Interoperability: Please Make It SoInteroperability: Please Make It So

The recent news that Tandberg and HP are teaming to offer interoperability between their respective telepresence and video conferencing products is good news for IT executives and end users, both of whom reasonably want to be able to use best-of-breed technology, without having to worry about how it fits into their overall IT infrastructure. Although many MCUs support products from multiple vendors, with the growth of unified communications and the development of new technologies like telepresence and high-definition, the need for out-of-the-box interoperability is only growing.

Often, the discussion of interoperability hovers around the issue of presence. I myself have talked about that, and I still maintain it’s one of the most important challenges facing the unified communications market: Knowing the availability status of other people on my chosen IM or VoIP network is good; knowing the availability status of people on any chosen IM or VoIP network is better. But interoperability is also important among applications—both inside and outside the enterprise.

Inside the enterprise, the need for interoperability should be clear: Companies may not want to deploy technology from a single vendor—they want to be able to choose among endpoints and applications, mixing and matching as their needs and budgets dictate. Furthermore, as companies start to deploy truly unified communications, they need interoperability not just between like technologies (two video conferencing products, for instance), but also among disparate applications (a video conferencing product and an IM product, say). Progress is being made on this front almost weekly, as vendors partner to enable just this kind of interoperability. The challenge for IT executives is to stay up to speed on the latest deals, and ensure they future-proof any implementations they undertake.

But interoperability is also critical outside enterprise walls. That is, my video conferencing system ought to be able to talk to your video conferencing system. (For video, feel free to substitute “web” or “audio” conferencing, or collaborative application, IM tool, or social networking technology). Imagine the following scenario:

You are hosting a web conference, complete with video and an audio component; I want to attend. Today, I must do so using your web, audio and (possibly) video conferencing tools of choice. I dial into your audio bridge; I download (or simply visit) your web conferencing application. But what if instead, I could simply use *my* conferencing tools to dial into your event? I’d see and hear all the content, but via an interface that was familiar to me, and approved by my IT department. Obviously, my capabilities would be limited—if your software sends video but mine doesn’t receive it, I won’t be able to see you, for example—but certain basic features would be standard: Powerpoint viewing, whiteboarding, chatting, etc.

It’s not such a radical concept. I don’t need to use your e-mail client to read your e-mail; I don’t need to use your productivity application to read a document you send. IM gateways have been making it possible for users to chat with others using any number of IM services or clients, all through a single skin. This is simply taking that effort one step further. (Well, that, and making it available out of the box, standard with any product I, or my company, choose to use).