Unified Communications: Through the Magic (Quadrant) Glass

December 07, 2009 by Dave Michels

The Magic Quadrant, put forth by Gartner, is a graphical representation of the competitive landscape in a given industry or sector. The X axis measures a vendor’s “Completeness of Vision.” The more to the right, the more complete the vision. The Y axis measures a vendor’s “Ability to Execute,” the higher the better the ability. A complete vision with a strong ability to execute places a vendor in the “Magic Quadrant” or the upper right quadrant.

Gartner has used the Magic Quadrant for decades – it is a simple way to communicate complex thoughts behind vendor positioning.

But I found two recent reports somewhat contradictory and confusing. The reports in question are “Magic Quadrant for Corporate Telephony” August 5, 2009 and “Magic Quadrant for Unified Communications” September 1, 2009.

TWO REPORTS
The Corporate Telephony Report opens with “The corporate telephony market is under increasing pressure – from new entrants in unified communications…Organizations still need an IP telephony road map today, but it should become a component of a UC strategy.”

This suggests several very important conclusions/thoughts:

Corporate Telephony is a subcomponent of Unified Communications
Corporate Telephony is VoIP
Corporate Telephony is in competition with Unified Communications
Unified Communications is a strategy not a product
IP telephony “should” (not “can”) become part of a UC strategy

The following vendors were included in the corporate telephony report: 3Com, Aastra, Alcatel-Lucent, Avaya, Cisco, Digium, Microsoft, NEC, Nortel, Siemens Enterprise Group, ShoreTel, and Toshiba.

The Unified Communications Report opens with “Unified Communications offers the ability to improve how individuals, groups, and companies interact and perform tasks…Key technologies include (IP)-PBX, VoIP, presence, E-mail, audio/web conferencing, videoconferencing, voice mail, unified messaging, instant messaging, and various forms of mobility. Another key capability of UC is…’communication-enabled business process’ (CEBP)…No vendor product adequately addresses all of an enterprise’s UC needs. As a result, planners should not expect their UC requirements to be met by one vendor’s products.”

This suggests the following important conclusions/thoughts:

A large chunk of UC is voice related and offered by most of the IP-PBX makers (IP-PBX, VoIP, presence, audio/web conferencing, videoconferencing, voice mail, unified messaging, instant messaging, and various forms of mobility)
CEBP requires APIs or customization capabilities
A complete vision is not equal to a complete product offering – thus partnerships and standards are presumably important
UC includes but does not require multiple technologies. Thus a stand alone PBX with voice mail could qualify as a UC solution so long as it improves interaction.

The following vendors were included in the UC report: Aastra Technologies, Alcatel-Lucent, Avaya, Cisco, IBM, Interactive Intelligence, Microsoft, Mitel, NEC, Nortel, SAP, Siemens Enterprise Group, ShoreTel, TeleWare, and Toshiba.

DID UC PEAK?

Earlier this month, Gartner updated its annual list of top technologies for 2010 and completely dropped UC.

I don’t believe UC technologies are any more out of style than they were last year. In fact, with some major wins and repositioning by various market leaders the opposite is true. So why would Gartner drop it?

My suspicion is because the UC and corporate telephony markets (quadrants) are merging and because the terminology is so broadly defined. Look at the new list and it is filled with UC:

Cloud computing (there is a major shift beginning toward call processing and voice application virtualization)
Client computing (phones, soft phones, headsets, SIP devices, etc.)
Reshaping the data center (consolidation and centralization of voice systems)
Social computing (integration of voice with services such as Twitter)
Virtualization for availability (voice recovery, using the cloud for overflow capacity)
Mobility (teleworking, DECT and Wifi phones, FMC, cell phone integration).

Unfortunately, “UC” has become a bit meaningless. Cisco also dropped the UC moniker in exchange for “collaboration”. But this doesn’t really help either as collaboration either only addresses part of the UC equation – or is stretched to become equally broad and confusing (is unified messaging now a collaboration solution?).

The right answer is to put it back to the voice folks as they are surprisingly in agreement about the future. The UC vision from Cisco, Avaya, Mitel and others are not that incongruous. Even smaller players have similar views, but need to rely more on partnerships (which really makes the most sense).

UC solutions are critical, but without a firm agreement or understanding of its scope or meaning it doesn’t promote improved communications. The concept is right and isn’t going anywhere soon. The problem is we already all have phone systems, and don’t need new ones. What is selling is improved communication methods and that involves more tools and capabilities which just might happen to require a new phone system.

By Dave Michels

Dave is an independent analyst and founder of TalkingPointz which is focused on enterprise communications. In addition to this (free and paid) content on TalkingPointz, he contributes to industry sites, can be found at major industry events, and provides advisory services to vendors and financial analysts.

Look ma, no ads!

Admit it! You just can’t look away. Yet, there’s so much more.

Become a subscriber to TalkingPointz for access to reports and premium posts.

There are several ways to stay informed:

Visit this site regularly.
Receive new posts in your email once a week.
Become an Insider or All Access Subscriber for alerts and access to uncensored content.

Become a Member from $49 / month

TalkingHeadz Podcast

The TalkingHeadz podcasts are @DaveMichels and @EvanKirstel chatting with interesting guests. These are unsponsored and unscripted for your enjoyment. You can subscribe on most podcast apps including iTunes.

Listen on iTunes

Podcast microsoft

TalkingHeadz with Jeff Teper of #MicrosoftTeams

January 21, 2021

There was a lot of mixed reactions to the idea that Teams would eventually replace Skype for Business. There were those that had really embraced SfB, and didn’t see Teams at all ready. There were also those that just didn’t…

Discussion

Hyoun Park December 7, 2009

Great post! I agree with your comments and don't understand why Google and Skype wouldn't be included in a true study of Unified Communications that concentrated on the union of presence, unified messaging, and intelligent message routing. It's definitely the approach I'm planning to take in my research next year, since I feel there's been too much of an effort to put unified communications in an artificial box or to use as a branding tool rather than simply saying "what's it really mean if several or all of your communications options are unified and federated? And is it really a good thing?"

Reply
kencamp December 7, 2009

Dave – You said you expected an anti-Gartner comment. I'm not sure if this will delight or disappoint, but taking a few minutes from my architecture work to comment.

First, Gartner provides industry reports, but their market is in selling two things – power and information. And both are something their clients want. As a Gartner client, you get access to info. As a preferred client, you get favorable reviews.

Let me preface all this with some reality. Some Gartner analysts are among the sharpest we've ever seen. That's the individuals. And some Gartner analysts are former CIO/CTO folks who are there because, well they aren't CIO/CTO material any longer. Reality. There's an old adage – Those who can do. Those who can't analyze…er teach. Gartner has a mix of those who can and those who can't. Overall, their analysts make par, but are not, IMHO the best.

OTOH from an access to information perspective, Gartner's power over clients and influence is enormous. They're listened to because of their name and their power. Less because of the accuracy of their reports, which are very generic, lack detail and substance, and overlook those who aren't paying clients in some form or fashion for the most part.

The magic quadrant (of mediocrity, as I call it) is a perfect example. Anyone who's found insightful analysis in those reports simply doesn't have a clue what analysis is. The reports are soundbites designed to sell Gartner as much as they are to benefit any industry. They are sales collateral…repurposed material.

I love some of Gartner's methodology. The Hype Cycle concept is superb. I don't like much of their implementation. They're not a firm who I respect for a balanced viewpoint at all. They don't recognize any companies in the industries beyond the large and powerful. Those companies in Gartner reports are generally not innovators or disruptors. They are primarily the robber barons who's bough and sold their way to industry leadership in some way.

That Gartner discounts unified communications while listing a new top ten list of which half clearly are part of UC is specious and points out their own misunderstanding of the industry they write about. Then again, they're Gartner and define in it whatever way best brings revenue to Gartner.

I recently read another blog post that I didn't find shocking, although it doesn't cite a source. It said "analysts of XXXX firm are to find nefarious ways of damaging the credibility of any vendor who reduces its combined budgets … such activity could take the form of quadrant placements without full explanation, phone recommendations to practitioners informed by guesses rather than fact, and research briefs that do not fully disclose who are clients and who are not." The implication is pretty clear, and not surprising given my personal experience. See http://www.enterpriseirregulars.com/6043/key-themes-and-hot-topics-negotiating-with-analyst-firms-part-1/

Am I anti-Gartner? No. I read and use their work. Do I pay for it? No I have never authorized any money be spent on Gartner. Would I? That depends on what company I'm working for and how much power they can help me wield. Would I as a customer? Not likely. They've been in the industry one year less than I have. My opinion has been up and down over the years, but I've never felt the need to rush out and buy their analysis.

But that's just me, and this is all just my personal opinion.

Reply
Dave Michels December 7, 2009

I should have mentioned in the original post that Gartner is now a part of the Silver Lake Private Equity Group.

Silver Lake also owns all or significant portions of Avaya, Nortel, and Skype.

"Gartner research is produced independently by the Company's analysts, without the influence, review, or approval of our investors, shareholders, or directors."

Is printed on their reports, including the one's mentioned above which praise Avaya.

Reply
Kelsey C December 8, 2009

I've got RHUB(www.rhubcom.com) at my office, and I'd say it's getting close to the unified communications tool you are talking about. It allows for web conferencing, webinars, remote access, and remote support.

Reply
Marty Parker December 16, 2009

Hi, Dave! Nice job with the thorough review of the Gartner MQs.

Several comments:
— Seems that if a PBX is though of as a service element in the service-oriented architecture of Unified Communications, then completeness of vision makes lots of sense of the Corporate Telephony MQ, much as it would make sense for to have a data base MQ as well as a CRM MQ.

— IBM certainly has a voice solution for their participation in the UC MQ. They don't market Sametime as aggressively as an enterprise voice solution as does Microsoft (and IBM is not in the Corporate Telephony MQ either), but they certainly could manage all the voice that many IWs would need.

— As to Digium, I tried to piece together a UC solution based on Asterisk and Digium earlier this year. You have to license the softphone from a different supplier; IM and presence are a puzzle; conferencing is de minimus. Lots of potential but not really a solution, IMHO. Also, seems that both the Gartner MQs are serving the larger enterprises, whilst Digium seems to be thriving in the SMB and ad hoc spaces.

Anyway, lots of good ideas on the table. Thanks!

Reply
Julie Hunt February 8, 2010

Thanks for the analysis in this post – it's a great kickoff point for evaluating the current and upcoming states of UC. As you point out, there is quite a bit of "disarray" with so many different kinds of vendors owning a piece, whether large or small, of the story.

Reply
Sam The May 16, 2010

Let's not forget what the likes of IBM and now Interactive Intelligence (might throw in Microsoft in there) afford on the CBPE front, with their Business Process Management/Automation solutions. With these guys, they propose that the optimal ROI lies in leveraging the communications platform as a springboard for optimising business processes. This goes beyond traditional interaction concepts of person-to-person to incorporate process-to-person / application-to-person, which is the reality of interaction practise in the 21st Century.

In sum, there's a critical need to see UC beyond this narrow ideal of 'voice on steroids', and consider how it best serves 'communications integrated to optimise business processes', as touted by the folk @ UC Strategies…

Reply