But with so much information flowing through the network, woudln't if be great if we could put a brain inside that could make "thinking" decisions. So if someone calls me, and I'm not at my desk, it automatically rings my cell phone......just a simple example but you can see that there is a little bit of thinking going on.
So in short, as IT folks, we have built the nervous system, and now we are starting to think about putting a brain in the system.
Post new comment