One of the challenges many organizations face is the Cisco vs Microsoft dilemma as it relates to strategic communications and collaboration decisions. The challenge surfaces because 70%-75% of the market has Cisco networking equipment while 60% to 65% of the market has deployed Microsoft Lync for instant messaging (IM) and presence. In addition, Microsoft owns a huge share of the office productivity suite market (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.).
This means that a sizeable portion of the market has both Cisco switches and Microsoft software. Both companies are now competing for the enterprise voice market, and one of the difficult challenges organizations are facing is which to choose. Most market research has Cisco holding the number one market share in PBXs being sold in North America, followed by Avaya. But Microsoft is now showing up as the number three voice provider in many studies.
Microsoft does not sell a PBX, per se; rather, it sells a product called Lync Enterprise Voice, that allows organizations to augment or replace PBX functionality for some or all users by allowing calls to be made from the Lync software client or a Lync desk phone to the public switched telephone network. Lync does not have all of the features of a PBX, but it clearly has most of the functions that information and knowledge workers use on regular basis. And what it is designed to do works very well.
With the overlap between Cisco switches and Microsoft software in the enterprise, both companies are pushing hard for their voice solutions to be adopted as well. Cisco wants organizations to abandon Microsoft Lync in favor of Cisco's Unified Communication Manager (PBX) with its accompanying Jabber IM/presence/collaboration client and WebEx collaboration capabilities. Likewise, Microsoft wants organizations to end-of-life their Cisco PBX in favor of a unified communications solution based on Microsoft Lync IM/presence, conferencing, and Enterprise Voice.
Making the call can be very difficult. Part of this difficulty arises because the networking people are very passionate about Cisco while the enterprise software people are passionate about Microsoft. Thus, different camps of articulate, educated, well-meaning employees form who become quite entrenched in their opinions of which strategic decision an organization should make with respect to voice and collaboration solutions, and it regularly comes out as a Cisco-versus-Microsoft encounter.
Four Deployment Options
There are basically four different deployment choices an organization can make to resolve the Cisco vs Microsoft dilemma. Two of these are elimination strategies and two are coexistence strategies.
Figure 1. Four deployment choices for resolving the Cisco vs Microsoft dilemma.
1. An organization can choose to go with an all-Cisco voice and collaboration deployment. Cisco PBXs are used, Cisco Jabber is deployed, Cisco phones and video devices are used, and WebEx--whether on-premises or in the cloud--is part of the solution. Interoperability among devices and between users is guaranteed.
2. Some organizations choose to do an "elemental" deployment in which they deploy parts of each solution: Cisco for voice communications and Microsoft for IM/presence. For conferencing, they may choose either Lync or WebEx.
In this solution, there is little or no linkage between the Cisco and Microsoft elements. Even if a Lync client launches a telephone conversation, under the covers the Cisco infrastructure is used.
There is an integration Cisco has made for Lync called CUCILync, which is essentially a plug-in to Microsoft Lync that launches Cisco's own communications stack when a Lync user makes a phone or video call. The user experience is not as seamless as when Cisco PBXs are used with Jabber or when Microsoft Enterprise Voice is used with Lync.
Collaboration in such an "elemental" deployment suffers because it is not seamless when one needs to use multimodal conferencing, such as IM/presence, voice, and Web conferencing.
3. We are aware of some organizations that deploy both solutions in parallel. Those users who want Microsoft can use Lync with Lync Enterprise Voice and those that want Cisco can use the Cisco PBXs and Jabber. These can be connected with a SIP trunk (and possibly a gateway) between them to allow interoperable voice communications, but the collaboration capabilities suffer, as these systems do not federate together to have joint Web conferencing, audio conferencing and IM interoperability.
4. Finally, an organization may choose to go with a full Microsoft Lync deployment in which there is tight integration between the IM/presence capabilities, the conferencing functionality, and voice communications.
Why is Choosing Between Them So Hard?
Why is Choosing between Them So Hard?
Both Microsoft and Cisco solutions have excellent capabilities, and these are enhanced as the full solution stack is deployed. However, they come at the market from very different perspectives.
Cisco approaches the market from the network perspective, suggesting that there should be integration between the network layer and the communications layer. Microsoft approaches the market from the application software perspective, suggesting that there should be tight integration and consistency between desktop software and the communications and collaboration infrastructure. The problem is that both can be right and both have compelling solutions!
Figure 2. Microsoft and Cisco communications and collaboration architectures are very different. Microsoft converges productivity software with communications, while Cisco converges the network with communications. 
Elimination or Coexistence?
When dealing with the Cisco vs. Microsoft dilemma, one way to try to solve the contention is to focus on elimination and/or coexistence strategies. I will suggest an approach that can work you through both of these strategies.
Profile the User Base
Regardless of which strategy is ultimately chosen, it is vital to create communications profiles for your users. Do this independently of either solution. The key idea is to identify the kinds of communications capabilities and devices a particular type of user is going to need. An example of a typical manufacturing organization profile is shown below.
Figure 3. A typical manufacturing company profile showing the classes or types of users and the communications capabilities and devices they will use. (Source: KelCor, Inc. and UniComm Consulting combined project)
Elimination Strategies
Look for Unique Requirements or Situations
If a significant number of users in the organization have unique requirements or functionality that one system can deliver and the other cannot, then it may be straightforward to eliminate the vendor who cannot fulfill those requirements or meet those particular needs. As mentioned earlier, Microsoft Lync is not a PBX, so if there are particular PBX-centric capabilities the organization absolutely requires, then Cisco could be selected over Microsoft.
Consider Your Organization's Expertise
Another potential elimination strategy is to consider how familiar your organization is with running and maintaining Cisco solutions versus Microsoft's. The reason this is important is that studies show that ongoing system maintenance and operations will prove to be about 50% of the total TCO over the life of a Cisco or Microsoft communications deployment.
If your organization is a Cisco shop, then moving in the direction of Cisco may lower the total cost of ownership. Conversely, if your organization is a Microsoft shop and is familiar with running Active Directory, Exchange, and Office applications, then moving in the Microsoft direction may lower TCO in the end.
TCO is only part of the picture, but it is important, and a close look at TCO over a multiyear period may move a director or manager with entrenched opinions toward compromise.
Choosing by Using a Weighted Criteria Process
Some organizations have found success in using a numerical process for evaluating between the vendors. Such a process usually involves creating a list of criteria, weighting these criteria, comparing each vendor as to how well they meet or match each criterion, and computing a score. By summing the scores for each weighted criteria, a number is calculated that provides an indication of which vendor should be selected. (PKE Consulting has a good weighted criteria spreadsheet, which it is willing to provide it to people at no charge.)
TCO is one element of this process, so any work done in modeling TCO will be an input to the weighted criteria methodology.
Likewise, creating vendor profiles is an input toward creating a TCO as it drives the licensing required for the solution, which is one of the major TCO cost factors. Thus, creating profiles and doing TCO modeling are activities that can feed into later stages of a selection process, such as a weighted criteria methodology.
This kind of method can work if all of the stakeholders buy into the methodology in advance and if they have input in developing the criteria and the criteria weights. If any major stakeholders are not included in the process, this method is not likely to yield a successful resolution.
Coexistence Strategies
It is important at the outset when considering Cisco and Microsoft coexistence strategies to know that coexistence will likely be a more expensive option than eliminating one or the other vendor. Management must go into such a strategy convinced that the benefits of such a strategy outweigh the added costs.
Deploy Equally and Maintain Both
Some organizations may find it beneficial for their business to deploy and maintain both Cisco and Microsoft communications solutions. However, they should have good justification for doing so.
If connecting to the public switched telephone network is desired for both Cisco and Microsoft offerings, one way to do this is to let those who wish to use Cisco do so and those that wish to use Microsoft do that. A session border controller (SBC) can be set up at the network edge so that when an inbound call comes in, the SBC can query the Microsoft Lync Server with an Active Directory Lookup to see if the call is for a Lync user. If so, then the call is routed through the Lync Server and to the end user. All other calls would be routed to the Cisco (or other) PBX.
Such a strategy of putting an SBC at the edge can allow both systems to work side by side. It is also a very useful way when migrating users from a PBX solution to Lync.
In such a scenario, a SIP trunk could also be deployed between the Cisco and Microsoft deployments so that users in either deployment could use phones or soft clients between them for voice communications.
The tricky portion of such a deployment is that the collaboration capabilities such as presence and IM, and Web conferencing and video communications, are not going to be seamless across the organization.
"Mostly" Eliminate One Vendor
In this coexistence scenario, it may be that one or the other of the vendors can be "mostly" eliminated. By this, I mean that there may be only a small group of people that absolutely need the capabilities of one of the systems while the other system may meet the needs of the rest of the users.
An example would be a special trunking or group feature the Cisco PBX can offer that Microsoft Lync does not. In this scenario, most everyone would use Lync, while only those with these special requirements use Cisco, or vice versa. This will lower some costs by having the majority of people on a single solution, but costs for the "special" configuration may be quite high on a per user basis.
Run One In-House and One Hosted
If you are able to move the majority of people to either the Cisco or the Microsoft solution, leaving only a few on the alternative system, then it could be economical to run the one with the largest number of users in-house and outsource the one with fewer users to a hosted communications provider.
Over several years, data have shown that costs for an on-premises offering is almost universally lower than are the costs for a cloud-based communications solution (See the research report at http://goo.gl/4ny2qq for a quantitate analysis of on-premises versus cloud-based offerings.). However, in the sub-500 person deployment, cloud-based offerings can be less expensive than on-premises solutions.
Cisco partners offer Cisco HCS as a hosted offering. These partners include AT&T, Verizon, Dimension Data, Sprint, CSC, and numerous others.
Microsoft partners also offer Microsoft Lync as a hosted offering, and some of these can even integrate with Office 365. Among these are CallTower, Arkadin, West IP Communications, BT, and others.
Next Page: Actionable Recommendations
Actionable Recommendations
Deciding between Cisco and Microsoft for an organization's strategic communications and collaboration system is not easy. Here are some actionable recommendations.
1. Intelligent, articulate, and passionate people supporting both vendors' solutions will be involved, and care must be taken to assure that people are not disenfranchised during this process, particularly if one solution is chosen over another. This will require strong, compassionate leadership from the executive team.
2. If passions are at meltdown fervor, figure out some type of coexistence strategy. A few suggestions are outlined above. No one will be completely happy, but no one will come away as a loser either.
3. If rational discussion can be held, consider the elimination strategies. I am aware of companies that have gone entirely Cisco, and I am also aware of organizations that are migrating entirely to Microsoft Lync.
4. No matter what, profile the users so that you can accurately determine what kinds of capabilities they need, but also so that you can identify any particular needs a specific group of people might absolutely rely on. Do not forget that executive admins can wield significant influence in these kinds of functional requirements.
5. No matter what, estimate the total cost of ownership for any solution under consideration, being sure to include ongoing operations and maintenance costs, as these can make or break either solution over time.
6. If a small portion of the user base requires one solution, then consider outsourcing this solution to a hosted provider.
Feedback?
The author would welcome feedback and off-the-record discussion from end user organizations who have made this strategic choice either eliminating Cisco or Microsoft or running them side-by-side. Click on this NoJitter link to contact the author.
