Unified messaging (UM) has been with us for at least six years. In the early days it was defined as a single interface through which users could access all their messages (be they voice, data or fax) via any device they happened to be using at the time – typically PC, fixed phone, mobile phone or PDA. Despite showing promise, early solutions for this never quite hit it off with users and market growth was consequently somewhat modest.

Now that is changing. UM, which is now increasingly being referred to as Unified Personal Communications (UPC), has finally hit its stride and is now set for rapid market growth over the next few years.

So what has changed to bring about this transformation?

All messages are not created equal

By its nature, e-mail is all about message exchange between mailboxes. Most voice messaging, though, is not. The vast majority of voice messages (typically over 70%) are generated from telephone answering activity. For network operators, the main purpose of this is to capture phone calls that would otherwise go unanswered. This ensures call completion and the opportunity for subsequent new call generation, and therefore the associated call revenues. E-mail messages have no such effect, at least not directly, as they are typically paid for on a flat rate subscription basis. So sending individual e-mails does not generate revenue per se, unless of course they happen to be mobile SMS (Short Message Service) messages or e-mails generating SMS messages, in which case they do.

On the other hand, e-mail provides a fast, powerful and particularly effective form of non real-time communication. It is inherently distance-independent, provides the means for transmitting documents quickly and conveniently, can be made highly secure and lends itself to being managed – through priorities, filtering, forwarding and so on.

One of the difficulties with the early solutions to UM was that they tried to manage voice messages like e-mail. This met with limited success. For sure, they provided the facility to hear voice messages and display faxes on a desktop PC. Also to attach voice notes to e-mail messages. Even to create voice messages for broadcast to a large number of recipients. In general it was a lot easier to generate non real-time communication from real-time than the other way around. The trouble is, that’s not necessarily how people want to communicate and it does little towards generating new service revenue.

A further difficulty was the need to create single message stores across a variety of different network types. Too often, the UM mailbox tried to act as a bridge between different technology platforms, leading to complications for systems integration.

Flexibility comes first

Not everyone wants to deal with messages the same way. For example, notification and delivery of an important message may be of particular value for some users some of the time. Mobile workers may see the need for hands-free, eyes-free call and message communications while in the car or in transit. People who get too many calls and messages may appreciate call screening and message filtering capabilities. For those that need to be able to respond quickly, the call return function or Instant Messaging will be more effective than simple message reply. For critical group communications, where there is a need for accountability of time-sensitive message delivery (such as service dispatch), either the sender or an application will need to get confirmation of specific delivery and acknowledgement.

Users constantly want to move between real-time and non real-time communication, depending on the situation at the time. Sometimes a user may want a call to find him wherever he is. At other times (or for other callers) he may want them to be screened and forwarded elsewhere, or a message taken. There may be a need to respond to an e-mail message or fax urgently with a phone call, from wherever the caller is at the time.

Messaging in all its forms could therefore never be effective as a phone call substitute. Rather, both need to be managed, and the more closely integrated they are, the more effective and flexible they are likely to be for the end user.

Underlying all of this, service providers also need to generate revenue from such services. In fixed networks, this generally means encouraging more calls. In mobile networks, either more calls or more text messages. To this, UM also now adds new revenue-generating opportunities such as e-mail text-to-speech conversion and forwarding e-mails and faxes with added voice headers. These and other features should increase the “stickiness” of UM services, discouraging users from moving to other service providers and therefore addressing the issue of churn in the user base.

Convergence counts

As a result of growing voice and data convergence, there is now a real and growing need for UM systems to work in both voice and data environments simultaneously, providing distinctly different forms of routing and management for each. This is not only the case for fixed networks, but increasingly for mobile networks as well and across both simultaneously – particularly as mobile messaging develops beyond SMS to multimedia and an IP base. Indeed the growing use of e-mail to generate SMS messages already indicates growing interest in convergence of messaging types towards an integrated service.

It is therefore no coincidence that the recent increasing market interest in VoIP is also reflected in increasing interest in UM systems. VoIP introduces the prospect of new service opportunities utilising powerful new developments like SIP (Session Initiation Protocol). Network convergence and UM, otherwise the convergence of different messaging and communications types, must now go hand in hand. UM has finally reached centre stage. The future for UM is now convergence of all personal communications, across all networks, managed from a single, IP-based platform. 

© e-principles 2001

Robin Duke-Woolley

Any comments on this article? Please send them to : Editor@e-principles.com