Blaming the vendor, because you misunderstood, failed to research, lacked expertise and/or experience on your team, or treated your UC implementation like a telephony upgrade, seems unfair.Īnd so we turn our attention to understanding process challenges related to UC in general and Skype for Business in particular. Having participated in deploying Skype for Business to hundreds of locations, I conclude that Skype for Business almost always functions as defined and designed. To be fair to architects and designers, keeping up with and understanding the rapidly evolving Skype for Business feature set and current limitations of specific platforms is very difficult. To be fair to Microsoft, this is not a product challenge. With Microsoft's primary focus on Skype for Business Online, and hybrid for everyone not fully serviced by the cloud, organizations can be "caught" when they realize certain scenarios or features are only supported by the on-premises product. The different "flavors" of Skype for Business can create product challenges, or, rather, issues aligning a selected architecture - on-premises, cloud, or hybrid - with specific organizational requirements. With Skype for Business, a successful deployment requires architecture, design, and engineering skills related to Active Directory, Windows Server, SQL Server, Exchange, and, of course, the Skype for Business application itself. This complexity follows from the goal of UC, which is to integrate multiple communication modalities for both end users and system administrators. Like all true unified communications products, Skype for Business is complicated. Many blame the product however, where does the real fault lie? Sadly, too many organizations still fail to achieve measurable business improvements when implementing Skype for Business.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |