When Microsoft released Teams in 2017, it’s unlikely that the company knew it had such a smash hit on its hands. By October 2023, the platform had gained 320 million active monthly users.
That’s no small feat, especially considering the fierce competition from prominent enterprise technology pioneers, including RingCentral, Slack, and Zoom.
Yet, Microsoft won the most COVID contracts and has continued its upward trajectory. Indeed, its CEO even predicted that "Teams will be as big as the internet."
While it may have a long way to go, the contact center presents an exciting growth opportunity for the tech giant.
Microsoft has recognized this, introducing a Queues App for Teams. However, it also offers a contact center integration program for larger organizations, certifying 30 regional and worldwide partners (as of November 2024).
Through this program, Microsoft proposes to ultimately offer three integration models, as shared below.
Enghouse Interactive already offers two of these – Connect and Extend – as a key differentiator and is due to release the third, Power, to coincide with Microsoft’s own GA of this feature in 2025.
However, buyers should note that there's much more to mull over when picking a Microsoft Teams contact center partner than the integration method – as will be noted further in this article.
First, though, is a brief overview of those integration models.
A Microsoft Teams Contact Center: The Three Models
As noted, Microsoft Teams offers three models for integrating a contact center solution. These are:
Model #1 – Connect
As the oldest integration model, Connect directly routes into Teams with a session border controller (SBC), enabling connectivity over SIP only.
The contact center software manages the calls and delivers them to users’ Teams endpoints.
Additionally, the Connect model utilizes the Microsoft Graph API for presence.
The integrations allow the contact center software to assess which back-office users are available and whether agents are already engaged in Teams interactions before attempting to route calls.
Model #2 – Extend
The Extend model integrates with Microsoft Graph and Communication APIs to control calls delivered to live and virtual agents.
Moreover, Extend scraps the need for SBCs and direct routing. Instead, calls may flow via Microsoft calling plans or Operator Connect. And, as the media stream is within Teams, Microsoft ensures quality, encryption, and security.
Both Extend and Connect models give users a deep level of integration, with agents able to handle calls within a UI embedded within Teams.
Model #3 – Power
Power is still in development by Microsoft. As such, no vendor currently offers a certified Power integration.
Nevertheless, the model represents the future direction of contact center integrations with Microsoft’s ecosystem.
The Power approach uses SDKs to embed the Microsoft Phone System experience within a third-party client.
As a result, a contact center can centralize its contact center tech, including voice, recording software, analytics, and more.
5 Considerations for Picking a Microsoft Teams Contact Center Partner
The process for whittling down Teams integration partner options shouldn’t vary significantly from choosing any other contact center vendor.
For instance, contact center decision-makers must still consider peer reviews, the user experience, SLA & uptime, etc. Nevertheless, here are five more criteria worthy of careful consideration.
1. Does My Contact Center Need to Be in the Cloud, Too, Like Teams?
The short answer is no, it does not. And since, according to 2023 Gartner estimates, two-thirds of contact centers remain on-premises, this is just as well.
However, right now, some contact center vendors only offer a cloud contact center integration, which means that, based on the Gartner figures, those providers cannot present viable solutions for most contact centers.
Also, regarding the IT infrastructure, it is not simply a choice of one deployment or the other, or cloud vs. on-prem. Many organizations have invested in applications across both cloud and on-prem. So, for these, a contact center like Enghouse's offering that can support any environment, including a hybrid mix of deployments, works well.
2. How Resilient is the Architecture?
Regardless of the model, not all contact center integrations for Microsoft Teams will be the same, so ask about the architecture.
Raise questions like: Do you use Azure-based virtual machines or a global microservices cloud? How resilient is the setup if a region or data center experiences downtime?
Remember, a reliable vendor should be transparent about their architecture.
3. Can This Partner Ensure I Meet All My Business and Regulatory Requirements?
A contact center should document all its business and regulatory requirements and obtain sign-off from contact center stakeholders.
These regulatory requirements – regarding privacy and security – often vary from country to country, and the vendor should ensure the contact center environment will respect these.
In terms of business requirements, ensure the business has a clear rationale for any third-party solution, especially if native Teams functionality could suffice.
After all, in some cases, simpler native Teams options like call queues or auto attendants may be sufficient, especially for basic PBX replacement scenarios. However, ensure that key contact center stakeholders fully engage in your decisions and understand any differences in the proposed call handling and processing.
4. What’s the Cost Model?
Whether organizations select a per-agent, per-queue, per-minute, or hybrid model, the contact center should carefully consider the cost model a provider puts forward.
Per-minute pricing is becoming more common as it allows for unlimited agents. But it will charge for usage. So, make sure the business understands the financial implications of each model.
Moreover, the contact center should understand the total cost of ownership (TCO) beyond the upfront costs. These can include administration, support, and third-party integration expenses. Be mindful that some vendors use a different pricing model for additional features, especially AI, so organizations may find themselves paying much more than anticipated – or worse, barred from innovation by prohibitive cost.