PSU VoIPMy last entry showed some background images that I politely took from the Department of Public Information and cropped and gently edited for use on the Cisco IP phones. These are not available (except as noted) on Penn State IP phones; they're just some ideas I had and loaded on our test system to demo to my colleagues.
I would like our phone users to have these background images. What's more, I would like phone users to have the option to buy, for an additional $60-100, a color-display version of their two-line or six-line Cisco phone. It doesn't do any magic tricks; it's just colorful. (That's not entirely true; there are some under-the-hood improvements, but definitely nothing magical.)
In light of significant server upgrades that I'm working on now, why would I waste my time playing with and promoting background images and color phones?
Let me start off with a word of self-defense: I'm not wasting time. I am just not focused enough to be able to work on server upgrades for months on end without engaging myself in some other more creative work. Server upgrades are boring, and we are trying to not be creative with these; instead, we want to follow the vendor's rulebook to avoid headaches later. I think this is a reasonable course of action. It's also the reason I haven't blogged much about the server upgrades. Want to know what we're doing? Details on www.cisco.com.
At the last two committee meetings with PSU VoIP technical collaborators ("VoIP Tech") I gave a show-and-tell of background images and the 7965 color IP phone. Response from the team was not positive. Reasons focused on internal issues of inventory management, firmware tracking, and philosophical disagreements concerning our vendor and the future of the IP phone....
No sour grapes yet; I want a less-technical opinion on whether these are good ideas or not. Marketing folks might see these in a different light. So might end users, who don't care about our internal issues. I think our end users would like us to offer them more products, more creative and interesting products. We are all humans and like shiny things. We watch color TV. 1080i-High-Definition-80-inch-diagonal color TV. We don't want the Model T. We go for the fast, good-looking car, if we can afford it.
Some--actually a majority--of the users don't care what phone sits on their desks. They will be satisfied or unsatisfied based on certain simple factors. Others, perhaps executives with expensive office furniture or athletics coaches who decorate their offices with fifty years worth of trophies, will want a colorful lion shrine to appear on their phone when they're not busy recruiting the next dean or football star. Or any phone user just wants a change of scenery. I'm talking about minor things that can please the customer--all while in the background, we tech nerds work to make the system capable, available, reliable, redundant, and all other service-oriented goals.
So the answer to "why" is that I think the end users will like it. And that should be enough reason to write about such things here on a blog and promote them internally as service & feature offerings. I think more focus needs to be given, while fully maintaining the infrastructure, to end-user experience. We keep telling ourselves that we're not a utility company. Therefore, let's get past the utilitarian.
As one of the collaborators and sadly one of those guilty of participating in the less than positive reaction, I have to agree with you. You are not wasting time looking at some of these changes. I agree that we should make our stuff more interesting. I doubly agree that server upgrades are boring, and I can't spend every waking moment focused on that myself.
I still think that to get through these upgrades we need to be laser focused on just the upgrades, and from a design perspective you hit the nail on the head with the link to Cisco. We don't write the application, but instead we test it to see how bumpy the transition is going to be. I have witnessed several times lately though that our internal processes are being used to stifle any creativity. That is a shame. I have a 7961 phone on my desk, and I think it is cool that I have a PSU logo for a background. It's a Penn State device that now feels like Penn State. Plus, these images are opt-in for end-users.
Whenever a creative suggestion comes up, I hear the phrase "17 Steps". This process was originally designed to make sure that all the people affected were informed about changes to a service. Unfortuantely, the reality is that this procedure is used to construct barriers when something sticks out. It is a Layer 8 device, if you will. (RFC 2321 provides an adequate description dealing with Layer 8) I believe that using the tools already purchased with approval of that procedure should not require a 17 Step procedure to turn on. If we are going to require 17 steps for a bitmap image or a telephone, then we should require that procedure for software updates that actually change the service. Should we spend our time making things work, or should we spend our time in meetings filing out MS Word Docs for every technical decision?
I will make you a promise here in front of the Internets, Bill. When we get the boring stuff finished up, I will take time to genuinely look at these enhancements with you. You are right after all. We are not a utility company; we are an enterprise IT support team who needs to add some value to the Penn State Mission.
As one of those "marketing folks" you referred to, I've got a suggestion: why not ask the VoIP phone users? All you need is a prototype and a brief questionnaire. Too often we technical folks - I include myself here - sit back and envision what the customers "want", but seldom do we actually seek feedback from those we serve. I think the background is a cool idea, but I am only 1 of 12,000 VoIP users...
Thanks to both of you for your comments. Chris, it's a deal. Robin, your idea is entirely sensible and reasonable. The truth is, I don't know how to ask the users. I will find out how. I feel like I've been barricaded by some processes or organizational structures and kept away from the customers unless they're calling in for help. Maybe this was never intended but it's what I've personally perceived. Time to do away with that idea.
Has anyone done an analysis to determine the cost of a VoIP line versus the cost of a traditional digital TDM line? We're currently moving towards Nortel VoIP on the PSU-Hershey campus; we intuitively think it's less expensive but don't have anything solid behind that intuition.
Phil Coolick at Driftwood might have done that analysis or knows who has done it.