Fords vs. Chevy’s or Coke vs. Pepsi – it is surprising how emotional and sanctimonious we can become over near identical products. It is easy to say a phone is a phone. The vendors pound in their differences, but does it really matter?
The answer is obviously yes, but it may not matter. It boils down to customer requirements. Specific requirements should be matched with the appropriate offer – simple. Unfortunately, that advice is bit like buy low sell high. Strategic UC decisions might have a 5-year lifespan – and the technology is moving far quicker. It is unlikely that the key decision makers are particularly fluent, or current on the UC vendor landscape.
This isn’t a particularly new problem, but it's much worse now than it was before. For starters, IT decision makers are not just focused on voice and communications as their telecom peers used to be. The standard approach of an RFP is largely ineffective as vendors are currently very difficult to compare, and just figuring out what to ask in an RFP requires strong knowledge in what’s possible – a rapidly moving target.
UC vendors, along with car and soft drink makers, all offer a reasonably unique value proposition. Understanding those nuances can make all the difference in the world in aligning vendor solutions/choices with technical goals and objectives.
I’ve recently completed
TalkingPointz Research reports on
Mitel and
NEC (more coming). Although it would be a mistake, one could conclude these vendors are effectively identical. They both support SIP-based IP phones, optionally integrate with Exchange, and offer a broad range of UC features including mobile integration and presence. Both vendor offers compelling solutions for PBX-era base requirements. But they also offer a lot more, and here we see very different approaches to UC.
Mitel, for example, is highly focused on virtualization. The company is working closely with market leader VMware, and the two together have made several significant first announcements. Mitel was among the first to virtualize its call manager, and has taken several architectural steps to ensure its solutions leverage the most benefits from a virtual infrastructure. This includes a dynamic virtual infrastructure rather than identical images and integration with VMware’s management tools.
An organization that is committed to VMware, including operations, disaster recovery, and resource management – will likely find Mitel MCD aligns with that strategy well.
NEC hangs its hat on SOA. Services Oriented Architecture and/or Web Oriented Architecture moves UC from a product paradigm to one of services. NEC designed Sphericall to open its rich communications capabilities to other IT resources. Sphericall enables convergence at the services level, and unlocks a whole new world of extensibility and CEBP. This is why Sphericall relies on Rich Internet Architecture based clients and XML calls on their IP phones, it’s all optimized for service level interaction.
An organization that is committed to a services based IT infrastructure – including CEBP and mashups – will likely find Sphericall fits that strategy well.
Of course, its never that simple – there are typically multiple considerations an organization must consider including mobility, architecture, availability, resiliency, centralization, or perhaps vendor alignment/reduction, or even a stated move toward open source.
The point is these products are very different – as are those from other vendors.
Avaya,
Cisco,
Lync,
ShoreTel all offer widely different value propositions. Most IT organizations have formal and informal IT strategies – picking the right vendor isn’t about the phones or even the cost – but more about strategic alignment. UC is intended to touch all aspects of organizational communications.
For additional information on NEC Sphericall,
check out this two-page summary, or
here for Mitel MCD. The full reports can be purchased at
TalkingPointz.com/research. Coming soon is a report on
Aastra’s MX-ONE likely followed by Microsoft Lync.
While I rarely believe that one vendor has all the right answers, I do often feel that a specific vendor is best aligned with a customer’s specific requirements.