Commentary

Eric Krapf
Editor  

How Big Will Avaya Go?

Could Nortel just be an appetizer for Avaya?

This week's big UC news, of course, is the announcement that Avaya is bidding $475 million to acquire Nortel Enterprise Solutions out of bankruptcy. You can follow all the latest news on No Jitter; but there's another couple of No Jitter posts, not directly related to Nortel, that I want to call your attention to. These have to do with purported interest on the part of Silver Lake partners, the private equity firm that owns Avaya, in potentially acquiring Tandberg, the video solutions company (Sulkin here; me here).Another sign that Nortel could just be an appetizer for Avaya: They've hired a key M&A expert away from IBM. The publication reporting this story quotes Mohamad Ali, Avaya's new M&A honcho, as saying the move is "an opportunity to participate in and shape a whole new era of intelligent communications for healthcare, financial services, government and other industries... This represents a unique opportunity to potentially participate in one of the largest IPOs in the coming years."

To me, that comment also suggests that Silver Lake and its co-owner of Avaya, TPG, believe they can't earn back their $8 billion initial investment in Avaya just by taking the company public at more or less the scale they bought it in 2007--not surprising, given that the market ain't what it was back then. (For more on this element, see Allan Sulkin's blog post from today.) They need to try to build Avaya into a much more substantial, broad-reaching communications powerhouse.


More Telecom Insights

White Papers

More >>

Reports

More >>

Webcasts

More >>

One open question is what Avaya should do about Nortel's data networking portfolio. If they're going head-to-head with Cisco, that would suggest they should keep it and try to make these products a serious contender. But maybe the smarter move would be to sell off this business unit to help recoup some of the Nortel purchase price, and emphasize Avaya's strategic partnership with HP, whose ProCurve line of products has gained traction as a lower-cost alternative to Cisco. This would also be one fewer organizational issue to deal with in the merger; unless the new, expanded Avaya is really going to put significant weight behind the Nortel data line, that product family could find itself neglected and further fading away.

Besides, is the data element so critical? Neither Microsoft nor IBM are coming to the Unified Communications market with data gear. Avaya's gone the data route in the past with the Cajun switch products, and might be wiser to avoid treading that path again.

And what about Cisco? Does the Avaya-Nortel deal change what Cisco should be doing? I don't think it will. To get where it is today in enterprise communications, Cisco's strategy consisted primarily of leveraging its existing position in enterprise IT, and there's no evidence that this strategy is flagging. In fact, Cisco is gaining market share in contact centers, where they had not been as strong--suggesting that the "can't get fired for buying Cisco" mentality is not only alive and well, but spreading. And Microsoft? Well, their joint venture with Nortel, the Innovative Communications Alliance (ICA) probably isn't long for this world now.

More relevant, however, is what happens to Nortel's customer base in the wake of the Avaya purchase. If Avaya locks down the channel and comes up with a coherent production integration and migration strategy for the Nortel base, Microsoft has much less chance to poach these customers when Release 3 of OCS comes out next year. If, on the other hand, Avaya stumbles, allowing confusion to reign among customers and distributors, Microsoft could have an opening.Could Nortel just be an appetizer for Avaya?


Related Reading




Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

Single tags

These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag.

<br> Defines a single line break

<hr> Defines a horizontal line

Matching tags

These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i>

<a> Defines an anchor

<b> Defines bold text

<big> Defines big text

<blockquote> Defines a long quotation

<caption> Defines a table caption

<cite> Defines a citation

<code> Defines computer code text

<em> Defines emphasized text

<fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

<h1> This is heading 1

<h2> This is heading 2

<h3> This is heading 3

<h4> This is heading 4

<h5> This is heading 5

<h6> This is heading 6

<i> Defines italic text

<p> Defines a paragraph

<pre> Defines preformatted text

<q> Defines a short quotation

<samp> Defines sample computer code text

<small> Defines small text

<span> Defines a section in a document

<s> Defines strikethrough text

<strike> Defines strikethrough text

<strong> Defines strong text

<sub> Defines subscripted text

<sup> Defines superscripted text

<u> Defines underlined text

InformationWeek encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, InformationWeek moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. InformationWeek further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.
T-Shirt Giveaway T-Shirt Giveaway: Each week we're selecting one great comment from our readers. The author of the comment will receive an InformaitonWeek Community t-shirt. So get posting!
Subscribe to RSS

Resource Links