In the end, what is most interesting is whether the vendors are treating mobility as a core capability or simply "window dressing."
Mobility will once again be a major topic at VoiceCon next week with several sessions dealing with both technology and acceptance. The highlight will be a multi-vendor panel comparing nine different mobile UC offerings. Over the years we have covered the mobile UC topic in a number of ways, but this year we're taking a different tack. We're doing a vendor panel modeled on Marty Parker's ever popular "Comparing UC Options and Vendors-Who's Offering What?"To set the stage, I put together a mock RFP using the same basic organization Marty uses for his session (2,000 employees, with a headquarters, two regional offices, 24 branch offices, etc.). The difference is that I beefed up the mobility requirements. The requirements specify both local and wide area mobile users with a mix of BlackBerry and Windows Mobile smartphones.
The key to the challenge is that we didn't dictate the technical solution; we simply described the requirements and left it up to the vendors to decide how to address them. To make the exercise more realistic, we provided prices for the cellular voice and data services and required that the proposals identify the cost of the network services as well as the equipment involved. Clearly the requirement for mixed and local mobility encourages the use of Wi-Fi as an alternative to cellular, but those that "take the bait" will have to explain how they will placate Blackberry users who would have to give up their prized mobile devices in a dual-mode or Wi-Fi only environment.
The exercise was designed to provide the widest possible range of alternatives. Virtually all of the vendors support cellular-only mobile UC solutions and most partner with someone who offers dual mode Wi-Fi cellular and voice over Wi-Fi (VoWi-Fi) as well. However, we identified T-Mobile as the cellular provider at most sites making dual mode Unlicensed Mobile Access (UMA) an alternative dual mode solution. We also identified Sprint as the carrier at the headquarters location, though no one included Sprint's Mobile Integration FMC service as part of their proposal.
The responses came in a few weeks back, and while I won't declare a winner here (or identify which vendors didn't have the confidence in their offerings to even participate), I was amazed by the variety of the proposals. What was abundantly clear was that the strategy of shifting cellular calls to Wi-Fi generated enormous savings. In most cases, the cellular savings were sufficient to pay for new handsets for every local and wide area mobile user. The big question we'll have for them is: if this solution can save money in an environment where cost savings are key, why isn't it selling?
The vendors also demonstrated vastly different pricing philosophies for their mobility offerings. In some cases there was essentially no charge for the mobility feature while in others required servers and additional seat licenses for the mobile capability. In the end, what is most interesting is whether the vendors are treating mobility as a core capability or simply "window dressing."
For those who will be attending the show, the panel will be at 8:00 AM Wednesday, November 4. Be prepared for a session that will finally get the vendors to move beyond "demonstration projects" to something mobile users can actually implement.In the end, what is most interesting is whether the vendors are treating mobility as a core capability or simply "window dressing."
