IP telephony and unified communications strategy
Report into unified communications (including IP telephony) in the Queensland Government
Final
June 2012
v1.0.0
PUBLIC
Document details
| | |
|Security classification |PUBLIC |
|Date of review of security |June 2012 |
|classification | |
|Authority |Queensland Government Chief Information Officer |
|Author |Queensland Government Chief Technology Office (Technology Architecture and Solutions) |
|Documentation status | |
|Efficient government |Adopting a ‘one government’ ICT approach across government departments to improve service delivery |
| |and information access, and reduce the cost of government operations. |
|Effective government |Supporting front-line service delivery through the provision of leadership in whole-of-government |
| |ICT directions, successful ICT governance and early engagement with industry. |
|A strong industry/ government |Developing a mature industry/government relationship where ICT is deployed to help solve |
|partnership |contemporary challenges facing Queensland and to deliver efficiencies to the Queensland taxpayer. |
• Unified communications promises to be a key enabler of all of the four areas above (and in particular the focus area ‘efficient government’). Unified communication is a complex area and calls for a holistic approach to be adopted across government. There is considerable risk that a per-department approach could lead to fragmented outcomes and undermine the ability to deliver improved collaboration and service delivery across government (and to partners and the public).
• Key drivers currently identified for such an approach include:
• to support Toward Q2 through ICT targets around service delivery and collaboration by ensuring cost-effective interoperability between the communications infrastructure deployed by individual departments
• to enable less complex and costly machinery of government changes
• to enable less complex and costly government accommodation changes.
Challenges
• IP telephony and emerging unified communications solutions have the potential to provide significant productivity gains and cost savings to individual government departments, and across the government as a whole. In order to fully realise the benefits of these convergent solutions, the government needs to take an ‘eyes wide open’ approach to ensure that procurement, policy and strategy decisions are made with a view to achieving not only integrated end-to-end solutions for individual departments, but also to allow for the possibility of broader cross-department and whole-of-government collaboration.
• Many of the core ICT building blocks that enterprises rely upon (e.g. network, desktop, collaboration suite, telephony) already have a degree of embedded unified communications capability and are continually being enhanced to provide additional unified communications functionality over time; consequently every product purchase (in these areas), software upgrade, contract renewal and service provider selection (that an organisation makes) is potentially committing the department to a future unified communications solution (or solution component) whether the organisation is aware of it or not.
• There are a number of challenges relating to the (current and emerging) department and industry ICT landscape that need to be considered and managed on the journey towards achieving an integrated ‘one government’ approach to unified communications. These include:
• variations in department ICT environments/requirements
• department unified communication and IP telephony deployments
• rapidly evolving ICT industry landscape
• unified communication vendor interoperability is immature
• program/strategy inter-dependencies.
1 Variations in department ICT environments/requirements
• Details of department current state environments and an analysis of this current state can be found in appendix A. In summary, it can be noted that no two departments have the same ICT environment. Variations occur across many areas including - current technology state, contractual arrangements/expiry, asset lifecycle, sourcing strategies, desired future state, organisational readiness, specialist frontline expectations (e.g. policing, emergency services, disaster management, clinical/health) etc. As a consequence the required unified communications solutions and transition path for each department may be significantly different and will occur over several years.
2 Department IP telephony/unified communications deployments
• Several individual departments have commenced significant transitions from traditional telephony (PBX, Spectrum etc.) to IP telephony services, and some departments have initiated deployments of unified communications solutions. Many other departments are considering such deployments.
• Issues/risks include the following:
• Some department IP telephony deployments are tactical in nature and may not have adequately considered the Queensland Government’s path towards an eventual unified communications state.
• Some department IP telephony/unified communications deployments have been occurring as part of a broader unified communications strategy/roadmap defined by the department, however these strategies/roadmaps may be incomplete since they have been unable to incorporate broader whole-of-government requirements (since they have not been defined prior to development of this report).
• The IP telephony services that are being procured by department (either via the whole-of-government telecommunication panel arrangements or via separate department arrangements) are being delivered on underlying vendor platforms that typically have an associated (albeit evolving) suite of unified communications products and services. Departments that undertake wide scale deployments of IP telephony solutions may be tempted to opt for the unified communications extensions of these platforms by default – such an approach may appear to provide the easiest and most cost-effective transition path for departments, however it could lead to vendor/carrier/product lock-in issues. Furthermore a product-driven, rather than strategy-driven approach may lead to outcomes that do not provide the best fit for department business requirements or for broader whole-of-government requirements.
3 Rapidly evolving unified communications landscape
• The ICT industry unified communications landscape is rapidly evolving and consequently it is difficult to select any particular path with any degree of certainty at the moment. There is a significant risk that departments that commit to a unified communications path in the near-term may subsequently find that it is not the best fit for their (or whole-of-government) business requirements. Key trends/developments that need to be considered include the following:
• impact of significant product releases and acquisitions from leading vendors – (e.g. Microsoft Lync Server release and acquisition of Skype, amongst others)
• opportunities/impacts relating to the rollout of the National Broadband Network (NBN)
• emerging unified communications as a service offerings from leading service providers/carriers
• increasing competition and aggressive pricing plans in mobile phone/soft phone market could lead to diminished requirement for fixed phones for certain worker types.
4 Unified communications vendor interoperability is immature
• Unified communications remains at an early stage of market adoption and product maturity. While many of the vendors now offer a full suite of functionality, the capabilities and degree of integration within vendors’ portfolios varies.
• Standards support (e.g. SIP, XMPP) is critical for success in today’s multi-vendor environments. However this alone is not enough to achieve genuine interoperability between different vendor solutions; third party integration certification is required and even this requires ongoing strategic partnership between vendors. While there are vendor alliances emerging there is currently limited true interoperability between unified communications systems.
5 Program/strategy inter-dependencies
• The Queensland Government’s Toward Q2 through ICT program of work contains a number of initiatives (programs/strategies) that should influence, or be influenced by, the Queensland Government’s direction regarding unified communications (including IP telephony).
• The challenge is that these other initiatives are at various stages of consideration/ implementation and, consequently, the ability to influence their outcomes, or for this strategy to adequately consider potential requirements arising from those strategies, is not ideal in some cases.
The way forward
1 Summary
• The analysis undertaken during the development of this report (see appendix A) has identified that there will not be a ‘one size fits all’ architecture, solution or sourcing approach that satisfies the unified communications (including IP telephony) requirements of all Queensland Government departments in the near-medium term.
• As outlined in section 6, there are a number of challenges in the current and emerging environment that make it difficult to select any particular unified communications path for the Queensland Government with any degree of certainty at the moment. Given this uncertain environment, the focus of the strategy is to lay out an approach that is considered to be measured, responsible and relatively low risk while still enabling the government to steer in a direction which will progressively enable improved communication and collaboration outcomes.
• Key elements of the approach (which maps to focus areas outlined in section 8) are as follows:
• provide ongoing QGEA direction to departments in each of the unified communications component areas regarding expected/recommended architectures, standards, principles and procurement approaches (focus area 1)
• establish and maintain collaborative forums/engagements with departments, industry and related Queensland Government programs/strategies to ensure that:
a. the Queensland Government unified communications approach (including IP telephony) continues to evolve to meet department and whole-of-government requirements (focus area 1, 2, 3)
b. industry service offerings are developed in line with Queensland Government requirements (focus area 3, 4).
• research the business case for whole-of-government Service options to be developed in a range of candidate areas identified though department and industry consultation (focus area 5).
2 Benefits/outcomes
• The anticipated business benefits that will be achieved by the Queensland Government if the above approach is taken to the deployment of unified communications (including IP telephony) solutions include cost savings and a range of productivity/other benefits.
1 Cost savings
• reduced travel costs
• reduced technology/service costs via:
– telephony platform consolidation and reduced support/rental costs
– reduced moves, adds and changes costs (by allowing users to relocate their own phones)
– reduced support costs
• less investment in computer room/cabling infrastructure
• desk phone displacement (possible in future).
2 Productivity/other benefits
• boost in collaboration, productivity and agility within an department
• boost in collaboration, productivity and agility across the government
• boost in collaboration, productivity and agility with customers, partners and suppliers
• improved communications for distributed sites
• improved communications for mobile and remote workforce
• improved customer service
• improved routing of customer enquiries
• improved employee access to information regardless of device or location
• easier systems management and administration
• reducing communication and collaboration silos within critical business processes
• enriching traditional enterprise applications with communications capabilities
• new unified communication-enabled applications to interface with staff, partners and customers
• reducing environmental impact.
• Departments (via the QGEA discussion paper) were asked to rate the relative importance/ applicability of the (non-cost related) business benefits. The table below summarises their feedback:
|Business benefit |Department rating (number of departments |Relative importance |
| |that selected each category) | |
| |Low |Medium |High | |
|Improved communication for distributed sites |0 |3 |5 | |
|Improved communication for mobile and remote |0 |3 |5 | |
|workforce | | | | |
|Reducing communication and collaboration silos|0 |3 |5 | |
|within critical businesses | | | | |
|Boost in collaboration, productivity and |2 |2 |4 |Medium |
|agility across government | | | |(> 50 per cent of departments rate these |
| | | | |business benefits as being moderately |
| | | | |important reasons to progress unified |
| | | | |communications) |
|Improved customer service |1 |3 |4 | |
|Improved routing of customer queries |0 |4 |4 | |
|Improved employees access to information |0 |4 |4 | |
|regardless of device or location | | | | |
|Boost in collaboration, productivity with |2 |4 |2 |Low |
|customers, partners and suppliers. | | | |(> 50 per cent of departments rate these |
| | | | |business benefits as being less important |
| | | | |reasons to progress unified communications)|
|Easier systems management and administration. |2 |5 |1 | |
|New unified communications enabled |2 |5 |1 | |
|applications to interface with staff, partners| | | | |
|and customers. | | | | |
|Reducing environmental impact. |2 |3 |3 | |
• While the information presented in the table above does not capture the view of all departments[4] it is nonetheless useful in providing an initial indication of where department priorities may lie:
• the majority of departments are likely to be focussed on improving collaboration, productivity and agility within their own organisation as their first priority, ahead of extending this to include improvements in communication across government, and to external entities
• there is an increasing requirement across society (not just within Queensland Government) to support a more mobile workforce, this is reflected in the high priority given by departments to improving communication for distributed sites, and to supporting a mobile and remote workforce
• leveraging unified communications to improve communication and collaboration in support of improved productivity of existing business processes is likely to be a higher priority than developing new unified communications enabled applications/opportunities.
Focus areas
1 Focus area 1: progressive transition
1 Outcome
• The unified communications approach adopted by the Queensland Government will enable existing investments to be used and to support gradual (rather than forced) migration.
2 Description
• While individual elements of unified communications can be implemented for specific/tactical business return, it is important that any such tactical implementations be undertaken within the context of achieving an eventual whole-of-government unified communications end state (i.e. integration between departments and whole-of-government unified communications components).
• Queensland Government departments need to be provided with clear and consistent advice regarding how best to prepare for, select, implement and manage IP telephony and unified communications solutions.
• QGEA artefacts (policies, standards and tools) will be developed to:
• assist departments in maturing their understanding (of IP telephony and unified communications) and ensure that they are aware of the opportunities and pitfalls
• provide a common planning framework to help support departments in their business planning discussions and assist them to develop their (IP telephony and unified communications) business case in a manner that considers their specific drivers but is also aligned with broader Queensland Government requirements and outcomes
• ensure that the Queensland Government’s path towards unified communications occurs in a manner which considers the requirements of (and most suitable implementation approach for) individual departments, while also contributing to the broader collaboration and service delivery goals of the Toward Q2 through ICT strategy.
• Appendix A examines the current state environment in the Queensland Government in each of the unified communications component areas and identifies specific recommendations in each area that will be incorporated into the new QGEA standard for Unified communications (including IP telephony).
• QGEA artefacts (i.e. technical standards and tools) will be developed to provide practical advice on unified communications matters, in accordance with the set of principles outlined in appendix B, with a particular focus on the following:
• underpinning infrastructure preparation
• organisational capability/readiness considerations
• guidance on standards, architectures, implementation planning and procurement approaches in each of the unified communications component areas that departments should be looking to adopt and transition to over time
• numbering/addressing considerations for directory services (including any interdependencies between the move from IPv4 to IPv6 and implementing IP telephony and unified communications).
• Due to the rapidly evolving nature of the unified communications landscape, the Queensland Government will need to ensure that QGEA artefacts (policy, standards, tools etc.) remain relevant. An ongoing collaborative forum will be established, with subject matter experts from across the Queensland Government, to gather and share learnings that can collectively inform departments and the whole-of-government on opportunities and best practice with regard to IP telephony and unified communications.
3 Actions
• 1.1 Queensland Government Chief Technology Office (QGCTO) to develop a QGEA standard for unified communications (including IP telephony).
• 1.2 QGCTO to develop QGEA technical standards and tools for unified communications (including IP telephony).
• 1.3 Telecommunications, Broadband and Digital Economy (TBDECO) and QGCTO to establish a cross-department collaborative forum (reference group and online).
2 Focus area 2: alignment with related programs/strategies
1 Outcome
• The approach to unified communications (including IP telephony) adopted by the Queensland Government will align with all related Toward Q2 through ICT initiatives/programs and vice versa.
2 Description
• Related Toward Q2 through ICT initiatives and their inter-relationship to this strategy are outlined below:
|Q2 action |Unified communications (including IP telephony) inter-relationship |
|Improving government service delivery |AG-1 |SSQ has been charged with responsibility for delivering contact |
| | |centre solutions and online service delivery for whole-of-government|
| | |requirements. Unified communications (including IP telephony) |
| | |inter-relationships that need to be considered include: |
| | |how IP telephony and unified communications solutions deployed |
| | |within departments will need to integrate with SSQ solutions over |
| | |time |
| | |how the ICT systems within SSQ may need to evolve over time to |
| | |leverage and support unified communications, and to provide a |
| | |seamless connection between customers, SSQ and department personnel |
| | |and systems |
| | |possible integration (unified communications and other) with public |
| | |social media sites (e.g. Twitter, Facebook). |
|Implement the migration of email services to the|EG-2.8 |Unified communications solutions require tight integration with |
|whole-of-government Identity, Directory and | |directories and email systems which are within the scope of the IDES|
|Email Services (IDES) program, with 80 per cent | |program. |
|of departments migrated. | | |
|Support the ongoing development of the flexible |IG-2.3 |A key capability that must be provided for mobile staff is to enable|
|workplaces initiative in order to contribute to | |them to communicate and collaborate effectively when away from the |
|improved government performance, and reduced | |office. IP telephony and unified communications solutions will be |
|travel and congestion. | |key enablers of this requirement. |
|Develop a business case to standardise the |EG-2.13 |Unified communications capability will require a footprint on client|
|government’s desktop. | |devices and consequently this needs to be considered during the |
| | |development of the desktop strategy. |
• IDES (ref EG-2.8) and SSQ (ref AG-1) have had members on the IP Telephony and Unified Communications Reference Group, and have been consulted throughout the development of this strategy. Ongoing engagement with all of the above areas needs to be maintained. A logical step is to include individuals from each of the above programs/initiatives as members of the collaborative IP telephony and unified communications forum (to be established as per action 1.3 above). Additionally however these programs need to have measurable actions included within their scope, reportable to stakeholders, as to how IP telephony and unified communications requirements will be identified and catered for.
3 Actions
• 2.1 Telecommunications Sub-committee to advise the sponsor sub-committees of each of the above programs/initiatives of the need for IP telephony/unified communications requirements to be considered.
• 2.2 QGCTO to work with representatives of related programs to identify measurable actions that should be included within their various programs of work.
3 Focus area 3: ensure unified communications approach adopted by the Queensland Government is adaptable and flexible
1 Outcome
• The strategic directions of the Queensland Government for unified communications (including IP telephony) continue to evolve and adapt to ensure that the IP telephony and unified communications solutions implemented are the most cost-effective outcomes for the Queensland Government, and take into account industry trends, developments and best practice.
2 Description
• It is important that the strategy is adaptable and flexible to accommodate emerging changes in the market. This is an ongoing consideration for the lifetime of the strategy. However there are several key (potential ‘game-changing’) areas that need specific consideration in the near-medium term before any significant investments in whole-of-government service development can be considered. Key target areas that need to be considered, along with discussion of the proposed approach in each area is outlined in the following table.
•
|Target area |Discussion/proposed approach |
|Unified communications and |Unified communications is increasingly being integrated with collaboration platforms to form unified |
|collaboration |communications and collaboration solutions. Collaboration areas can include such things as team |
| |workspaces, wikis, blogs, social software and other collaboration tools. |
| |Proposed approach: |
| |Undertake proof of concept of Microsoft Lync: A proof of concept needs to be established to enable the |
| |Queensland Government to gain an understanding of the potential benefits/opportunities relating to |
| |unified communications and collaboration. The Microsoft Lync platform is a logical choice for the |
| |Queensland Government to utilise in a proof-of-concept trial. |
| |Reasons include: |
| |Lync has tight unified communications and collaboration integration with the government’s existing ICT |
| |environment (and in particular the existing Microsoft components – desktop operating system, email, |
| |directory, collaboration etc.) |
| |A number of departments are known to be considering proof of concept implementations of Microsoft Lync. |
| |It makes sense to leverage/extend one or more of these department proof of concepts to gather broader |
| |whole-of-government learnings. |
| |Examine potential public/social media unified communications interfaces – examination of these |
| |interfaces falls under the broader umbrella of improving government online service delivery and as such |
| |is something SSQ will need to consider (this will be covered under focus area 2, action 2.2). |
|Impact/ opportunities of NBN |It is unclear at this stage what impact the NBN may have on the type of unified communications service |
| |options that can be delivered to the Queensland Government. In general terms however it is expected that|
| |NBN will progressively remove (or diminish) the bandwidth/latency impediments that might otherwise |
| |restrict the deployment of feature-rich unified communications deployments (especially video) in some |
| |areas. |
| |Opportunities to trial unified communications solutions in NBN-enabled areas (as they emerge), to |
| |develop understandings/learnings which help inform the Government’s strategy and approach, should be |
| |explored. |
|Unified communications as a |Unified communications as a service offerings are being developed by major carriers – Telstra, Optus and|
|service offerings |AAPT. |
| |Close liaison with carriers/service providers is required to understand/ influence the unified |
| |communications as a service options they are currently developing and to incorporate these where |
| |applicable into whole-of-government telecommunications panel arrangements. |
|Fixed phone displacement with|Increasing competition and aggressive pricing plans in the mobile phone market, and increasing trend to |
|mobile/cellular alternatives |mobile devices, could lead to diminished requirement for fixed phones for certain worker types. |
| |The feasibility/business case of displacing current fixed telephony services, for certain worker types, |
| |with mobile/cellular alternatives should be explored further. (Note: this does not necessarily mean |
| |replacement of every fixed desk phone with a mobile phone – a possible scenario could include use of a |
| |fixed desk phone with a cellular adaptor). |
3 Actions
• 3.1 Undertake a proof-of-concept trial of the Microsoft Lync platform to enable the Queensland Government to gain a better understanding of the benefits/opportunities relating to Unified communications and collaboration. QGCTO will identify, in consultation with departments, whether an department proof of concept can be leveraged/extended to cover the necessary unified communications and collaboration requirements, or whether a separate proof of concept needs to be established.
• 3.2 TBDECO and QGCTO, in consultation with departments, to examine opportunities to trial unified communications solutions in NBN-enabled areas as they emerge and develop understandings/learnings which help inform the government’s IP telephony/unified communications approach.
• 3.3 TBDECO/QGCTO to engage with service providers to influence the development of UCaaS service offerings and examine feasibility for inclusion on whole-of-government telecommunications panels.
• 3.4 Departments, in consultation with TBDECO/QGCTO, should examine the feasibility/business case of displacing current fixed telephony services with mobile/cellular alternatives for certain worker types.
4 Focus area 4: improve alignment of industry service offerings with whole-of-government requirements
1 Outcome
• Unified communications (including IP telephony) products and services provided by the ICT Industry will provide more targeted and cost effective solutions for Queensland Government departments.
2 Description
• The Queensland Government has whole-of-government telecommunications panel arrangements in place (with approved service providers) for provision of voice, data and mobile services to Queensland Government departments. These panel arrangements are intended to provide:
• improved government service delivery – all government departments and departments benefiting by increased availability of telecommunications products and services at competitive prices
• improved access, pricing, service availability, and quality, using collective government buying power to obtain value for money benefits in the provision of telecommunications products and services
• an evolutionary path from traditional telecommunications services to converged services, for example in the case of telephony – providing viable IP telephony service alternatives to traditional telephony services (such as Spectrum) .
• Discussion with departments during the development of the strategy identified several concerns regarding IP telephony and mobile service options that need to be addressed:
Fixed phone services
• Managed IP telephony service alternatives available on the panel arrangements are not considered to be ideal alternatives to Spectrum in their current form by some departments.
• Approximately 70 per cent of telephony end points across the Queensland Government are currently being provided via PBX solutions and are not using services from whole-of-government telecommunication panels.
Clearly there is a requirement to develop a more thorough understanding of department business requirements with regard to IP telephony services requirements and to examine how these could/should affect whole-of-government panel service offerings.
Mobile services
• Telstra and Optus have been somewhat slow to provide truly integrated mobile-to-fixed outcomes, particularly relating to unified communications, but are starting to develop solutions in this area.
• The Government needs to work with vendors and service providers to identify the most appropriate approach to cater for mobility in a future unified communications environment. Particular focus needs to be placed on the demarcation in terms of unified communications client integration on mobile devices. One possible approach the Queensland government could take is to deploy and manage unified communications clients on mobile devices. However this may not be the best approach given the diversity of device platforms and support demarcation issues this could cause with service providers/carriers. It may be more cost-effective to work with the carriers/ service providers to ensure that they develop unified communications outcomes for mobile devices that integrate back into department unified communications environments.
3 Actions
• 4.1 TBDECO (in consultation with QGCTO) to incorporate learnings/requirements gathered during the development of this strategy into specification of products and services to be included on the whole-of-government panels.
• 4.1 TBDECO (in consultation with QGCTO) to work with vendors and service providers to identify the most appropriate approach to cater for mobility in a future unified communications environment.
5 Focus area 5: develop whole-of-government unified communications services
1 Outcome
• Whole-of-government unified communication services will be established which are tightly integrated with department and industry unified communications products and services, and which enable Queensland Government departments to communicate and collaborate cost-effectively within their own organisations as well as with other departments, partners and the public.
2 Description
• Whole-of-government service options that are recommended for further investigation and business case development include the following:
|Ref |Whole-of-government service/ function |Description |
|1 |Unified communications hosted service |Whole-of-government hosted/brokered unified communications suite |
| |(IM, video, conferencing, UM, presence) |offering. |
| | |Integration with whole-of-government email and IDES infrastructure. |
| | |Integration with primary telephony platforms of departments that use |
| | |this service. |
| | |Integration with carrier/service provider telephony/unified |
| | |communications services (including mobile). |
| | |Integration with department/whole-of-government collaboration suites. |
|1a |Telephony service option |Extension of unified communications solution offering to include |
| | |telephony add-on. |
|2 |Whole-of-government directory for IPTEL and unified |IDES will provide directory content, authentication and provisioning |
| |communications using IDES IDM |pathways for whole-of-government unified communications solution. |
|3 |Inter-department session management/federation |Gateway devices to provide federation/session management between |
| | |separate department unified communications solution instances and |
| | |components (e.g. telephony). |
|4 |Aggregated unified communications interfaces to |e.g. SIP trunks, PSTN/ISDN connections and gateways to carriers and, |
| |carriers |connections, gateways and security devices such as SBCs and social |
| | |networking gateways to allow the internet to be used for unified |
| | |communications to PIM etc. systems. |
|5 |Consolidation/brokering of service provider |Initial discussions with major service providers indicate that they are |
| |offerings |open to the possibility of evolving services to complement the |
| | |Queensland Government’s consolidation agenda and leverage Queensland |
| | |Government data centres to achieve improved service outcomes/cost |
| | |efficiencies. Example could include: |
| | |service-aggregation/multi-tenanting |
| | |high-availability server designs or backhaul links |
| | |whole-of-government brokering to eliminate the need for small |
| | |departments to meet minimum volume requirements of some services. |
|6 |Service provider interconnect |Network inter-connect, routing and quality of service mapping between |
| | |service providers to allow interfacing between telephony/unified |
| | |communications systems. |
|7 |Whole-of-government conferencing services |Industry feedback/suggestions ranged over full spectrum of options |
| | |including providing/brokering: |
| | |whole-of-government (video) conferencing bridging/transcoding services |
| | |external partner gateway for the Queensland Government |
| | |full Queensland Government videoconference service. |
1 Note
• A whole-of-government unified communication solution (refer to 1 and 1a in table above) would focus on departments that have ‘standard’ unified communications requirements and do not have an in-house capability. The solution could potentially be customised for department specific extensions. However the proposed approach (see appendix A.4) would also allow for departments to run separate unified communications instances where a genuine business requirement existed to do so. Integration/federation of these separate department instances, and possible aggregation of unified communications interfaces to carriers, would still be of benefit to achieving improved collaboration and communications outcomes across government.
3 Actions
• The following actions will be led by the QGCTO, and the result of all research will be made available to all departments. Department input/assistance will be required for each action to ensure that outcomes reflect department requirements.
• 5.1 QGCTO to research options and examine business case for whole-of-government conferencing services.
• 5.2 QGCTO to research options and examine business case for consolidation/brokering of service provider offerings.
• 5.3 QGCTO to research options and examine business case for whole-of-government unified communications hosted service. (Note – dependency on focus area 3 and 4 outcomes).
• 5.4 QGCTO to research options and examine business case for whole-of-government directory for IP telephony and unified communications using IDES IDM. (Note – dependency on focus area 3 and 4 outcomes).
• 5.5 QGCTO to research options and examine business case for inter-department session management/federation service. (Note – dependency on direction 3 and 4 outcomes).
• 5.6 QGCTO to research options and examine business case for aggregated UC interfaces to carriers. (Note – dependency on direction 3 and 4 outcomes).
• 5.7 QGCTO to research options and examine business case for telephony service option for UC service (Note – dependency on direction 3 and 4 outcomes).
Implementation and review
• This report outlines a way forward for unified communications (including IP telephony) within the Queensland Government for the next five years. However, it remains important to review the status and directions of this approach on a regular basis to ensure alignment with government directions, implementation actions and business needs, and to ensure account is taken of evolving ICT technologies. A two year review cycle is envisaged.
• All departments will be impacted by this strategy and the associated actions. Management and implementation of the actions of this strategy will be overseen by the QGCTO.
A. Unified communications options analysis
1 Introduction
. Purpose
This appendix examines the individual unified communication component areas as well as the underpinning/impacted ICT Infrastructure that needs to be considered when deploying IP telephony and unified communications solutions in the Queensland Government. The current state environment in each of these areas is outlined, possible approaches/options considered, and then specific recommendations for each area are presented
This appendix also outlines the preferred integrated department/whole-of-government unified communications approach for the Queensland Government.
Analysis in this appendix underpins and supports the Report into Unified Communications (including IP Telephony) in the Queensland Government, particularly the focus areas that have been identified.
. Perspectives and inputs
• A range of perspectives and inputs were taken into account during the development of the Report, a summary of which is provided in the table below:
|Perspective |Mechanism |Description |
|Department |IPTUC reference |The IPTUC reference group was established to provide department input into consideration of |
|perspective |group |UC direction. The reference group met approximately every two months throughout this period, |
| | |but also communicated between these times on an as required basis (e.g. document review). |
| |QGEA discussion |A QGEA IP telephony and unified communications discussion paper was developed and issued to |
| |paper |IPTUC reference group members (as well as the QGEA Reference Group) to capture feedback and |
| | |input from departments in a range of areas, but with a particular focus on gathering |
| | |information regarding current state and future plans with regards to Unified communications |
| | |(including IP telephony). |
|Industry perspective |Industry engagement |Current and emerging capabilities of the ICT industry needed to be considered as part of the |
| |brief |development of the report. The Queensland Government Chief Technology Office (QGCTO) |
| | |undertook a formal information gathering engagement with a number of leading service |
| | |providers and vendors to gain an Industry perspective. Clearly, the timeframes for developing|
| | |the Report did not permit an open engagement with all potential industry players and |
| | |consequently it was necessary to limit the number of companies consulted to a manageable |
| | |number. The approach taken by QGCTO was to consult with leading proponents in the unified |
| | |communications space (both vendors and service providers) to ensure that the architecture, |
| | |standards and requirements set by the government (in its approach, policy and positions) are |
| | |in line with industry capabilities and trends. |
| |Microsoft - IT |Microsoft was engaged (using the services provision fund) to provide consultancy to the |
| |architecture and |Queensland Government in several key areas – one of which was unified communications. This |
| |planning (ITAP) |consultancy provided the Queensland Government with Microsoft’s perspective on how to achieve|
| |project |unified communications within and between departments, and how to leverage/integrate the |
| | |Government’s existing investment in the Microsoft platform (e.g. active directory |
| | |integration, Outlook/Exchange integration etc.) with unified communications solutions. |
| |Industry analyst |Discussions were held with leading ICT industry analyst, Gartner, regarding current and |
| |research |emerging unified communications best practices and trends. Additionally, a significant amount|
| | |of research materials from Gartner and other analysts (e.g. Forrester) was reviewed during |
| | |the development of the Report, to help guide and inform directions. |
| |General market |General research into unified communications (including IP telephony) service developments |
| |research |(by way of industry seminars, events, web articles/white papers etc.) was undertaken by the |
| | |project team to provide complementary/contrasting views to consider alongside the information|
| | |gathered via the industry/ITAP engagements |
. Related documents
|Document |Purpose |
|QGEA policy for Unified Communications |This document provides updated directions to Queensland Government departments on procurement |
|(including IP Telephony) |and deployment activities relating to IP telephony and unified communications; it replaces the |
| |guideline released in October 2010. |
|QGEA standard for Unified Communications |This document provides updated directions to Queensland Government departments on procurement |
|(including IP Telephony) |and deployment activities relating to IP telephony and unified communications; it replaces the |
| |guideline released in October 2010. |
1. Unified communications – component analysis
. Unified communications components
|Unified communications |Sub component |
|components | |
|Voice and telephony |TDM PBXs and other legacy voice systems |
| |IP PBXs |
| |Fixed or desk phones |
| |Mobile devices |
| |Soft phones |
| |Personal video telephony units |
|Messaging |Electronic mail |
| |Calendaring |
| |Voice mail |
| |Unified messaging |
|Conferencing |Audio conferencing |
| |Telepresence dedicated room-based systems |
| |Room-based video conferencing |
| |Desktop video conferencing |
| |Mobile video conferencing |
| |Web conferencing and desktop/application sharing |
|Presence and instant messaging| |
|Unified clients | |
|Communications applications |Contact centre |
| |Other (integration with broader business applications: SAP, Oracle, social media extensions, etc.) |
. Voice and telephony
. Fixed telephony
Queensland Government departments are at various stages of transition from traditional TDM/Centrex type telephony services to IP telephony services. For the purposes of discussion, the following voice/telephony sub-components can be considered collectively as fixed telephony:
• TDM PBXs and other legacy voice systems
• IP PBXs
• fixed/desk phones.
Existing situation
The table below summarises current state and planned future state of departments in the area of fixed telephony:
|Current state |Numbers of ends |Future plans |
|service/platform type | | |
|Telstra CustomNet Spectrum :|52,500+ ends |Most departments do not have a firm position regarding Spectrum replacement |
| | |as yet. Migration from Spectrum currently tends to be tactical in nature |
| | |(e.g. new building, Spectrum not available at site). |
| | |Only one department is actively planning/progressing migration. |
|Telstra IP telephony (TIPT):|5000+ ends |A couple of departments have indicated that they are considering broader |
| | |deployment of service provider managed IP telephony offerings but others |
| | |have no specific plans and seem to see these services as tactical only at |
| | |this stage. |
|Optus MVS+ : |3000+ ends | |
|Managed PBX/telephony |~140,000 ends |Committed to ongoing use, expansion and evolution of current platforms. |
|servers (various types)* | |IP telephony migration occurring/planned in all cases. |
|Department PBXs/ telephony | |Department in-house management of PBX’s is decreasing – generally being |
|servers* | |replaced by carrier managed IP telephony or iPBX solutions. |
. Approach/recommendations
• There are many possible approaches that departments could take to deliver IP telephony services. Key areas that need to be considered include:
• IP telephony system architecture
• level of convergence that will be adopted
• sourcing preferences.
• Options in each of these areas are listed in the table below:
|Area |Options |
|IP telephony |Per site IP PBX/telephony server(s); OR |
|architecture |Per site dedicated voice media gateway/server (see note 1 below); OR |
| |Per site voice media gateway/server (see note 1 below) function integrated within an existing department managed|
| |device (e.g. module in router); OR |
| |Regional IP-PBX/telephony servers on department network (servicing telephony requirements of sites within that |
| |region) |
| |Centralised IP PBX/telephony servers on department network; OR |
| |Centralised IP PBX/telephony servers on service provider network; OR |
| |Hybrid (combination of above). |
|Level of convergence |No convergence - Duplicated parallel LAN/WAN infrastructure - one IP network for voice, one for data. |
| |LAN only convergence - Local VoIP traffic within each site traverses the site LAN. Department WAN and MAN |
| |services are not used to carry VoIP traffic; All non-local site traffic is carried by dedicated voice lines |
| |(PSTN, ISDN, separate WAN) connected to either a local IP-PBX, or voice gateway/router. |
| |LAN/MAN convergence – Local VoIP traffic within each site traverses the site LAN. Department CBD locations have |
| |high-speed/high-availability MAN services than enable VoIP traffic from these locations to be trunked back to |
| |centralised IP-PBX/telephony servers in data centre. Department WAN services are not used to carry VoiP traffic.|
| |All non-local site traffic at regional/remote locations is carried dedicated voice lines (PSTN, ISDN, separate |
| |WAN) connected to either a local PBX, or voice gateway/router. |
| |Full convergence - VoIP traffic is carried across the departments LAN, MAN and WAN for all intra-department |
| |communications. Connectivity to external parties (public, partners etc) is via a central gateway service (e.g. |
| |ISDN/PSTN lines in centralised IP-PBX/telephony servers). |
|Sourcing |Sourcing options for IP telephony components include: |
| |department owned/managed |
| |facilities managed/hosted service (department owned/provider managed) |
| |managed/outsourced service (provider owned and managed) |
| |Other – e.g. Department manages data network + telephony handsets, service provider manages voice network up to |
| |and including IP-PBX/voice gateway. |
• Based on department and industry feedback, and other market research, it is considered unrealistic for the Queensland government to pursue a ‘one size fits all’ type IP telephony solution in the near future. A mix of different telephony models (from the options outlined in the table above) is the most realistic approach for Queensland Government in the near-medium term.
• Reasons for this include:
1. Differing business requirements of each department (e.g. front line operations, call flow variations, security, call centre, geographic coverage, bandwidth variations etc.).
2. Leveraging existing assets and systems.
3. Current contract commitments.
4. Capability of underpinning infrastructure to carry converged traffic.
5. Organisational capability/readiness to manage a converged network.
6. Organisational capability/readiness to manage IP telephony systems.
7. Differing support and management demarcations (between department and any contracted service provider).
8. Security considerations (with regard to allowing third party management of, and interface to, department infrastructure).
9. Political imperatives/influences (department specific strategies).
A key consideration in the development of this Report was whether wide-scale IP telephony deployments being undertaken (or considered) by departments could unduly constrain subsequent unified communication solution choices and perhaps leads to an undesirable product-driven approach for the Queensland Government. Additionally, it was important to understand whether any of the approaches being undertaken would present roadblocks to future integration and interoperability opportunities.
An assessment of current telephony approaches and vendor platforms being used in Queensland Government departments has identified that there is no basis for an immediate near-term change in direction from that being undertaken by departments. In fact, there are a number of positive trends in department activities worth noting:
1. Trend towards reduced telephony system footprint at remote sites – Departments with widespread PBX implementations are committed to maintaining an on-premise model although all are actively planning migration to IP telephony, and typically also moving to more ‘lightweight’ voice media gateway/servers at the regional/end site level. Other (non-PBX) whole-of-government panel options (Spectrum, TIPT and OMVS+) also have relatively lightweight voice system footprints at remote sites. It is expected that this trend will increase particularly as improvements in network bandwidth, reliability and latency improve over time (possibly via the NBN). The approach of reducing the telephony system footprint at remote sites is a positive in terms of any possible future whole-of-government solutions since any such whole-of-government architecture/approach would be likely to have a lightweight footprint at remote sites so department transition would potentially be easier than might otherwise have been the case.
10. Platform rationalisation is occurring - As departments plan for IP telephony migration they are typically identifying a preferred platform/vendor and actively migrating away from multi-vendor legacy environments. Over the next few years, this will see the number of different PBX vendors/carrier solutions rationalised to a few key platforms. Rationalisation of platforms across government is considered to be a positive trend in terms of minimising the complexity of interoperability and unified communications integration in future.
11. Leading vendor/service provider platforms – All of the telephony platforms/services that departments are migrating towards are being provided by leading vendors/service providers. These platforms/services appear to have strong commitment to industry standards (SIP etc) and are generally well supported in terms of integration with leading Unified Client platforms. It is important to point out however that the UC market is at an early stage of maturity and it may turn out to be the case that over the next couple of years (as standards and vendor partnerships evolve) certain platforms may be better suited to integration as part of a whole-of-government UC solution than others. All that can be noted at this point in time is that there are no significant ‘red flags’ as far as department platform choices are concerned.
12. Department staff management of PBXs is reducing – In-house managed telephony systems are increasingly being replaced by carrier/service provider managed IP telephony or iPBX solutions. In light of this situation (and increasing complexity in UCC space, and general Toward Q2 through ICT philosophy to partner with industry) it is recommended that departments steer away from investing in skills in this area in-house and look to migrate to managed arrangements over time.
• As noted above, departments with widespread PBX implementations are actively planning migration to IP telephony. However, departments using Telstra CustomNet Spectrum services do not for the most part have a firm position regarding the migration of this service to IP telephony.
• The managed IP telephony services on the whole-of-government telecommunications panel arrangements have been designed to provide an approximate IP telephony equivalent (in terms of support responsibility) for Spectrum services and should be the favoured option for departments migrating from Spectrum to an IP telephony alternative. The Queensland Government will continue to work with panellists to evolve existing services (to align with unified communications requirements), and potentially provide new services over time.
• The recommended approach for Queensland Government departments with regard to IP telephony, including specific advice regarding CustomNet Spectrum service usage/migration, is provided in the table below.
|Recommendations |QGCTO should provide advice to departments on recommended standards, architectures and |
| |transition approaches for implementation and integration. |
| |General IP telephony recommendations |
| |Departments should choose the most suitable IP telephony architecture and convergence approach |
| |that match their particular business requirements while also complying with QGEA standards and |
| |architectures (as they evolve). |
| |The QGCTO will continue to work with departments and industry to develop prescriptive advice, |
| |however, general high-level guidance the departments should consider includes the following: |
| |adopt IP telephony approaches that enable existing investments to be used/maintained and to |
| |support gradual rather than forced migration |
| |favour telephony solutions that have a lightweight telephony system footprint at remote sites |
| |(as opposed to full PBX solution at all sites) |
| |use whole-of-government telecommunication panel arrangements in preference to |
| |department-specific approaches where possible |
| |platform rationalisation: departments with multi-vendor legacy environments should examine |
| |opportunities for platform/vendor rationalisation as part of the migration planning to IP |
| |telephony |
| |use platforms/services that have strong commitment to industry standards (SIP, XMPP etc.) and |
| |are well supported/certified in terms of integration with leading unified client platforms |
| |steer away from investing in telephony system (PBX) skills in-house and look to migrate to |
| |managed service arrangements (available on the whole-of-government panel arrangements) over |
| |time. |
| |Recommendations regarding Telstra CustomNet Spectrum service usage |
| |Existing sites: |
| |Telstra had no plans announced (at the time of writing this report) to end sale/support for |
| |CustomNet Spectrum. Based on discussions with Telstra, it is expected that once end-of-sale is |
| |eventually announced, ongoing support for the platform will still be provided for several years |
| |to allow customers to transition to an alternative. |
| |Given the rapidly changing unified communications (including IP telephony) landscape in the ICT |
| |industry there is a possibility that the unified communications (including IP telephony) service|
| |options that an department chooses in a couple of years may well be different to that which it |
| |would choose now. In the absence of any compelling end-of-support drivers, departments should |
| |not feel any urgency to migrate existing Spectrum sites/users to an IP Telephony alternative at |
| |this stage. Nonetheless, departments who believe that they have a genuine business requirement |
| |(through improved savings/functionality or other organisational imperative) to migrate existing |
| |Spectrum sites/users to an IP telephony service alternative in the near-term can do so. |
| |Departments who decide to migrate from Spectrum at an existing site should look to use a managed|
| |IP telephony service available through the whole-of-government panel arrangement. |
| |New sites: |
| |While there is no near-term pressure to migrate existing Spectrum sites to an IP telephony/UC |
| |alternative, Telstra have advised that it will become increasingly difficult for customers to |
| |get Spectrum services at new sites. There are several reasons for this but the primary reason is|
| |the reluctance/inability to deploy large amounts of copper-based telephony services (due to |
| |National Broadband Network (NBN) pressures, building lead-in capacity issues etc.). |
| |Departments should look to use managed IP telephony services from the whole-of-government |
| |telecommunications panel arrangements at new sites. |
| |Departments should continue to consult with QGCTO regarding any planned wide-scale deployments |
| |to ensure proposed solution architectures and platforms align with/inform the Queensland |
| |Government position. |
The option of providing voice interconnectivity between departments or sub departments as a whole-of-government service was generally well supported by departments and industry as an option worth exploring, although the heterogeneous nature of telephony services in the Queensland Government and the packaging of voice services (e.g. ‘free’ included calls to other departments in fixed price services) may impact viability to some extent. The option of interoperability of voice services as part of broader unified communications interoperability is covered further in section A.4.
. Soft phones
. Existing situation
• There is limited deployment of soft phones in the Queensland Government currently.
. Approach/recommendations
• Given that there is a limited installed base to consider here then decisions made in this area should be focussed on product choices that support unified communications outcomes.
|Recommendations |Soft phone functionality is provided by unified client solutions so departments without a specific|
| |requirement for standalone soft phones should consider this functionality as part of their unified|
| |client product selection in future. |
| |Departments that require point solutions for soft phones should ensure that the chosen products |
| |support standards-based integration, and have (or intend to have), vendor interoperability |
| |certification with leading unified client solutions. |
| |Departments should continue to consult with QGCTO regarding any planned wide-scale deployments to |
| |ensure proposed solution architectures and platforms align with/inform the Queensland Government |
| |position. |
. Personal video telephony units
. Existing situation
• There are no significant deployments of personal video telephony units in the Queensland Government currently.
. Approach/recommendations
• Given that there is no significant installed base to consider here then decisions made in this area should be focussed on product choices that support unified communications outcomes.
• Personal video telephony units may not necessarily be the best fit for providing personal video calling functionality to department users in the long term. Many industry analysts believe that this type of technology will be progressively displaced by mobile devices or PCs with integrated unified communications capability. Nonetheless if these solutions meet an department business need and have flexible contract options (that allow simple integration or transition to unified communications solutions) then there may be a case for their use.
|Recommendations |Video calling capability is provided by unified client solutions so departments without a |
| |specific requirement for standalone personal video telephony units should consider this |
| |functionality as part of their unified client product selection in future. |
| |Departments that have a requirement to deploy personal video telephony units should ensure |
| |that the chosen products support standards-based integration, and have (or intend to have) |
| |vendor interoperability certification, with leading unified client solutions. |
| |Departments should continue to consult with QGCTO regarding any planned wide-scale |
| |deployments to ensure proposed solution architectures and platforms align with/inform the |
| |Queensland Government position. |
.
. Mobile phones
• The increasing convergence and evolution of mobile platforms and networks means that it is not really appropriate to consider the future directions of mobile telephony in isolation from the broader issue of mobility. This area is discussed further in section 3.4 of this Report.
. Messaging
. Email/calendaring
. Existing situation
• The table below summarises the current state and planned future state of departments in the area of email/calendaring:
|Current state (service/platform type ) |Departments |Future state/plans |
|Novell Groupwise |QH |QH has a project to migrate to Microsoft Exchange, the exact |
| | |version (2007/2010) is currently under review |
| | |Department migration to whole-of-government Microsoft Exchange |
| | |email service will occur in accordance with timeframes established |
| | |by the IDES program. |
|Lotus Notes |TMR, | |
| |Treasury | |
|MS Outlook/Exchange |All other departments | |
. Approach/recommendations
• In accordance with Queensland Government policy, department email systems (for staff) will be progressively migrated to the whole-of-government email service. This service will be delivered by centralised Microsoft Exchange 2007 servers deployed in a high-availability design across the two government data centres (317 Edward St and Polaris).
• Integration with this centralised whole-of-government email service should be a requirement for any unified communications solution, regardless of whether the solution is implemented and managed by individual departments, a centralised lead department (e.g. CITEC), external service providers or a partnership between these parties.
|Recommendation |The whole-of-government email service should be considered to be a baseline ‘anchor’ point that any IP |
| |telephony and unified communications solution implemented across Queensland Government (for department |
| |staff) should be able to integrated with, and leverage. |
. Voicemail/unified messaging
. Existing situation
• The table below summarises current state and planned future state of departments in the area of email/calendaring:
|Sub-component |Current state (service/platform type) |Future state/plans |
|Voicemail |Voicemail systems are provided as part of a telephony/PBX |No specific plans to migrate away from current |
| |platform. Extent of voicemail use varies within departments|approach were noted by departments. |
| |(from minimal to extensive) | |
|Unified messaging |Nil (except for limited use in TAFEs). |No specific plans noted. |
. Approach/recommendations
|Recommendation |The business case for extending the whole-of-government Email solution to include unified messaging |
| |capability should be explored. Possible approaches to consider include: |
| |extending whole-of-government email service to include Microsoft unified messaging |
| |telephony voicemail systems leverage whole-of-government email and directory service |
| |a hybrid approach of (i) and (ii) may in fact be required to support the differing telephony systems that|
| |exist in department networks. |
| |Departments should maintain existing voicemail systems as part of their current telephony platforms while|
| |this approach continues to satisfy their business requirements. Migration to unified messaging should be |
| |focussed on integration with the whole-of-government email service (subject to business case and |
| |implementation). Departments that believe they have a genuine business requirement to implement a unified|
| |messaging solution prior to establishment of a whole-of-government solution should consult with QGCTO |
| |beforehand. |
. Conferencing
. Existing situation
• The table below summarises current state and planned future state of departments in the area of conferencing:
|Sub-component |Current state (service/platform type) |Future state/plans |
|Audio- conferencing |Typically provided by local PBXs or as |Most departments indicated that they do no have specific plans to |
| |managed services by Carrier. |migrate away from their current approach. Some departments did |
| | |however note that they were planning to evaluate use of Unified |
| | |Client solutions as an alternative to PBX-based audio-conferencing |
| | |and as a complement to IP telephony handset access. |
|Telepresence dedicated |Nil |No indication of any future plans in this area. |
|room based systems | | |
|Room based video- |Tandberg and Polycom are the predominant|Generally appears to be a commitment to continued and expanded use |
|conferencing |platforms in use |of current platforms. |
|Desktop video |Some deployments of Tandberg MOVI, |A couple of departments have plans for increased deployment of an |
|conferencing |Polycom (TIPT) and some Cisco |existing solution type, however most departments did not indicate |
| | |any plans for significant expansion in this area. |
|Mobile Video |Some use of Tandberg MOVI solution |No specific plans noted for significant expanded use in this area. |
|Conferencing | | |
|Web conferencing |Web-Ex |No specific plans to migrate away from the current approach was |
|(including desktop/ |Eluminate Live |noted. |
|application sharing) | |Some departments did however note that they were planning to |
| | |evaluate Unified Clients as both an alternative to WebEx and as a |
| | |complementary capability. |
. Approach/recommendations
. Audio conferencing
• Departments are typically using audio conferencing capabilities provided by local PBXs or as managed services by carrier. There are potentially significant cost savings that can be achieved through use of unified clients for this function.
|Recommendation |Departments should maintain existing audio conferencing approaches while it continues to satisfy their |
| |business requirements. |
| |Opportunities to displace legacy systems/services with unified client solutions should be explored in the|
| |longer term (when business case for deployment of unified communications exists within the department). |
. Web conferencing
|Recommendation |Web conferencing capabilities for the majority of users are likely to be able to be provided by unified |
| |client solutions in the longer term (when a business case for deployment of unified communications exists|
| |within the department). In some cases niche requirements may still need to be serviced by point |
| |solutions. |
| |In the meantime, departments that require web conferencing should favour solutions with the following |
| |attributes: |
| |limited cap-ex required |
| |flexible ’grow as you need‘ contracts with short-term commitments |
| |limited modification to existing department ICT environments required. |
| |(As an example – cloud-based web conferencing services available through whole-of-government telecoms |
| |panel arrangements have the attributes noted above.) |
.
. Video conferencing
Video communications is an expanding area and a key consideration for unified communications deployments.
Gartner note the following:
‘User expectations of interactive video in the enterprise are advancing rapidly. Consumer oriented providers, such as Skype and Google, bring low-cost solutions to the desktop PC.
Cost optimisation initiatives have advanced the replacement of travel with videoconferencing solutions. Executives are exposed to high-definition telepresence capabilities as the prices of video appliances continue to drop. Users with all types of video access technologies expect to be able to participate in video calls, without compromising quality or ease of use.
IT organisations are struggling with the best approaches to creating seamless videoconferencing infrastructures and solution delivery, especially because several of these types of systems use different networks and standards. Video will become increasingly integrated into broad, enterprise wide, unified conferencing and video content management solutions, all of which fit into the enterprise UC architecture.’[5]
Current platform vendors used by the Queensland Government for room based systems (Polycom, Tandberg, Cisco) are all well supported (in terms of standards-based integration) by leading unified communications vendors (albeit that there are some tighter partnerships between some vendors than others). This being the case there is no basis for a near-term change in direction from that currently being undertaken by departments. Consultation with departments and industry suggest that provision or brokering of whole-of-government video-conferencing services is an area that should be further investigated.
|Recommendation |Investigate and develop business case for providing/brokering Whole-of-government conferencing services. |
| |Options to explore include: |
| |whole-of-government conferencing bridging/transcoding services |
| |external partner gateway for Queensland Government |
| |full Queensland Government videoconference service. |
There are small scale deployments of desktop and mobile video-conferencing currently in the Queensland Government; desktop and mobile videoconferencing procurement and deployment decisions could have a significant impact on future unified client solution architecture and consequently it is important that decisions made in this area should be focussed on product choices that support unified communications outcomes.
|Recommendations |Desktop/mobile videoconferencing functionality can be provided by unified client solutions so |
| |departments without a specific requirement for standalone solutions should consider this functionality |
| |as part of their unified client product selection in future. |
| |Departments that require point solutions for desktop/mobile videoconferencing should ensure that the |
| |chosen products support standards based integration, and have (or intend to have), vendor |
| |interoperability certification with leading unified client solutions. |
| |Departments should continue to consult with QGCTO regarding any planned wide-scale deployments to |
| |ensure proposed solution architectures and platforms align with/inform Queensland Government position. |
. Unified clients and instant messaging/presence
. Overview/background
• Unified clients enable access to multiple communication functions from a consistent interface. These may have different forms, including thick desktop clients, thin browser clients, mobile personal digital assistant (PDA) clients, fixed phone clients, as well as specialised clients embedded within business applications.
• The initial deployment of unified clients in organisations is often initially focussed on the instant messaging/presence capability. Instant messaging/presence services play an increasingly central role in the next generation of communications. Presence services, in particular, are expanding to enable aggregation and publication of presence and location information from and to multiple sources.
. Existing situation
• The table below summarises the current state of departments (that responded to the QGEA discussion paper) in the area of unified clients and IM/presence:
|Department |Current state (service/platform type) |
|QH |Microsoft OCS/Lync |
|DoC |Microsoft Lync (instant messaging/presence) |
|DCS |Microsoft OCS/Lync : |
| |Limited deployment of 100 |
|CITEC |Microsoft OCS/Lync : 600+ licenses |
|DEEDI |Microsoft OCS/Lync : trial in ICT area |
|DPW |Microsoft OCS/Lync : proof of concept |
|TMR |IBM Lotus Sametime : limited trial |
|Treasury |IBM Lotus Sametime : across department |
|DERM |Cisco CUPC 7.0 (via OMVS+ Service) |
|Police |Nil |
|DET |Nil |
|SSQ |Nil |
|Communities |Nil |
|JAG |Nil |
Many departments have not yet determined their future state plans in the area of Unified Clients, however several were considering deployments of the Microsoft Lync solution.
. Approach/recommendations
There are currently limited deployments of unified clients and instant messaging/presence across the Queensland Government. This represents an opportunity for whole-of-government service provision, particularly since unified clients and instant messaging/presence are such critical components of an eventual unified communications solution and could provide the basis for achieving a collaborative experience across the Queensland Government. Furthermore the unified client component will over time displace some of the other unified communication components that are currently within departments, and therefore represents a potentially more appropriate and strategic focus area for whole-of-government service provision than looking to build services around some of the other ‘legacy’ component areas. Examples of functions/services that could potentially roll into unified clients over time include:
• fixed telephony (for certain user types) could be replaced by soft phone capability of unified clients;
• conferencing (web/video/audio) capability could replace existing/legacy solutions in these areas
Options and recommendations for exploring unified client and instant messaging/presence solution delivery as part of a broader whole-of-government unified communications solution are discussed further in section A.4.
Many departments may seek to explore options in this area (via proof of concepts, pilots or production deployments) prior to whole-of-government investigations running their course. Examples of motivating factors for departments to consider take-up of unified client services could include:
• the recent inclusion of the base Microsoft Lync licence in the Core Client Access Licence (CAL) available to Queensland Government
• Inclusion of unified client applications with IP telephony services available from the market.
The QGCTO needs to remain informed of any planned department activities with regard to unified client deployments to ensure that they can be taken into account when examining the business case for whole-of-government services. Equally it will be important for departments to take into account whole-of-government activities in this area when considering their options.
|Recommendation |Departments should consult with QGCTO regarding any planned deployments of unified clients (proofs of |
| |concept, pilots or production) to ensure proposed solution architectures and platforms align with/inform |
| |Queensland Government position. |
.
. Communications applications
. Overview/background
Gartner defines communication applications as a - broad group of applications that has directly integrated communication functions. Key application areas include consolidated administration tools, collaboration applications, contact centre applications and notification applications. Eventually, other applications will be communication-enabled. When business applications are integrated with communication applications, Gartner calls these Communication Enabled Business Processes (CEBP)’[6]
CEBP Tools and applications achieve interoperability by ‘offering APIs, service interfaces and development tools to facilitate the integration of business applications with communications. For instance, a purchasing/order-processing application may provide presence and communication information about the sales support team associated with any order. This speeds and facilitates the handling of any questions the order-processing group has. In some cases, applications may offer pre-integrated communication functionality; for instance collaboration and notification applications may be pre-configured to work with well-known communication environments.’[7]
The considerations relating to collaboration and contact centre applications are covered further in section 3.4 of this Report.
The sections below focus on the capability for other line-of-business applications that may not typically include communications capability, to be extended to include this functionality.
. Existing situation
Based on department feedback, it would appear that there are no significant current or planned activities with regards to CEBP within Queensland Government departments.
. Approach/recommendations
Applications in areas such as web e-business, customer relationship management, human resource/finance, service desk ticketing, etc could all potentially benefit from integration (e.g. embedded ‘click to call’) with unified communications solutions to provide improved workflow, increased productivity and improve customer satisfaction.
|Recommendation |Unified communications solutions should enable easy integration with application environments through |
| |open interfaces/APIs and partner relationships. |
2. Underpinning/impacted ICT infrastructure considerations
Migration to unified communications (including IP telephony) involves careful consideration in a range of key areas including:
• underpinning network infrastructure
• directory services
• numbering/addressing plans
• organisational capability/readiness.
. Underpinning network infrastructure
. Existing situation
No two departments have the same ICT environment; variations occur across many areas including - current technology state, contractual arrangements/expiry, asset lifecycle, sourcing strategies, desired future state, skills base etc. As a consequence the transition path for each department (to a converged voice/data solution and unified communications) is likely to be significantly different and may occur over several years.
The range of technology state variations that exist across different departments, and the associated issues that may need to be considered when voice, data (and video) networks are converged, are outlined below:
• WAN equipment: Differing WAN router types and capabilities (with respect to quality of service, prioritisation etc.) and support models (in-house or managed service).
• WAN carriage: Bandwidth, latency, and class-of-service guarantees required for WAN links. Carriage services vary from high latency satellite links at some sites through to high-speed Ethernet links at other sites (and various other variants in between).
• Radio networks: Several departments have radio networks and are considering significant expansion in the next few years. Integration of radio environments into the broader UC environment will become an increasing requirement.
• LAN equipment: Some site LANs use switched Ethernet, some use wireless LAN and some are a combination of both (wired and wireless LAN). Departments need to consider whether power over Ethernet (POE) support and uninterruptable power supply (UPS) backup (of switches) for IP telephony is a mandatory requirement. Departments will also need to consider whether they intend to have separate LAN connections for phones and PCs, or whether they will have a single LAN switch connection to the phone and then onward connect to PCs.
• WAN acceleration: Some departments have (or are planning to deploy) WAN acceleration/ optimisation technologies to improve application performance and assist in server centralisation. The way in which this type of equipment treats and impacts VoIP/unified communications traffic flows will need to be considered.
• Security requirements: Some departments prefer to encrypt network traffic flows and have other security requirements that impact the ability to carry VoIP/unified communications traffic flows.
• Equipment rooms/racks: Many department equipment rooms/racks (particularly in major building floor risers) may have limited space, UPS capacity and/or cooling system capacity beyond what is currently supported. This can impact considerations as to whether PoE switch deployments and UPS backup is cost-prohibitive for IP telephony.
• Cabling: horizontal UTP cabling approaches at department sites varies. Many locations have dual (or more) unshielded twisted pair (UTP) ports per desk while some may only have one port per desk. Some sites may also use Wireless LAN technologies and have very minimal structured cabling. An assessment regarding suitability of current cabling will be required by each department.
. Approach/recommendations
The most cost-effective and feature-rich unified communications experience may depend upon an end-state of complete voice/data convergence and enterprise-wide IP telephony. However departments should not have to migrate completely to this end-state before they can leverage unified communications.
|Recommendation |IP telephony and unified communications solutions that enable existing investments to be |
| |used/maintained (even if there are functional limitations when compared to a fully converged |
| |end-state) and support gradual (rather than forced) migration should be preferred. |
. Directory services
. Existing situation
The following observations can be made about directory services implementations in the Queensland Government:
• a low level of maturity in leveraging active directory for telephony
• no integration of corporate directories with phone system directories
• no automated and integrated provisioning between corporate/HR systems etc. and telephony systems.
. Approach/recommendations
• Integrating unified communications applications with a corporate lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP) directory is a key consideration for unified communications deployments. Reasons for integration include:
• user lookups - to enable user lookups (sometimes called the ‘white pages’ service) from unified communications endpoints (phones, video devices etc) so that users can dial contacts quickly after looking up their numbers in the directory
• user provisioning - to provision users automatically from the corporate directory into the user database for applications – this method avoids having to add, remove, or modify core user information manually each time a change occurs in the corporate directory
• authentication - to enable authentication of end-users and administrators of unified communications applications using their corporate directory credentials.
• Industry feedback showed that there are currently varying levels of support amongst the different vendor products/platforms in achieving full integration in the areas noted above however this will improve over time.
• The whole-of-government identity management services being established via the IDES program can potentially be leveraged as a key building block for unified communications deployments across the Queensland Government.
• This figure below shows the possible interface points and options for leveraging the IDES whole-of-government directory structures within a future IP telephony and unified communications context. (Note - it assumes the department active directory model that is in or will be in place once an department has transitioned to IDES).
[pic]
Figure 2: Various models for deployment of IP telephony and unified communications
Figure 1 above depicts the various models for deployment of IP telephony and unified communications and the way in which the IDES and department directories could be leveraged according to the following models:
• department based
• whole-of-government provided
• external service provider
• or a combination of the above.
The models are represented as zones in the figure above and it is assumed that all components within a zone are integrated or are able to be integrated in respect to functions outlined in the purpose. It should be noted that this is an ‘in principle’ representation which does not necessarily show the solution structures and actual interfaces and standards.
The directory integration shown will facilitate automatic provisioning/change to user information such as phone number, location, SIP address etc for users and subsequent synchronisation of this information between the enterprise system directories (department and IDES) and the telephone/unified communications systems. There is also potential as a result of this integration to help with future dial plan management, consolidation and displacement.
The table below provides a description of each of the components depicted in figure 1 above.
|Components/zone |Description |
|[pic] |All components within this zone are external. This would be applicable to an externally provided IP |
| |telephony and unified communications capability. In addition to those components depicted it would |
| |also include any networks and connectivity. Extra security is required in and between this zone and |
| |the others. |
|[pic] |This area depicts the whole-of-government provided facilities; In addition to those components |
| |depicted it also the whole-of-government metropolitan area network (MAN) as well as |
| |whole-of-government data centres and various connections in and out of the MAN. |
|[pic] |This area depicts the department provided facilities; In addition to those components depicted it |
| |also includes the department WANs and LANs well as department data centres, sites and various |
| |connections in and out of the MAN. |
|[pic] |Active directories at departments and IDES includes child directories where they exist. |
|[pic] |This depicts the IDES identity manager component which gets identities from the Department Active |
| |directories and provides them to the IDES active directory. It does not create identities and |
| |credentials; these are created at the Departments and the IDM makes them available to |
| |whole-of-government applications, in this case the IDES hosted email service |
| |The section ‘IDM broker’ is a module that has been added to IDM to enable identities to be shipped |
| |to other identity stores. This makes identities available to an externally provided |
| |whole-of-government UC and or IP telephony system. The IDM broker supports many industry and |
| |standards based connectors so would interface with the common identity stores or interfaces that the|
| |carriers use for phone and UC directories There would be special security requirements and |
| |constraints on this model. |
|[pic] |This is a combined unified communications and IP telephony or separate capability which can exist as|
| |shown as an department asset, whole-of-government, or carrier based. It provides telephony and |
| |unified communications and would use the department active directory, or the IDES active directory |
| |for a whole-of-government implementation. In the carrier case it would use the identity information |
| |stored on the carriers’ identity store which could potentially be provided by the IDES identity |
| |broker, otherwise it would be defined by the carrier. |
|[pic] [pic] |These connectors show the telephony and unified communications (signalling, and media and messaging)|
| |connectivity between client and server/service. Where a connector crosses an intermediate zone it |
| |may or may not transition within the zone e.g. a managed IP telephony service connection could |
| |transition from an department LAN, WAN, whole-of-government MAN then to managed service provider, or|
| |it could go directly from the department infrastructure to the managed service provider. |
| [pic][pic] |IDM agent that monitors changes on the departments active directory and sends them to the IDES |
| |identity management component where they are used to update the IDES identity store and the IDES |
| |active directory. |
|[pic] |Active directory two way forest trusts which currently allow a user’s department credentials to be |
| |checked by the IDES hosted email system. These Active Directory trusts could potentially be used by |
| |a unified communications and IP telephony system to authenticate against the department active |
| |directories. |
|[pic] |IDES identity data store. |
|[pic] |Telephony and unified communications directory data stores. |
|[pic] |One way provisioning from the IDES whole-of-government directory store. |
|[pic] |Telephony and unified communications clients; these are all in departments and have many modes of |
| |operation from a directory perspective, for example they can operate independent of the integration |
| |outlined above when the integration is at the desktop client. |
|Recommendation |Departments need to be provided with guidance to ensure telephony (numbers) and other relevant unified |
| |communication addressing and information is standardised across the Queensland Government and uses |
| |Active Directory at departments. |
|Recommendation | Further investigate potential for IDES to provide: |
| |directory content for whole-of-government unified communication and IP telephony solutions |
| |telephony and unified communications provisioning pathway for whole-of-government systems |
| |to provide an authentication pathway for whole-of-government IP telephony and unified communication |
| |solution. |
. Numbering/addressing
. Existing situation
The Queensland Government has historically maintained a State Government Telephone Network (SGTN) number range, and associated short dial codes, for CustomNet Spectrum (Telstra) services. Discussions with departments and industry have identified the following issues with the SGTN:
• the current five digit dial plan has reached capacity – i.e. there are almost no short dial codes left for expansion of the existing number ranges
• it is difficult to obtain non-overlapping indial ranges to ensure unique extension numbers for each PBX
• there are a considerable number of translations that do not reflect the last 5 digits of the respective department’s phone number
• new number ranges are difficult to obtain – especially in regional areas where the 5th last digit may be unsuitable for short code dialling (both Customnet and TIPT, short dial codes cannot start with a 0, in the case of TIPT there are also restrictions with short codes that start with 1
• moving to other technologies (Optus MVS, Telstra TIPT, iPBX or cellular mobiles) introduces levels of complexity such that the only common numbers are the full national numbers (FNN), any short dial codes only really work for codes within a particular technology and often only at a particular location
• a number of departments have their own customised internal dial plans – this often creates confusion and incorrect fault reports when short codes don’t appear to work correctly.
Some departments with on-premise PBX solutions have chosen to create their own customised dial plans (e.g. Queensland Health) or are planning to do so.
. Approach/recommendations
There is an end user preference in a number of departments to retain short code dialling. However as outlined above in .0 this is becoming increasingly difficult for SGTN services. Given this issue, many departments have questioned the benefit of persisting with a whole-of-government state-wide numbering plan especially since the need for such a plan becomes less worthwhile as Departments move to click-to-call and unified communications environments over time (since these technologies displace the need for users to have shortened numbers).
Despite the issues with the SGTN, it is considered worthwhile maintaining (to the extent possible) the SGTN number range (and associated short dial codes) for user convenience in the near-term for those departments that use Spectrum services. Departments that implement on-premise PBX solutions can establish abbreviated dial plans if this is a business requirement.
The key whole-of-government focus area will be to establish SIP addressing and naming standards for departments to adhere to as they deploy unified communications solutions deployments.
In summary:
• significant resources would be required to consolidate dial and numbering plans for limited gain long term
• abbreviated dial plans are expected to be displaced by IP telephony and unified communications capabilities over time (e.g. click-to-call, SIP addressing)
• with any deployment model SIP planning and naming standards will need to be centrally coordinated
• local PBXs that still have their own dial plan would continue until displaced by click-to-call and SIP addressing.
|Recommendations |Departments should continue to own, evolve and displace dial plans according to |
| |requirements and capability. |
| |The State Government Telephone Network (SGTN) number range (and associated short dial |
| |codes) should continue to be maintained for user convenience in the near-term for those |
| |departments that use Spectrum services. |
| |SIP addressing/naming and the various mappings required to connect to the outside world |
| |will be coordinated through QGEA policy. Standards will be applied as they become viable |
| |(widely adopted enough). |
. Organisational capability/readiness
In addition to preparing underpinning network infrastructure to support IP telephony and unified communications it is also necessary for departments to consider their organisational capability/readiness to support and use IP telephony and unified communications. These technologies can require significant shifts in traditional support models, and also change the way in which business areas use communication technologies.
. Existing situation
Organisational readiness in departments varies significantly; it is obviously influenced largely by the degree to which an department has started down the path of deploying convergent technologies, and in particular IP telephony. Several departments that have undertaken significant deployments still note however that understanding and adapting to the support challenges and leveraging new business opportunities of these convergent technologies is an ongoing challenge.
Departments that have opted for fully managed IP telephony offerings (as opposed to in-house supported solutions) can reduce the support impact on their organisation to an extent, however these models still typically require internal staff to manage certain components of service delivery and lead to areas of demarcation that need to be carefully managed.
. Approach/recommendations
There are two key areas that require consideration:
• operational support
• business awareness and engagement.
. Operational support
The convergence of voice/data/video networks requires careful consideration of the changes required to the skills and structure of the supporting organisation. Historically many organisations have maintained separate voice/telecoms support areas (often outside of the IT department) and separate data network and server support teams within the IT department. With the emergence of convergent solutions (such as IP telephony and unified communications) it has become typical for telecoms functions to be moved into IT departments. Cross-training of telecoms, server, data network and desktop staff in each others’ technologies is necessary to allow them to collectively deliver converged outcomes such as IP telephony and unified communications.
. Business awareness and engagement
In addition to addressing the organisational change requirements required to support Unified communications (including IP telephony) solutions, it is also necessary to consider strategies/approaches to promote these solutions (e.g. marketing, training, business process improvement/transformation assistance) to ensure business awareness, acceptance and adoption of these new technologies so that the full benefits can be realised.
|Recommendation |Departments need to be provided with guidance on best practice approaches and techniques to |
| |help prepare their organisation (people and structure) in the areas of: |
| |operational support |
| |business awareness and engagement. |
3. Unified communications – an integrated department and whole-of-government approach
. Primary options
The primary high-level IP telephony and unified communications approaches that could be pursued by the Queensland Government, along with the feasibility of each approach are outlined in the table below:
|# |UC approach |Feasibility |
|1 |Single telephony, messaging, conferencing, unified client and IM/presence solution across the |( |
| |Queensland Government which is centrally managed (or brokered) by a lead department (e.g. CITEC). | |
|2 |Common telephony, conferencing, unified client and IM/presence across Queensland Government departments|( |
| |with each instance managed by the individual department (or their nominated service provider). | |
| |Department unified communications components integrated with whole-of-government email service. | |
| |Lead department (e.g. CITEC) to provide (or broker) any required intermediate services to facilitate | |
| |inter-department or external (to public) communication. | |
|3 |Per department chosen telephony and conferencing solution managed by the individual department (or |(( |
| |their nominated service provider). | |
| |Common unified client and instant messaging/presence solution across all departments managed by the | |
| |individual department (or their nominated service provider). | |
| |Department unified communications components integrated with whole-of-government email service. | |
| |Lead department (e.g. CITEC) to provide any required intermediate services to facilitate | |
| |inter-department or external (to public) communication. | |
|4 |Per department chosen telephony, conferencing, unified client and instant messaging/presence solutions |( |
| |managed by the individual department (or their nominated service provider). | |
| |Department unified communications components integrated with whole-of-government email service. | |
| |Lead department (e.g. CITEC) to provide any required intermediate services to facilitate | |
| |inter-department or external (to public) communication. | |
|5 |Per department chosen telephony and conferencing solution managed by the individual department (or |(( |
| |their nominated service provider). | |
| |Centralised whole-of-government unified client and instant messaging/presence solution managed (or | |
| |brokered) by lead department (e.g. CITEC). | |
| |Department unified communications components integrated with whole-of-government email service. | |
| |Lead department (e.g. CITEC) to provide any required intermediate services to facilitate | |
| |inter-department or external (to public) communication. | |
. Notes
• The term ‘common’ indicates where there is the same solution vendor but different instances for each department, as opposed to a scenario where this is a single centrally provided instance.
• Situations where options indicate ‘per department chosen’ component do not indicate that an open uncontrolled approach would be allowed. Departments would be free to choose solutions provided they met base QGEA criteria (architecture, standards, procurement approach etc).
• The ‘feasibility’ indication provided in the table above is based on department and industry feedback, along with other research conducted.
• All options would need to be integrated with department/whole-of-government collaboration suites.
. Discussion of options
. Options 1 and 2
• General feedback (from industry and departments) was that options 1 or 2 would provide the most elegant end-to-end solution for Queensland Government if the government were in a ‘greenfield’ situation. As noted in section A.2 however, the current state variations across department environments along with differing business requirements in unified communications component areas (particularly telephony) make these options unrealistic inside any reasonable timeframe.
• It is worth noting that continued rationalisation of platforms within departments and ongoing service convergence in the ICT industry mean that options 1 and 2 may become more feasible in the longer term.
. Options 3 to 5
Based on industry feedback and research, options 3 through 5 were all considered to be feasible however interoperability for option 4 was generally considered to be a limiting factor in achieving a ‘one government’ vision. Issues relating to type 4 approach include the following:
1. Standards support (e.g. SIP) is not enough to achieving genuine interoperability between different vendor solutions. 3rd party integration certification is required and even this requires ongoing strategic partnership between vendors.
2. While there are vendor alliances emerging there is currently limited true interoperability particularly between unified communications systems.
3. Given 1 and 2 – a fully interoperable, feature rich, ‘one government’ outcome will be difficult to achieve if each department implements separate and different unified communications systems. In the event of this occurring, the most that may be achievable in terms of interoperability is basic voice interconnectivity or possibly partial/fragmented unified communications interoperability with vendor specific gateways.
. Hybrid option (preferred)
As outlined above, Options 3 and 5 are both considered to be feasible by industry; however after further discussions with departments, the best approach for Queensland Government (subject to favourable business case) is considered to be a hybrid of these two approaches, along with an allowance for niche department requirements. This option is outlined further in section A.4.3 below.
. Preferred approach
Common characteristics of the preferred approach (i.e. common to both options 3 and 5, and therefore common to the hybrid approach) include:
• per department chosen telephony and conferencing solution (compliant with base QGEA criteria) managed by the individual department (or their nominated service provider)
• department unified communications components integrated with whole-of-government email service
• unified messaging integrated with whole-of-government email service
• Integration with department/whole-of-government collaboration suites.
Variations with regards to the unified client and instant messaging/presence component delivery would occur for different department types. The table below outlines the unified client/IM presence variants:
|Department type |Department profile |Unified client and |Unified client and |Integration/ |Interoperability |
| | |instant messaging/ |instant messaging/ |federation | |
| | |presence solution |presence solution | | |
| | | |hosting | | |
|B |Departments that have |Vendor X |Whole-of-government |Lead department |B to B: Feature rich |
| |standard unified | |hosted/ brokered |(e.g. CITEC) |B to A : Feature rich |
| |communications | | |Provided/ |B to C : Partial |
| |requirements and do not | | |brokered | |
| |need to establish | | | | |
| |in-house capability | | | | |
|C |Departments with |Vendor Y |Department hosted |Lead department |C to C : Partial |
| |specific niche unified | | |(e.g. CITEC) |C to B : Partial |
| |communications | | |Provided/ |C to A : Partial |
| |requirements that cannot| | |brokered | |
| |be met by preferred | | | | |
| |government solution | | | | |
. Benefits of preferred approach
• The hybrid model provides a balanced approach which will allow departments to continue to be able to deliver their business requirements while still also supporting whole-of-government outcomes.
• Key benefits include:
• the model caters for flexibility between whole-of-government and department oriented deployment with a blend of centralised whole-of-government call control and unified communications services, integrated with IPT and unified communications capabilities that can be localised within departments
• the modular and flexible attributes of the proposed deployment model will allow whole-of-government and/or departments to take an early-adopter leadership role and realise quick-wins while other capability planning and/or deployment occurs over the medium-longer term
• the proposed model supports the reuse of the existing department telephony (and other unified communications component) investments as well as alignment with tactical department unified communications road maps.
. Solution options
Key factors that will need to be considered in identifying the preferred unified client and instant messaging/presence solution components (i.e. Vendor ‘X’ in the table above) for departments and whole-of-government will include the following:
• level of integration/support for the heterogeneous telephony, conferencing and communication environment that will continue to exist in the Queensland Government for the foreseeable future
• level of integration/support with existing ICT environment in the Queensland Government, and in particular ability to integrate with collaboration systems (UCC)
• existing/emerging Installed base in the Queensland Government
• industry analysts views
• ability to meet department business requirements.
• The number of vendors/service providers that would compare favourably in each of the areas above and be able to achieve the optimal level of interoperability for whole-of-government is expected to be quite limited.
Consideration will need to be given to whether it is in the government’s best interest to develop a hosted whole-of-government service or to source/broker some or all parts of this service from service providers.
. Recommendations
|Recommendation |Investigate and develop business case for a whole-of-government unified communications hosted/ brokered |
| |service that includes: |
| |integration with whole-of-government email and directory infrastructure |
| |integration with primary telephony platforms of departments that use this service |
| |integration with carrier/service provider telephony/unified communications services (including mobile) |
| |optional future extension of unified communications solution offering to include telephony add-on |
| |integration with department/whole-of-government collaboration suites. |
B. Unified communications solution principles (detail)
• It is expected that the unified communications architectures/solutions/sourcing approaches adopted across the Queensland Government will adhere (to the extent possible) to the principles listed below. It should be noted that there may be department-specific circumstances or situations where exceptions/deviations from the principles below may be warranted.
1. Support all unified communications component areas
Unified communications solution/s adopted by Queensland Government departments will provide rich functionality and tight integration across each of the following areas:
• voice and telephony
• conferencing
• messaging
• presence and instant messaging
• clients
• communications applications (including contact centre).
2. Support the service delivery needs of Queensland Government departments
Unified communications (including IP telephony) solutions used in the Queensland Government must ensure that department-specific business requirements are addressed as a priority; i.e. support for broader whole-of-government outcomes should not come at the expense of delivering department outcomes.
As an example - policing and emergency services frontline officers and support staff operate in a 24/7 emergency response, mission critical environment. The scope of operations varies from community policing through to counter terrorism. The resilience, security, flexibility and availability of communications in this regard can be significantly different to traditional government office/administration services.
A general philosophy of ‘do no harm’ needs to be applied such that moving from current telecommunications approaches to unified communications (including IP telephony) approaches should not disadvantage or do harm (intentional or unintentional) to departments, and in fact this transition should in fact enable improved business outcomes.
3. Support cross-department, whole-of-government and external collaboration and communication
Unified communications (including IP telephony) solutions implemented within any given department should be able to cost-effectively support cross-department, whole-of-government and external (e.g. partner/ public) collaboration and communication (Note – subject to business need and cost-benefit for the departments as well as for the whole of Government).
4. Maintain a strategic focus
Tactical/interim solutions for unified communications (including IP telephony) may be applicable in some cases for niche or transitionary outcomes, but all decisions should be aligned with strategic direction.
5. Align to organisational readiness
• A prerequisite for implementation of unified communications (including IP telephony) solutions within an department environment should be to ensure that the organisation has the capacity and capability to support these solutions in their target operating environment. Departments should evolve organisational support capabilities and promote business awareness of these solutions to ensure they can be properly used and leveraged.
6. Maximise the State of Queensland’s return on investment in existing telecommunications products/service and support progressive transition to unified communications
No two departments have the same ICT environment; variations occur across many areas including - current technology state, contractual arrangements/expiry, asset lifecycle, sourcing strategies, desired future state, skills base etc. As a consequence the transition path for each department (to converged voice/data solution and unified communications) is likely to be significantly different and may occur over several years.
The most cost-effective and feature-rich unified communications experience may depend upon an end-state of complete voice/data convergence and enterprise-wide IP telephony, however departments should not have to migrate completely to this end-state before they can leverage unified communications.
Unified communications (including IP telephony) solutions that enable existing investments to be used/maintained (even if there are functional limitations when compared to a fully converged end-state) and support gradual (rather than forced) migration should be preferred.
7. Support a flexible and mobile workforce
Telephony, unified communications and mobility solutions need to be tightly integrated to enable staff to communicate, collaborate and access corporate information securely from anywhere, at anytime, via any access mechanism.
8. Support multiple departments in a single location
Some office locations will need to support multiple departments - in many instances these will be locations where all departments are long-term tenants, but in some cases one or more of the departments may only require temporary or ad-hoc accommodation. An example of this second scenario is the multi-department telecentre model being explored via the Queensland Government’s Flexible Workplaces Initiative. The Queensland Government believes that suburban telecentres could allow CBD-based employees to significantly reduce their commuting time by working from an alternative office for one to two days per week, or perhaps even longer periods of time. Telecentre locations could potentially be required to support the telephony and unified communications requirements of employees from every single department at some point over a period of time.
Unified communications (including IP telephony) solutions that require minimal or no dedicated onsite infrastructure would be preferable at a shared tenancy location.
Typically an department will have a much greater number of users that need to be accommodated at dedicated department premises than at shared tenancy sites, and consequently it is unreasonable to think that support for this shared-tenancy scenario would be a major determining factor in an departments choice of best-fit unified communications (including IP telephony) solution for their organisation. It may coincidentally be the case that the IP telephony solution that an department chooses (for their broader organisation) happens to also support the shared tenancy model well (e.g. centralised unified communications (including IP telephony) service), however it may often be the case that an department’s normal telephony model would typically require implementation of dedicated telephony infrastructure along with dedicated data network infrastructure, equipment racks and carriage services. Departments in this scenario should examine whether they can accommodate a more lightweight shared model as a variation to their normal site model.
9. Manage solution diversity
There will not be a ‘one size fits all’ solution that satisfies the unified communications (including IP telephony) requirements of all departments in the near-medium term. Departments must be able to select solutions that meet their particular business requirements, but it is also important that whole-of-government objectives are addressed. The Queensland Government will be seeking to manage solution (and architectural model) diversity such that there are the minimal number of variations necessary to provide flexibility to departments while still allowing broader consolidation and interoperability outcomes to be achieved.
10. Maintain competitive ICT industry
The Queensland Government is committed to maintaining a viable and competitive ICT industry in Queensland. This requirement will need to be considered as part of any product selection and sourcing/procurement decisions.
11. Establish flexible service provider arrangements
The uncertainty of the unified communications landscape requires not only that careful consideration be given to the choice of vendor products, but also to the choice of service providers that may be engaged to provide/manage these unified communications products. In some cases, the adaptability of the underlying unified communications (including IP telephony) products may not be able to be properly leveraged if the service provider contract itself is not flexible.
From a service provider contractual point of view, maximum flexibility can often equate to maximum cost, whereas limited flexibility with long-term lock-in of products and services can often lead to the best price point (due to economies of scale, support, sparing, asset life etc.). The Queensland Government should favour service provider arrangements that effectively balance the need for flexibility on the one hand, with the need to remain cost-effective on the other.
1 Key considerations include:
1. Lock-in periods/term commitments.
2. Penalties for early exit.
3. Any threshold requirements relating to offered pricing.
4. Level of device flexibility allowed - departments may wish to take advantage of the standards-based flexibility of offered product suites and choose alternatives to certain components of the service provider’s base solution, for example, the base solution offered may consist of unified communications components from a single vendor (vendor X); departments may wish to use alternatives for certain components - perhaps they may want to choose IP telephony handsets from vendor Y and/or videoconferencing solutions from vendor Z.
5. Ability to change technologies during contract period - as an example, an department may wish to reduce use of desk phones at a certain site in favour of soft phones at some point during the contract.
6. Billing capability - service bills should be hierarchical and support whole-of-government and per-department billing requirements including ability to drill down to individuals where required, ease-of-use (e.g. web based interface) and support for ad-hoc reporting are also key considerations.
12. Use flexible and leading product suites
Due to the rapidly evolving IP telephony and unified communications landscape, it is difficult for any organisation to be confident that product choices made in the near-term will be able to support future business requirements. This risk can be reduced by taking an evolutionary approach. The following principals should be applied:
• industry leaders: key attributes of preferred solution/s should include:
– products are considered by the vendor/service provider to be strategic in nature and have long-term development and support plans
– product and vendor/service provider is acknowledged by industry analysts as a leader in the field
– demonstrable experience in providing similar solutions to organisations of similar complexity and size.
• standards-based: choose solution/s based on accepted industry-standard best practice approaches, protocols, strategies and open-interfaces (e.g. SIP), vendor proprietary protocols/extensions to be considered only for optional value-add features
• Interoperable: (Industry analyst) Gartner notes that: ‘No single vendor product addresses all an enterprise's UC needs. As a result, planners should not expect their UC requirements to be met by one vendor's Products: UC solutions require vendors' Products to be interoperable’. Vendor/product suites chosen by the Queensland Government should have strong partnerships with other leading collaboration, application and communications companies to enable comprehensive integrated solutions.
• Adaptable and agile: solutions should be quickly adaptable (without forklift upgrade) to changing unified communications industry developments, and able to take advantage of any future protocols, standards or features that provide cost-effective solutions for Queensland Government.
• Componentised: to the extent possible, unified communications products should be componentised such that the use of certain components does not mandate the use of others, for example, an department may wish to use the IP telephony solution of a vendor but may not wish to use that vendor’s inbuilt video and web-conferencing features – these features should be able to be disabled (such that they are removed from the user interface) and replaced by alternatives from the department’s preferred supplier.
13. Integrate with and leverage whole-of-government email service
In accordance with Queensland Government policy, department email systems (for staff) will be progressively migrated to the whole-of-government email service. This service will be delivered by centralised Microsoft Exchange 2007 servers deployed in a high-availability design across the two government data centres (317 Edward St and Polaris). Integration with this centralised whole-of-government email service will be a requirement (subject to business case) for any unified communications solution, regardless of whether the solution is implemented and managed by individual departments, a centralised lead department (e.g. CITEC), external service providers or a partnership between these parties.
14. Integrate with and leverage whole-of-government identity management services
• The whole-of-government identity management services being established via the IDES program should be leveraged as a centralised building block for unified communications deployments (subject to business case and service availability at time of department deployments) across the Queensland Government. Directory integration aims include:
• user lookups - to enable user lookups (sometimes called the ‘white pages’ service) from unified communications endpoints (phones, video devices etc) so that users can dial contacts quickly after looking up their numbers in the directory
• user provisioning - to provision users automatically from the corporate directory into the user database for applications, this method avoids having to add, remove, or modify core user information manually each time a change occurs in the corporate directory
• Authentication - to enable authentication of end-users and administrators of unified communications applications using their corporate directory credentials.
15. Ensure capacity and scalability
The performance and capacity of unified communications (including IP telephony) solutions will need to be able to be increased over time to cater for growth in the number of users.
Consideration will need to be given to potential growth requirements of key solution components during their initial deployment:
• solutions that have the potential for multi-department use should be designed with this growth in mind even if the initial deployment is for a single department only
• solutions may also need to cater for increased growth in the need to interface to external parties/clients over time
• clearly there are cost considerations that come into play here – i.e. it may be more cost–effective to scale a solution over time rather than over-engineer up front
• certain telephony and unified communications components may be sourced from service providers, and may not always be dedicated to Queensland Government use, i.e. certain components may be shared with other organisations or even the public, in these circumstances, the extent to which the solution components can still guarantee government performance and capacity will be a key consideration
• irrespective of which sourcing model is adopted for unified communications (including IP telephony) solutions, it will be expected that growth in performance and capacity can be catered for with minimal service disruption (e.g. avoiding ‘forklift upgrades’).
16. Ensure service availability
Service availability expectations will vary between departments – some departments may look for a consistent service level agreement (SLA) across all sites, while others may look for a higher SLA at some sites ahead of others. Departments will make their own assessments (but be informed by QGEA best practice recommendations) as to the level of investment they will make in their underpinning infrastructure (or sourcing alternatives) in order to achieve service levels that meet their business requirements.
Some departments (e.g. Police and Emergency Services) may have specific requirements relating to service resilience to support operational requirements that may require priority over non urgent/emergency users in certain emergency situations.
CITEC (for its part) will need to ensure that Queensland Government consolidated infrastructure service availability can meet department requirements for any components that are housed at, or transition through, the whole-of-government infrastructure.
One of the key benefits of the Queensland Government consolidated infrastructure is that the dual data centre design will facilitate the deployment of high-availability services that support disaster recovery. As departments transition their services to the Queensland Government data centres over time they should be able to leverage this capability (if desired). Unified communications (including IP telephony) solutions should support high-availability options for any centralised components. Depending on the type of solution, this could include high-availability server/storage environments housed at Queensland Government data centres and/or high-availability network backhaul links to upstream service provider networks/data centres. Consideration would need to be given in particular to disaster capacity provision for telephony services; typically in the event of a disaster demand on telecommunications infrastructure increases as manual processes supported by telecommunications are relied on in lieu of access to ICT systems.
17. Comply with Queensland Government security and privacy standards
• Security/privacy of department networks and their information assets is critical. Key solution requirements will include:
• Unified communications (including IP telephony) solutions used by each department (and whole-of-government) should ensure that privacy of department communications is maintained and also provide high-levels of confidence that security cannot be maliciously breached
• any shared or hosted solutions components should support logical separation capabilities that ensure privacy/security is maintained
• any access by external service providers to department networks, for purpose of support of offered IP products/services, must be secure and should be restricted to management of infrastructure components required to deliver in-scope services.
Security requirements will vary between different departments but areas that will need to be considered to varying degrees include the following:
• (voice and data) VLAN separation
• level of support/access for private/personal devices (e.g. may allow webmail only, restricted access to voicemail etc.)
• protection of personal information
• payload and signalling encryption
• telephony (and other media) intercept capability
• voice/message logging
• registration and authentication capability.
18. Support Green ICT outcomes
The Queensland Government understands the significance of ICT in the reduction of carbon emissions and the transformation of the economy to a low-carbon state. Within government, ICT can help address climate change through two key areas:
1. Reducing the environmental footprint of government ICT operations such as data centres, networks, and the desktop. In developing and implementing green ICT solutions across the sector, the government will favour ICT products, services and solutions that optimise climate change outcomes across their full life cycle. Increasing use of optimised and shared ICT infrastructure is one example where the environmental footprint of ICT can be reduced.
2. Reducing the impact of government services on the environment through the innovative application of ICT. Importantly, ICT should not just be seen as a climate change contributor, but also as part of the solution. The innovative application of ICT can help to transform existing processes, services and workplace models leading to reduced environmental impacts from government operations and services.
There are numerous [type (ii)] green ICT outcomes that can be facilitated through the application of unified communications; Examples include: reduced travel (especially when integrated with video) and reduced pressure on CBD based accommodation (by facilitating mobility and flexible workplace arrangements) amongst others.
The positive green ICT impacts of unified communications mentioned above can potentially be impacted/diluted by increased power consumption in areas such as the following :-
• replacing PBXs with power over Ethernet switches and power over Ethernet IP telephony handsets
• DECT-based wireless with higher powered power over Ethernet based wireless access points and higher power consuming rechargeable voice over wireless local area network handsets
• the substantial server and storage infrastructure to support the infrastructure components required to deliver IP telephony and unified communication.
The Queensland Government should adopt unified communications solutions that can cost-effectively deliver green ICT [type (ii)] outcomes while minimising the environmental footprint of the solution itself.
Version history
|Version |Date |Author |Description |
|0.1.0 |06/05/2011 |David Blundell, Allan Tagg |Consultation draft. |
|0.1.1 |31/05/2011 |David Blundell, Allan Tagg |Updated after IPTUC Reference Group review. |
|0.1.2 |14/06/2011 |David Blundell, Allan Tagg |Updated after IPCO and CTO review. |
|0.1.3 |July 2011 |Policy Governance, ICT Policy and |Update to new QGEA template and format review. |
| | |Coordination Office | |
|0.1.4 |July 2011 |David Blundell, Allan Tagg |Update with feedback from QGEA development phase. |
|0.2.0 |August 2011 |Policy Governance, ICT Policy and |Whole-of-government consultation release. |
| | |Coordination Office | |
|0.2.1 |August 2011 |Policy Governance, ICT Policy and |Updates made by A. Stokes. |
| | |Coordination Office | |
|0.2.2 |November 2011 |David Blundell, IPCO |Updates following whole-of-government consultation feedback. |
|0.2.3 |November 2011 |External Relations Unit, Department |Formatting edits. |
| | |of Public Works | |
|0.2.4 |December 2011 |Policy Governance, ICT Policy and |Forwarded to QGCIO for approval |
| | |Coordination Office | |
|1.0.0 |June 2012 |Queensland Government Chief |Approved 18/6/2012 |
| | |Information Office | |
-----------------------
[1] Source :- Wikipedia (Substantially)
[2] Source:- Gartner RAS Core research : Magic Quadrant for Unified Communications, 2010, Key Issues for Unified Communications, 2011
[3] Source:- Gartner RAS Core research : Deployments in UC Mean it’s Time to Update your IP Telephony Road Map
[4] Eight agencies provided feedback regarding their views on the relative importance of the different business benefits, but a couple of these also indicated that they were very early in their thinking with regard to UC so their perspective on UC benefits may not be mature or fully representative of their agency.
[5] Key Issues for Unified Communications 2011, Mar 2011
[6] Source:- Gartner RAS Core research : Magic Quadrant for Unified Communications, 2010
[7] Source:- Gartner RAS Core research : Critical Capabilities for Unified Communications, 2010
-----------------------
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- microsoft unified communications api
- unified communications managed api 4
- unified communications api 4 0
- unified communications managed api 2 0
- microsoft unified communications managed api
- marketing and communications strategy templates
- microsoft unified communications 4
- cisco unified communications architecture
- unified communications managed api 4 0 runtime
- microsoft unified communications 4 download
- unified communications managed api 6 0 runtime
- unified communications 4 0