January 2005 These days, it’s hard to pick up a trade magazine, go to a conference, or listen to a vendor pitch without hearing about the migration to IP. Corporate telecommunications infrastructures are changing from circuit switching using time division multiplexing (TDM) to emerging packet switching over Internet protocol (IP) data networks. In fact, some month early in 2005 more customer premise equipment line shipments will be IP-based than TDM-based. Of course, that’s current shipments. The installed base remains overwhelmingly TDM. Still, this is a major shift. It’s similar to what happened three decades ago. Then, the world moved from analog to digital PBXs, following the lead of upstarts like Rolm. Today, we’re in the middle of a similarly fundamental sea-change for voice communications – from circuit switching using time division multiplexing (TDM) to packet switching over IP data networks. This time, the upstarts are established data players like Cisco and 3Com, and a variety of new companies seeking to take advantage of this emerging market. Traditional telephony suppliers will continue to support their TDM-based products for many years to come, even as all of them have announced smooth migration strategies. But most of their new R&D money has shifted over to IP. From a contact center perspective, the migration to IP involves more than just the switch. And the issue of voice quality becomes even more important. For contact centers, this change has important implications. Some things that were simple may be more complicated (some adjunct equipment), at least in the short term. At the same time, this change opens up significant new opportunities and new applications. The advantages range from more effective ways to accomplish current activities, such as having a virtual center spanning a multi-site facility, to capabilities that will transform the way companies will interact with their customers in the future. This White Paper gives an overview of the coming changes, with the following sections:
Background on Packetized
Voice Our ears easily pick up delays or other disturbances in a voice communication, so transmitting voice over a data network requires minimal delays with little to no packet loss. Most networks were designed for transmitting data, where minor delays could be tolerated, and lost packets could be retransmitted. So, while voice can be packetized and transmitted over any IP-based network, whether private or public, the quality can vary dramatically depending on the nature of the network being used. The early appeal of free communications over the public internet was compelling to, for example, students who felt there were better ways to spend discretionary funds. For businesses however, the balance between cost and quality shifts, and when it comes to contact centers, most managers insist on “toll quality” voice communication. Therefore, most business IP communication today uses controllable transmission links, where the equipment is known and quality, traffic volumes, and latency can be better monitored and adjusted. This means that most implementations today run over internal, company-controlled networks. These are designed with equipment (e.g., routers and codecs) that introduces minimal delay, and “quality of service” (QoS) enhancements to give priority to voice packets over data packets. Increasingly carriers are offering QoS-enabled services, with the goal of providing high quality packetized voice over non-dedicated facilities. However, today these offerings do not extend to inter-carrier traffic, and certainly not to things like the public internet. Triggers for Moving to
IP For many companies, the trigger event is the need to replace depreciated equipment or systems that are at end-of-life. Following their current supplier’s migration path (they all have one) may be a great answer. However, many companies use this event as an opportunity to investigate migrating to a new architecture with potentially new capabilities. Another triggering event is a decision to operate multiple call centers in a truly virtual environment, with one call routing and control capability governing all centers. The goal could be greater operational efficiency, new applications capabilities, or as a way to seamlessly blend in new locations, home agents, or newly acquired companies. Companies that haven’t started their migration to IP need to start building their strategy now. The first step is understanding the various architecture decisions that are available. Alternative
Architectures There are two major pathways from the perspective of the contact center, an IP-Enabled or an IP-Centric architecture. The former enables (or at least, purports to enable ) a smooth migration from a legacy TDM switching environment to an IP-based future, and contains both TDM and IP elements. The latter features IP-only capabilities once inside the corporate gateways that faces outward to the public switched network. Most of the legacy telecommunications suppliers have deployed, or at least announced, products in both paths. The more data-oriented suppliers and many new entrants seeking to capitalize on the IP sea-change are concentrating on IP-Centric products, and not worrying about a migration path. Moving to an IP-Centric solution has frequently been easier in a greenfield installation, without having to incorporate legacy TDM-based equipment and adjunct systems.
This diagram highlights some of the key differences between platforms based on TDM, IP-Enabled, and IP-Centric architectures. These diagrams show only a single site, but in each of these designs, the architecture can extend to encompass additional locations, remote sites, home agents, and partner companies. In a TDM environment, on the left, all voice traffic is carried over circuit-based facilities, including phones, IVR systems, and other end points. An IP-Enabled system begins with a TDM switch, and the connection to the PSTN is often only circuit-switched. This configuration can support either line-side TDM phones or IP phones connected through a gateway. Call processing in the switch is performed in the TDM (e.g. timeslots management, call queuing, announcements). When calls need to be connected to an IP station, an IP gateway inside the switch converts the TDM call to IP. Usually, adjunct systems, such as IVRs, remain TDM-based. Call control can remain with the PBX or is on a separate server. In an IP-Centric architecture, all voice traffic inside the gateway is over IP. This could be a single location, or the entire corporate network, including main centers, remote sites, and conceivably outsourcer facilities. Voice trunks from the PSTN terminate at a gateway, where the voice traffic is converted to IP, ready to be routed to any end point on the LAN or WAN. Other external IP-based traffic can directly terminate at the router. The call control server is on an adjunct processor. As the suppliers’ solutions evolve, the crisp distinctions between these architectures are getting fuzzier. Reasons include wanting to be able to use their products into a variety of TDM configurations, and seeking to minimize the number of cards, components, and systems they must maintain. Which of these configurations is best for you? The answer, of course, is “It depends.” For existing facilities with a substantial investment in a TDM-based infrastructure that is still meeting business needs, IP-Enabled solutions allow incremental migration into IP. This approach allows piloting, uses existing adjunct processors, and gives you an opportunity to work out some of the organizational changes needed to support an IP-based infrastructure. On the other hand, new facilities are often better served by going IP-Centric immediately. And some companies have application opportunities with compelling business cases that can more readily be delivered through an IP infrastructure. Multi-Site Contact Center Applications When multi-site companies leverage VoIP over a QoS enabled network, the flexibility to quickly route that call to any place on the network while controlling it centrally supports new applications, or at least enables easier or less expensive implementation. Here are some of the application areas where multiple-site environments can often take advantage of IP’s strengths. Centralized Equipment, Management and Control. VoIP enables companies to consolidate hardware, software, and personnel to a smaller number of locations, even if there are agents at many sites. This could be a single hardened hub center, or a few redundant ones. Centralization means more effective use of fewer personnel for planning, programming, administration, and maintenance. Many organizations now seek to simplify their communication architecture and to reduce and consolidate the number of servers. This notion goes beyond simply combining voice and data over a single network. The opportunity is to reduce complexity while achieving significant cost savings from less hardware and fewer license and maintenance requirements. Frequently, call center adjunct equipment – such as IVRs, work force management systems, quality monitoring, reporting, and analytics – can also be consolidated. Today, these adjunct servers are often scattered throughout many locations in an organization’s network. With a VoIP-based implementation, the overall architecture is simplified, and the staff needed for maintenance and configuration management can be centralized. This is both more efficient and leads to consistent practices across the company. Virtual Capabilities. In addition to cost savings, distributing calls on a VoIP-based network lets companies run all their call centers as a single, virtual operation. The ability to have a single point for enterprise-wide call control and routing decisions means lower costs and better matching of available agent skills to customer requirements. Today, many companies have the same functions being performed by agents with similar skills across multiple sites. Calls coming into the network cloud will be “pre-routed” to a particular site. Sometimes this decision is made by looking at the current (or approximately-current) queue lengths; more often the decision is made by some overall rules based on call origin or a percentage allocation. Inaccuracies in the predictive algorithms mean that a call isn’t always directed to the best location. In some cases, after a call is directed to a particular site, it’s redirected (“post-routed”) to another center. The VoIP-based alternative operates as a single, virtual center with one call routing server. An incoming call is queued wherever it enters the company network, and is held there until the next appropriately-skilled agent is available to answer the call. The routing decision considers all the agents available at all sites at that moment. This changes the system from predictive-based routing to a true “best available agent” routing algorithm. Flexibility and Agility. VoIP can readily accommodate a variety of environments, linking different sites with IP-enabled and IP–centric switches, remote offices, and home agents. This is important as call centers become more strategic to a company’s business. And, with an increase in merger and acquisition activity, new business units can be more effectively integrated with existing facilities. Today, such integration may be difficult, especially if the acquired company has a different supplier’s equipment. In addition, outsourcers and offshore operations can be more completely integrated. One of the challenges in using external or remote resources is being able to manage and monitor their performance. Conceivably, being part of a VoIP-based environment means that a call could be answered in another part of the world while being monitored at the main corporate call center site. This ability, to access a single call in multiple locations simultaneously, brings new application opportunities and management control. Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity. These are prime topics today for many call center executives and technology planners. In many cases, a VoIP-enabled infrastructure enables more rapid recovery and redeployment in case of a network or site outage. If the primary call control and routing site goes down, another hot standby site can take over. Agent phones and other devices can be preconfigured to re-register automatically on an alternative server with only a brief delay. If a network link goes down, calls can be re-routed on alternative data paths, or even voice paths, if necessary. In summary, we find that VoIP provides new application opportunities for contact centers that are often more effective and efficient than their TDM counterparts. By taking advantage of VoIP’s characteristics, important functionality can be implemented cost effectively. And this helps support the business case. Building the Business Case for IP A company’s decision to migrate to IP is usually not made just on the basis of the contact center applications. Costs and opportunities throughout the organization affect the business case. In addition, the events that trigger the decision to move to IP can also influence business case development. Many companies initiate the move to IP when existing equipment becomes fully depreciated or is end-of-life. Since an investment is required in any case, the question is whether to invest more in the existing infrastructure or shift the investment to the next infrastructure generation. On the opportunities side of the ROI equation, multi-site contact center applications discussed above can make significant contributions. Some of the impacts can be relatively easy to quantify. Centralizing equipment reduces the number of switches and servers, lowering capital, operating, and maintenance costs. Implementing routing algorithms that consider all centers as one virtual center can reduce overall staffing requirements. Less tangible, but often strategically important, is the ability for a company planning growth through mergers to be able to more flexibly incorporate acquired centers into their operations. Hard dollar benefits can come from IP’s long-touted ability to reduce network costs. Overseas long distance charge reduction can still be a source of significant savings. But, the potential benefits are shrinking for domestic calls as overall communications costs continue to decline. However, one client recently realized substantial savings by eliminating charges by their network provider for transferring calls from one domestic center to another. Before VoIP, all calls were initially terminated at an internal IVR farm. Based on call requirements and current availability of appropriate agents at different centers, some of the calls were rerouted back through the network to other call centers. The networking cost to transfer the calls was significant. The VoIP deployment eliminated these costs, as the calls were now carried over the IP-enabled corporate data network. The elimination of transfer costs made a substantial contribution to the overall business case. Other benefits are more difficult to quantify but may be just as important: What’s the value of contact center business continuity? How much is it worth to be able to give home-based or remote office agents the same capabilities as those sitting the main center? How do you quantify the value of better control of contact center outsourcers who are part of your extended network? What’s the value of added flexibility to meet new business opportunities? Perhaps the key issue for building the business case is how far the company is willing to look into the future. If contact center management, and the finance staff, is focused on near-term benefits from specific applications, the justification on purely hard-dollar terms may be difficult to achieve. On the other hand, by incorporating a longer-term view, the business case can be easily compelling. IP is clearly the future direction. These investments do more than provide for an immediate application. They support a forward-looking infrastructure that also enables future integration of all communications and business processes. Next Steps For companies that are still “researching alternatives,” it’s time to pull a migration plan together. Frequently, the appropriate time to make a change will be several years down the road. In fact, we often see great benefit in waiting, and letting IP’s growth pains settle down. But, it’s important to understand what the key trigger issues are, and have a plan for how to proceed. We’ve seen too many cases where end-of-life equipment forces a suboptimal transition, without a clearly defined path to an IP future. The other benefit of advanced planning is that it allows time to consider new opportunities and applications. Frequently, companies simply implement the migration path advanced by their supplier. (Same functionality, implemented on an IP platform.) Rather, take advantage of this sea-change to look for new applications, new capabilities, new ways to conduct business that simply weren’t available before. That’s the real power and the real potential for IP. Let IP be a force for transformation of how your company achieves its business goals. About the Author and Vanguard Vanguard Communications Corp.
|
