Providing self-service functionality is an important strategy that will help call center managers balance costs and quality of service. Leading companies require their customer service operations to provide increased automation and smooth integration from automated self-service to live-agent-handled tasks. They also need tighter integration between channels, and the ability to respond to the fast-changing application needs of the call center business. These business drivers are, in turn, leading to greater use of speech recognition and a shift to standards-based platforms and Web-based architectures for voice portals. They are also increasing the need for improved tools to enable call center staff to reconfigure applications without the help of technical staff.

Functional differences between vendor platform products will erode, and vendor consolidation will continue. Differentiation will be based more often on integration in two directions. First, voice response is becoming a part of the call center portfolio, with the routing function and voice response increasingly being sourced and integrated by the same vendor. Second, the voice channel will be integrated more frequently with the IT infrastructure and Web self-service, with the same business rules and application determining routing and responses for all channels. Established vendors will continue to dominate the market. However, some less-well-established vendors — such as Envox Worldwide, Holly Connects and Voxeo — will differentiate themselves by focusing on specific market segments, providing them with tailored capabilities and services.

Organizations should review their voice response portfolio. They should look at how they build, deploy and operate these applications in light of changing needs, and consider when a shift to next-generation platforms will offer a compelling business case. As many legacy platforms are approaching their "end of life," companies should review their voice response platforms and tool road maps, and their choice of strategic providers.

The primary driver for enterprise investment in voice response platforms is the strong business case for call center self-service applications. These solutions enable customers to perform tasks via the telephone that would otherwise require a call center agent and, as a result, they can deliver a provable and often sizeable return on investment. Solutions can be applied to customers, employees and others requiring assistance.

Two key technologies that enable solutions to fulfill these business demands are speech recognition and Voice Extensible Markup Language (VoiceXML). Speech recognition provides a better user interface that can support a wider range of applications than touch-tone interfaces that restrict input to digits entered on a phone keypad. VoiceXML, an Internet standard protocol, encourages hardware that is independent of a specific application server. This leads to an "ecosystem" of applications from different developers that can be deployed on a range of different vendor platforms, without having to be completely rewritten. The shift to a voice portal architecture for voice response platforms, which is similar to a Web application architecture, allows companies to create more easily voice and Web channels that use the same underlying business application.

As adoption of these approaches has matured, the complexities and costs of developing and maintaining them have become more apparent. Successful vendors focus strongly on reducing the complexity of application development, improving the management and reporting functions, improving analytics, and providing better integration between channels and between live-agent and self-service tasks. They should also provide support for voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) standards, such as Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Call Control XML (CCXML), and drive standards that will decouple application execution from the development tools. They also have a strong third-party ecosystem of application partners, solution providers and hosted service providers to enable customers to select a blend of deployment models to meet their needs. Leading vendors support multiple media, such as video streaming in addition to voice, and are evolving their platforms toward a service-oriented architecture supporting Web services.

Although there have been some high-profile public campaigns and customer reaction against voice automated systems, the fundamental challenge remains that call managers must balance quality of service with cost of service. Voice self-service solutions can help call center managers achieve an optimum balance, although applications should be chosen carefully and solutions developed with consideration of human factors to ensure a good customer experience. Effective tools and a third-party ecosystem are important contributors to delivering good solutions. An increasing awareness of the potential for unified communications (UC) to extend the call center throughout a company, and to its business partners, is causing leading self-service vendors to put forward a vision for how voice response functionality fits in with UC. Leaders provide clear road maps for how today's new solutions integrate with a UC architecture.

Voice response platforms are systems that provide voice access to information and applications, and they can perform complex call routing based on information provided by the caller. Gartner provides two distinct classifications of voice response platform:

• Interactive voice response (IVR) — An application engine built on a proprietary platform. IVR solutions include an application development environment, a runtime engine and the physical telephony access interface cards within a single platform. The hardware platform may be proprietary. Application programming interfaces are proprietary and there is a limited partner ecosystem providing packaged applications and professional services for the platform.
• Voice portal — A system, based on Internet standards and open hardware platforms, providing telephony-based access. Such systems do not require that the application development or runtime environments be included in the core platform that provides the call access ports. A voice portal architecture is similar to a Web application architecture, and allows the application and the server on which it runs to be independent of the voice-processing function and the hardware that supports it. Leading voice portal solutions support VoIP standards, such as SIP, and have a strong partner program of application providers, development and operations toolkits, and analytics. Voice portals provide a telephony gateway to multiple resources, not just to one application.

To be included in the current Magic Quadrant, vendors must have an established market presence in terms of market share and mind share for voice response solutions, or through offering innovative solutions. At a minimum, the application portion of the solution must be located on customer premises; solutions cannot be solely hosted. Vendors with solutions that require applications and platforms to be outsourced are not included in this evaluation.

Many service providers and network operators offer hosted and managed voice response solutions. In some cases, these are hybrid premises-service offerings built on VoiceXML and IP networks. The barriers to entry are relatively low, and consequently there are many smaller providers targeted at specific regions or markets.

Vendors in the U.S. offering this type of solution include carriers AT&T and Verizon, contact center outsourcers Convergys and West, and voice response service providers Tellme Networks (acquired by Microsoft in 2007), BeVocal (acquired by Nuance in 2007), TuVox and LiveVox. In Europe, vendors include Cable & Wireless and Eckoh in the U.K., Prosedie and Jet Multimedia in France, SNT Multiconnect and DTMS Solutions in Germany, and Ydilo in Spain. In Asia/Pacific, vendors include Telstra and SingTel.

These services are not designed as premises-based enterprise voice portal solutions, so they are not considered for this Magic Quadrant.

Decide on the sourcing approach that best fits your objectives and consider these alternative sourcing options as needed.

Two vendors have been added since our last Magic Quadrant: Holly Connects and Voxeo.

Holly Connects started by addressing the needs of carriers and has evolved its products and go-to-market strategy to address the needs of large enterprises for a carrier-grade, scalable, distributed, software-only platform based on strict adherence to industry standards.

Voxeo is a privately held company offering an IVR platform — Prophecy — built on standard hardware and open standards, with attractive pricing targeting the application developer community with free downloadable software. It addresses the needs of developer-led projects that want a small-scale solution up and running cheaply that can be scaled up as needed. Its go-to-market strategy differs from that of most other IVR vendors.

Neither vendor is constrained by the need to support a legacy installed base or to provide a migration path for that base. Both offer a software-only platform that meets the needs of different stakeholders in an enterprise.

Two vendors that featured in our 2006 Magic Quadrant have been dropped from this update: Microsoft, with its Speech Server product, and Nuance, with its Voice Platform offering.

Microsoft Speech Server appeared in previous versions of the Magic Quadrant for IVR and Enterprise Voice Portals. Microsoft Speech Server is no longer offered as a stand-alone product. Its key features have been incorporated in Office Communications Server (OCS) 2007 and Exchange 12. OCS is a broad UC offering but does not offer the features or the proven robustness necessary for a large enterprise contact center. The Speech Server capabilities packaged as part of Exchange 12 enable Exchange to support auto-attendant functionality. For more information, see "Although It's Promising, Microsoft's Software-Powered VoIP Is Not a Reason to Stop Deploying IP Telephony."

Nuance Voice Platform (NVP) also featured in previous Magic Quadrants. Since ScanSoft and Nuance merged, Nuance's strategy has been to support existing customers of NVP, but not to offer it to others. As such, customers of NVP should be aware that NVP has a limited market and continued investment will probably be very limited. For others, NVP is not an option.

Gartner analysts evaluate voice response platform providers on the quality and efficacy of the processes, systems, methods and procedures offered to support a strategic platform for voice response applications. As the key application area is the contact center, we pay particular attention to how the offering enables contact center performance to be competitive, efficient and effective, and to increase revenue, retention and reputation. Ultimately, an IVR vendor's "Ability to Execute" rating is based on its ability and success in capitalizing on its vision.

Gartner analysts evaluate voice response platform providers on their ability to convincingly articulate logical statements about current and future market direction, innovation, customer needs and competitive forces, as well as on how well they map to the Gartner position. Ultimately, a voice response platform provider's "Completeness of Vision" rating is based on its understanding of how market forces can be exploited to create an opportunity for the provider and for its clients.

Leaders are high-viability vendors with a strong voice response offering, significant market share, broad geographic coverage, a clear vision of how voice self-service needs will evolve and a proven track record of delivering IVR offerings. They are well-positioned with their current product portfolio and are likely to continue to deliver leading products. They have a sound partner ecosystem providing voice response applications, tools and services for their platforms. They typically have a strong contact center offering, with good integration between this and their voice response platform. Leaders do not always offer the best-of-breed solution for every customer requirement. However, overall, their products are strong, with some exceptional capabilities. Additionally, they provide solutions that offer relatively low risk.

Challengers are vendors with strong market capabilities and good solutions for specific markets but, overall, their products lack the breadth and depth of those of Leaders. Their solutions do not offer a clear vision of how customer needs for voice response applications are evolving, and they are not as innovative or advanced as those of Leaders. Challengers may also have limited third-party voice response application partners. Vendors in this quadrant have either a strong installed base of legacy IVR or a strong base of call center customers to exploit for sales of voice portal platforms, and they are typically high-viability vendors.

Visionaries demonstrate a clear understanding of the voice response market and provide key elements of innovation, illustrative of the future of the market. However, they have limited ability to execute due to one or more of the following: inability to influence a large portion of the market; a limited installed base of legacy IVR or limited presence in the call center market; lack of a multiregion sales channel and support capabilities. Also, they do not have the funding to execute with the same commitment as vendors in the Leaders quadrant, and may be higher risk.

The vendors in this quadrant provide a voice response offering that is focused on a segment of the market, may be limited in some functionality or is only generally available in limited regions. Customers that are aligned with the focus of a Niche Player can find the provider's offering strong in other areas, such as responsive customer service, so Niche Players can be a good fit.

• Aspect has a large and long-standing call center customer base, and many of its customers regard Aspect as their default call centre infrastructure vendor.
• Aspect can provide choices of best of breed, stand-alone IVR Aspect Customer Self Service (CSS) and a suite-based approach, Aspect Unified IP (UIP).
• Its services and support organization uses well-established best practices for deployment of IVR and speech solutions, and provides capable self-service application development.
• Consider Aspect UIP for its IVR functionality in midsize deployments. Aspect CSS customers should consider version 7.2 to support VoiceXML applications built with VoiceXML Studio, or third-party tools.

• Aspect's primary investment focus is on its suite solution, UIP. Although CSS and UIP share code, Aspect has a reduced focus on extending CSS as a best-of-breed IVR system.
• IVR revenue has been declining, and this will limit Aspect's ability to continue investing in products and channels as the IVR market matures.
• UIP is weak on scalability and multitenancy features, and limited for large-scale, complex IVR requirements — especially if required to support internally hosted services for multiple departments or business units.
• The quality of project management and professional services engagements can be inconsistent. Check carefully the services staff assigned to projects to ensure they have the required competencies.
• Aspect lacks an enterprise telephony offering, which will limit its opportunities, especially with companies that prefer a single-vendor, end-to-end approach to communications solutions.

• Avaya offers two IVR platforms: Interactive Response (IR), which supports legacy Conversant and VoiceXML applications, and Avaya Voice Portal (AVP), which offers a Web services approach to voice self-service.
• The company is a long-term vendor of contact center solutions. For its many customers, Avaya's IVR solutions offer easier integration.
• Avaya has a good presence in all regions and is stronger in Asia/Pacific and Europe, the Middle East and Africa than other competitors that also have their headquarters in the U.S.
• Dialog Designer (DD), Avaya's Eclipse-based application development tool, will be extended to enable development of communications applications to be extended into live-agent functions. Skills developed in the contact center will be transferable to broader contact center and UC solutions.
• Transferable licensing from IR to AVP lowers the barriers for customers planning to migrate from Avaya's legacy Conversant platform to AVP.
• Consider IR if you have a legacy Avaya IVR infrastructure and wish to port applications onto a platform that supports VoiceXML. Consider AVP if you have migrated to IP and are ready to adopt a Web-based solution for voice self-service.

• Avaya IVR solutions are rarely deployed outside of Avaya-based call centers.
• Avaya solutions pricing is higher than that of some vendors. Although the pricing of AVP is competitive, IR is priced at a premium. In addition, the solution price may include the costs for other necessary upgrades, so it is important to compare like with like.
• Avaya employs a mix of direct and indirect fulfillment for IVR services. Avaya's mainstream telephony services staff may have limited experience of complex call center deployments, and some projects suffer from not having the right blend of skills required.
• Avaya has recently been privatized. Although Avaya has reiterated its strategy for IVR, accelerated business model transformation and reorganization in its legacy business areas may disrupt some plans in the IVR area.

• Cisco's financial strength enables it to fill out its communications portfolio, providing Cisco with long-term viability.
• Cisco Unified Customer Voice Portal (CVP) offers distributed IVR at the edge of the network, which provides benefits for branch office networks and for creating virtual contact centers. Cisco also offers Unified IP IVR packaged with its contact center offerings for smaller deployments.
• Cisco marketing exploits Cisco's strong brand and position in networking and IP telephony to establish its credibility to provide IVR/portal offerings.
• Strong multivendor application development tools from the acquisition of Audium give Cisco access to a customer base of competing IVR platforms, and allow Cisco to articulate its migration path to CVP.
• Consider IP IVR for IVR requirements with Cisco Unified Contact Center solutions, where 128 ports are sufficient for future capacity. For large-scale enterprises and service providers planning to migrate to an all-Cisco communications infrastructure, consider CVP with Unified Intelligent Contact Management (ICM) for a network-based IVR platform in front of multiple different vendor switches, and where IVR treatment on the edge of a Cisco network offers compelling benefits.

• CVP requires Cisco network gateways, and is rarely deployed without ICM, limiting vendor choice and increasing dependency on Cisco, which results in greater cost.
• For virtual call centre routing, the solution also requires Cisco ICM, which adds cost, complexity and dependency on the robustness of this platform and the network interconnects.
• Separate tools and management reporting applications for CVP and ICM increase the complexity of managing these products.
• The skills and competencies to specify IVR and sell it to, and deploy it in, large enterprises are available only through specialized Cisco partners. This may mean the customer has to manage a system integrator in addition to its preferred communications integrator. Customers should look for Authorized Technology Provider (ATP) CVP.
• IP IVR scalability is limited and there is no easy migration path from IP IVR to CVP.

• Envox has well-established relationships with value-added resellers, system integrators and developers offering IVR-based applications.
• Envox has an open-standards-based platform, Envox 7, which it is promoting to its large customer base of legacy CT Application Development Environment (CT ADE), acquired from Intel.
• Envox offerings are price competitive. The company is often flexible on terms and has a capable technical support service that is responsive to product feature requests.
• Envox offers customers a choice of turnkey solutions or the flexibility to build and maintain their IVR/voice portal solutions themselves, which could lower startup costs. If you decide on the latter approach, ensure you have the required technical expertise.

• Envox is a small privately held company with, compared with many competitors, limited resources in all functions. In particular, the quality of project management varies depending on the specific staff that support your account.
• It has a limited sales and marketing organization, with limited resources, that is struggling to establish the Envox brand. Brand visibility is vital among business stakeholders for Envox to be considered for many opportunities.
• Envox lacks a large customer base for contact center call routing and telephony solutions. This will limit its ability to succeed in the contact center market, although it does have a strong customer base of legacy computer-telephony integration products through its channels.

• Genesys consistently leads the way on features and functionality for implementing voice self-service within a multichannel strategy, integrated with live-agent support.
• Genesys Voice Platform (GVP) offers strong support for multitenancy features to support internal hosted service deployments. The acquired VoiceGenie Platform (VGP) customer base and technology gives Genesys additional presence in embedded applications and with service providers. GVP and VGP will be merged into a single product in 2008.
• Its products provide strong support for standards, including SIP and VoiceXML, and for emerging standards, such as CCXML and State Chart XML (SCXML).
• There is a clear focus on software-centric products with an indirect fulfillment model, which has created an extensive portfolio of channel partners, including leading call center integrators that give Genesys preferred vendor status.
• Genesys provides multivendor support for third-party telephony and automatic call distribution with extensive proof points, allowing GVP to be deployed in any call center environment.
• Consider GVP when advanced voice portal functionality with integration between live and self-service, and between channels, is required.

• Genesys solutions are often expensive compared with those of other vendors.
• Indirect fulfillment means Genesys often relies on third parties to deliver the range of required project management and implementation services. Occasionally gaps appear between the various service partners and Genesys, such as when service partners fail to deliver on expectations set by Genesys, which increases the project management burden on customers.
• Genesys does not directly offer a hybrid premises/hosted service offering, which limits its ability to fulfill customer requirements for overflow and bursting without using a managed services partner.
• It's getting harder to differentiate on technology. To maintain its edge, Genesys will have to continue to strengthen its differentiation on other attributes, such as sales and marketing.
• The merging of GVP and VGP could distract development efforts from other initiatives.
• Genesys could be made independent via a spinoff from Alcatel-Lucent, which adds risk for customers that place significant value on its Alcatel-Lucent relationship.

• Holly Voice Platform (HVP) is a carrier-grade, scalable, distributed, software-only platform based on strict adherence to industry standards, such as VoiceXML, SIP, Media Resource Control Protocol (MRCP), Speech Synthesis Markup Language (SSML) and Java Platform, Enterprise Edition (Java EE).
• Strong multitenancy and redundant architecture features support customers offering an internal hosted service with sophisticated reporting, speech-recognition call logging and recording, resource monitoring, and real-time tools for port allocation, service configuration, and service provisioning and decommissioning.
• Holly is a new entrant and is included in our Magic Quadrant for the first time. It is competing aggressively and will price its offering to win new business. Its engineering support organization is responsive to customer needs.
• Consider Holly if you are a large and/or global organization with a requirement to service diverse telephony applications for multiple business units.

• Holly Connects has limited brand awareness and presence outside its home market of Australia, and needs to establish its credibility in the major markets. Holly has investment plans to address this, but it needs to develop these plans further and successfully execute them.
• Holly is a small company with limited resources in North America and Europe — the largest markets — and there is a risk that its resources will be stretched if it grows too much too quickly.
• Its limited customer base means Holly does not enjoy deep customer references in all enterprise customer segments.
• Holly lacks a broader call center and communications infrastructure offering and customer base to which to sell.

• The core strength of IBM's IVR offering, WebSphere Voice Response (WVR), is its integration with WebSphere, allowing IBM to offer a combined Web and voice-processing solution.
• WVR exploits the management and reporting capabilities of the WebSphere portfolio and its proven and reliable operating system, Advanced Interactive Executive (AIX).
• IBM can provide deep technical expertise to solve support issues. And it has a proven ability to provide a high-reliability scalable platform.
• Consider IBM WVR if you are committed to AIX, and your requirements are for a large-scale platform with strong integration with WebSphere.

• Features, reporting and integration are packaged for large-scale applications, such as telecom, rather than for enterprises, for which an IBM WVR solution would probably be overengineered and expensive.
• IBM's go-to-market and product strategy limits its opportunities for WVR, which in turn undermines market confidence in IBM's long-term commitment to it.
• IBM has no telephony or call center product offering, nor an installed base, so all WVR deployments have to be integrated with third-party infrastructure.
• WVR runs only on AIX, and is not supported for other operating systems.

• Interactive Intelligence offers a suite solution, Customer Interaction Center (CIC), which includes IVR functionality. Live-agent and multichannel features are well integrated, and the suite provides a common application development and management and operation system. It also offers a stand-alone IVR solution, CIC IVR.
• The CIC system is relatively easy and intuitive to use with minimal training, and allows companies to create applications quickly.
• CIC can support time division multiplexing and SIP integrations, and can be implemented as an all-software solution using Intel's Host Media Processing Software.
• Consider Interactive Intelligence's CIC IVR for small to midsize applications where plans call for a future migration to a bundled suite platform.

• Interactive Intelligence is limited in size and has low brand awareness among large enterprises.
• CIC IVR application development tools lack features for large-scale developments, and third-party tools and applications are not supported.
• VoiceXML support is a recent enhancement and is not yet well proven and established in Interactive Intelligence channels.

• Intervoice Voice Portal is a competitive and scalable voice portal product, providing a migration path from Intervoice's legacy IVR offerings.
• Intervoice provides an end-to-end services offering including platform deployment, applications design and development, system integration, and speech professional services. Intervoice also provides hosted and managed services options.
• It has a large customer base and a proven record of integration in multivendor environments.
• The company has a strong track record and experience in delivering IVR and speech applications through packaged applications, complemented by service engagements.
• Consider Intervoice Voice Portal for an open, scalable, switch-independent IVR platform, with proven application packages and services expertise.

• Intervoice's reputation as a specialist IVR vendor, with a limited portfolio of broader contact center and UC offerings, limits its reach in opportunities where the customer prefers a single-vendor portfolio.
• Its narrow focus means that, in most deployments, Intervoice has competing vendors in the account and its solutions require integration with these vendors, which can add cost and complexity to integration between live and assisted service.
• Project management and support responsiveness occasionally fail to respond to the impact of service outage on customers' businesses. In addition, there is some evidence of price rises for voice self-service consulting and professional services.
• In the U.S., its biggest market, Intervoice's preferred engagement model is direct, which limits its third-party partner network and restricts choice for customers.

• Nortel offers a range of proven and reliable IVR solutions to address the needs of customers whose requirements vary greatly in size and complexity.
• The company has a large installed base of PBX call center customers to sell to, a large base of IVR customers and a long-term commitment to IVR and self-service solutions.
• Nortel's professional services and system integration team is substantial in size and well proven in delivering IVR-based solutions to enterprise call centers.
• Nortel has a clear vision of how its IVR platform will migrate to a UC environment and become its general-purpose Media Server, which will help investment protection.
• Consider Nortel Media Processing Server (MPS) if you are looking for a scalable and well-proven platform offering strong integration with back-office applications and systems, a proven services capability and a road map toward UC.

• Nortel's third-party partner ecosystem for application development, system integration and tools is weaker than that of other leaders, so offering less choice to customers.
• Nortel's MPS platforms depend on some proprietary components. Overall, these platforms are not as open as some others.
• Nortel's MPS IP software-only platform will not be available until late 2008.
• Although Nortel's legacy platforms enjoyed success in multivendor environments, they are now rarely selected for non-Nortel call center environments. Nortel's strategy is oriented toward retaining customers rather than winning new ones.
• Nortel's platform upgrade proposals tend to carry premium prices — customers should ensure they implement a competitive bid process.
• Some customers report dissatisfaction with Nortel project deployments.

• Syntellect Continuum Self-Service (CSS) is a switch-independent, standards-based IVR platform.
• The company offers proven applications and has a strong professional services team with expertise in integrating IVR and speech applications in enterprise call centers.
• Consider Syntellect CSS if its applications meet your self-service requirements and the benefits of a single vendor for application and platform are compelling.

• Syntellect has low market share in large enterprise IVR and contact center deployments, which will hinder its ability to invest in the platform to compete successfully in this market in the long term.
• It does not have a third-party application ecosystem, which limits choice of application provider and system integrator.
• Its investments are in developing its broader contact center suite offering and in IVR applications, rather than its core IVR platform.
• The company has limited presence outside North America and the U.K.
• CSS lacks multitenancy features that are often required for stand-alone IVR platforms in large enterprise environments.

• Voxeo's Prophecy IVR platform is a pure software platform, downloadable free with two ports from its Web site and optimized to make it easy for developers to start developing applications.
• The company offers a hybrid premises/hosted model — licensing the platform to organizations to build and host their own applications — and also offers a hosted service to support failover and high-volume "bursting."
• Prophecy is Web-centric and adheres strictly to standards such as VoiceXML and SIP. It allows Voxeo solutions to use commodity components and to exploit Web services and Web developer skills for application development.
• Packaging of Voxeo's own basic speech recognition and text-to-speech engines with the platform reduces costs — especially during development.
• Choose Voxeo Prophecy if you need a low-cost, scalable, standards-based platform and you have strong application developer and system integration skills in-house.

• Voxeo is a small, privately owned, innovative company. If it proves to be successful, it could be acquired. This would be likely to cause some disruption to the product road map and business model.
• Voxeo is relatively new to premises solutions and will need to adapt its primarily hosted services business model.
• Limited reporting and tools functionality means that customers will probably require third-party tools and reporting packages to be licensed.
• Voxeo's brand has limited visibility among business decision makers. Choosing Voxeo is a developer-led decision.
• Voxeo has focused on the U.S. Its international operations are only just establishing a platform in the U.K. from which to address Europe, the Middle East and Africa.