SmartAdvice: Consider Purchasing Real-Time Collaboration Applications Through An ASP
Do enough initial planning to confirm that the model works with your business strategy and IT environment, The Advisory Council says. Also, eliminate unproductive behaviors to increase IT cost savings.
Editor's Note: Welcome to SmartAdvice, a weekly column by The Advisory Council (TAC), an advisory service firm. The feature answers three questions of core interest to you, ranging from leadership advice to enterprise strategies to how to deal with vendors. Submit questions directly to email@example.com
Question A: What are the trade-offs between outsourced versus internal real-time collaboration services?
Our advice: For many companies the real-time collaboration and E-mail systems have become so crucial for business continuity that high availability and robust fail-over are now requirements. Since supporting an in-house solution--Microsoft or otherwise--can be a costly and complex undertaking, it makes sense to look at outsourcing to gain higher service levels while minimizing in-house support costs. If you're comfortable with the outsourcing model for your mission-critical systems, it can be a very effective and flexible solution.
Unlike internal systems that are deployed and supported by in-house IT staff, real-time collaboration services providers have developed specialized applications available on a monthly or yearly basis. Usually priced based on the number of users, this can be an attractive model for smaller companies that need to use sophisticated and expensive applications such as Web conferencing, CRM, or ERP that they otherwise wouldn't find affordable or supportable. Recently, application service providers have started to offer hosted Microsoft Exchange and sophisticated shared calendaring and meeting systems for companies that are looking for more general-function collaborative services. The advantages of worldwide access to the application from a browser means that collaboration isn't limited to your LAN or employees, either. For many smaller companies, using a hosted solution may be the only way to access sophisticated 24-by-7 fully managed services.
Minimal initial investment
Flexible, more predictable cost structure, and a "pay as you go" solution
Significantly lower IT overhead and administration costs
High availability and worldwide access
No need to dedicate limited and possibly untrained in-house IT resources
Knowledgeable vendors using best practices supporting the application
Less flexible configuration options
Little or no integration with existing in-house systems
Limited availability of specialized industry or custom applications
Reliance on the outsourced vendor for mission-critical system support
Inability to capitalize deployment costs
The hosted services approach means potentially minimizing your business risks while giving you the advantage of business knowledge and industry best practices. It also minimizes your initial expenditures by allowing you to expense costs as your business-needs change. Although many low-cost providers offer limited customization options, as the industry matures, more vendors are offering additional choices--at a price, of course. On the other hand, choosing an in-house deployment means that you can customize the package to meet your specific needs. The trade-offs are higher initial startup expenses and in-house support overhead to consider. Deploying Exchange for even a midsized installation, between the license costs and the need for high-availability hardware, can be a daunting and expensive undertaking for a typically overstretched IT department.
In the past, ASPs got an undeserved poor reputation for terrible service and inflexible software. The fundamental model of purchasing sophisticated real-time collaboration applications through a service provider, instead of building and maintaining them in-house, is sound. However, to ensure success, your company needs to do sufficient initial planning to confirm that the model works with your specific business strategy and IT environment.
2014 Next-Gen WAN SurveyWhile 68% say demand for WAN bandwidth will increase, just 15% are in the process of bringing new services or more capacity online now. For 26%, cost is the problem. Enter vendors from Aryaka to Cisco to Pertino, all looking to use cloud to transform how IT delivers wide-area connectivity.
The UC Infrastructure TrapWorries about subpar networks tanking unified communications programs could be valid: Thirty-one percent of respondents have rolled capabilities out to less than 10% of users vs. 21% delivering UC to 76% or more. Is low uptake a result of strained infrastructures delivering poor performance?