Nemertes Pilot House Awards UC 2011 12
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Nemertes Pilot House Awards UC 2011 12

on

  • 684 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
684
Views on SlideShare
684
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Nemertes Pilot House Awards UC 2011 12 Nemertes Pilot House Awards UC 2011 12 Document Transcript

    •   11     Q3      Nemertes  Research  PilotHouse  Awards  Unified  Communications  The  Nemertes  Research  annual  PilotHouse  Awards  provide  insight  on  the  performance  of  technology  vendors,  according  to  feedback  from  IT  decision-­‐makers  who  use  their  products  or  services.             N e m e r t e s   R e s e a r c h               w w w . n e m e r t e s . c o m             + 1   8 8 8 . 2 4 1 . 2 6 8 5  
    •      T ABLE  OF   C ONTENTS  Unified  Communications  .......................................................................................................  3   Award  Definition  ...............................................................................................................................  3   Overview  ..............................................................................................................................................  3   Market  Classification  .......................................................................................................................  3   Ratings  ..................................................................................................................................................  4   Ratings  Categories  ............................................................................................................................  5   Technology  .........................................................................................................................................................  5   Customer  Service  .............................................................................................................................................  5   ......................................................................................................................................................................  5   Value   Results  Summary  ...............................................................................................................................  6  Analysis  .......................................................................................................................................  7  PilotHouse  Market  Challenger  Winner  ............................................................................  9   Siemens  .................................................................................................................................................  9   Technology  ......................................................................................................................................................  10   Customer  Service  ..........................................................................................................................................  10   ...................................................................................................................................................................  10   Value  PilotHouse  Market  Leader  Winner  .................................................................................  11   Cisco  ....................................................................................................................................................  11   Technology  ......................................................................................................................................................  12   Customer  Service  ..........................................................................................................................................  12   Value   ...................................................................................................................................................................  12  Pilothouse  Finalists:  Market  Leaders  ............................................................................  13   Avaya  ..................................................................................................................................................  14   Microsoft  ...........................................................................................................................................  16   IBM  Lotus  ..........................................................................................................................................  18  PilotHouse  Finalists:  Market  Challengers  ....................................................................  20   ShoreTel  ............................................................................................................................................  21   Mitel  ....................................................................................................................................................  23  Other  Market  Challengers  .................................................................................................  26  Conclusion  ...............................................................................................................................  27  Methodology  ...........................................................................................................................  28   Sample  Frame  .................................................................................  Error!  Bookmark  not  defined.   Planned  Sample  Size  ......................................................................  Error!  Bookmark  not  defined.   Survey  Sub-­‐Groups/Stratification  ............................................  Error!  Bookmark  not  defined.   Awards  ..............................................................................................  Error!  Bookmark  not  defined.   Timing  ...............................................................................................  Error!  Bookmark  not  defined.   Incentives  to  Participate  &  Time  Commitment  ..................  Error!  Bookmark  not  defined.   Future  Plans  .......................................................................................  Error!  Bookmark  not  defined.  ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   2  
    •      U NIFIED   C OMMUNICATIONS    By  Irwin  Lazar  VP  and  Service  Director,  Nemertes  Research    Award  Definition  The  Nemertes  PilotHouse  award  for  Unified  Communications  (UC)  recognizes  vendors  identified   and   rated   by   IT   professionals   as   their   strategic   partner   for   delivering   UC  products,   which   integrate   voice,   video,   conferencing,   messaging,   and   presence   with  office   and   business-­‐process   applications   to   improve   collaboration.   IT   professionals  who   use   these   services   rated   their   providers   on   technology,   value,   and   customer  service.  Overview  ± The   goal   of   PilotHouse   awards   is   to   provide   analysis   of   vendor   and   service-­‐ provider  performance  from  the  perspective  of  their  business  users.  ± Many   research   firms   offer   market   ranking;   Nemertes’   research   and   analysis   is   unique,   based   100%   on   the   views   and   experience   of   actual   Unified   Communications  users.  ± Research  is  wholly  independent  and  not  sponsored;  Nemertes  has  no  influence   over  vendor  or  service  provider  performance.  ± Opinions   are   those   of   the   IT   professionals   who   have   selected,   designed   and   deployed  the  technology  or  service.    ± By   combining   benchmarking   (direct   user   interviews)   and   surveys,   Nemertes   is   able  to  provide  unique  insight  into  why  IT  professionals  rated  vendors  the  way   they  did.    For  this  award,  Nemertes  gathered  ratings  on  UC  system  and  application  providers  with   a   range   of   offerings.   (More   detail   on   the   program,   and   demographics   of  participating   IT   professionals   is   available   in   the   methodology   at   the   end   of   this  report.)      Market  Classification  We   segmented   UC   providers   into   two   categories:   Market   Leaders   and   Market  Challengers,   and   offered   awards   within   each   category.   To   determine   the  categorizations,   Nemertes’   analysts   evaluated   UC   market   presence   (looking   at  revenue,   device   shipments,   and   number   of   customers)   based   on   our   own   research  ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   3  
    •    and  publicly  available  data.  Analysts  also  examined  natural  breakpoints  in  the  data,  and   segmented   the   Market   Leaders   as   those   who   collectively   accounted   for   the   vast  majority   of   each   market,   and   Market   Challengers   who   accounted   for   a   smaller  percentage  of  the  overall  market.     UNIFIED COMMUNICATIONS Market Leaders Market Challengers Alcatel-Lucent, Mitel, NEC, ShoreTel, Avaya, Cisco, IBM Lotus, Microsoft SiemensTable  1:  Vendor  Classification,  Unified  Communications,  2011    Nemertes  defines  the  UC  market  as  “segmented,”  meaning  that  no  vendor  controls  more  than  30%  of  market  share,  and  no  two  vendors  control  more  than  50%.    As  published  in  various  public  sources,  Cisco,  Avaya,  IBM  Lotus,  and  Microsoft  account  for  more  than  50%  of  the  UC  market.    However  the  UC  market  is  often  difficult  to  classify,  thanks  to  varying  definitions  of  UC.    Nemertes  defines  UC  as  the  integration  of  various  forms  of  real-­‐time  and  non-­‐real  time  collaboration  (e.g.  voice,  video,  messaging,  conferencing)  into  a  set  of  applications  sharing  presence,  and  enabling  establishment  of  any  mode  of  communications  (e.g.  escalating  an  IM  into  a  phone  call,  video  chat,  or  Web  conference,  all  through  the  same  user  interface).    Vendors  typically  classify  any  of  their  standalone  offerings  in  the  UC  space  (e.g.  voice,  unified  messaging,  Web  conferencing,  etc.)  as  “UC,”  making  it  difficult  to  determine  specific  components  of  a  UC  implementation.    The  Market  Leaders  reflect  the  dualities  of  the  UC  market:  Those  with  large  market  share  in  voice  (Avaya,  Cisco)  that  are  broadening  into  the  desktop;  and  those  with  large  market  share  in  desktop  collaboration  (IBM  Lotus,  Microsoft)  that  are  broadening  into  voice.    Market  Challengers  have  smaller  market  shares,  or  have  traditionally  focused  on  the  small/midsize  business  market  or  a  limited  set  of  verticals.    It’s  worth  noting  that  our  data  set  predominantly  reflects  U.S.-­‐centric  enterprises,  thus  we  classify  vendors  such  as  Alcatel-­‐Lucent  and  Siemens,  with  large  market  share  outside  the  U.S.,  as  Challengers.  Ratings  We  asked  IT  professionals  to  rate  UC  providers  using  a  5-­‐point  scale,  where  5  is  excellent,  4  is  good,  3  is  fair,  2  is  poor,  and  1  is  unacceptable.  Nemertes  then  used  these  raw  scores  to  compute  average  scores  for  each  category.        ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   4  
    •    The  maximum  possible  score  is  a  5.0  (and  although  some  vendors  did  receive  perfect  scores  from  individual  IT  participants,  none  received  a  perfect  score  when  all  ratings  were  averaged).  Ratings  Categories  The  participants  rated  their  technology  providers  in  three  areas:    ⇒ Technology  ⇒ Customer  Service  ⇒ Value  ⇒ Overall  Rating  (average  of  Technology,  Customer  Service,  and  Value)  Technology  Technology   ratings   gauge   how   customers   view   the   sophistication,   features,   and  implementation   of   the   UC   product   they’re   rating.   Additionally,   this   score   reflects  how   much   of   a   leader   a   vendor   is   in   the   UC   industry,   from   the   perspective   of   the  customer.  Customer  Service  Customer-­‐service   ratings   cover   how   providers   perform   in   areas   such   as   technical  support,  responsiveness  to  deployment  problems  and  concerns,  sales  support,  and  general   customer   care.   Additionally,   technology   users   considered   the   willingness  and  ability  of  the  vendors  to  answer  questions  effectively  and  promptly.  Value  Value   ratings   are   essentially   the   way   customers   perceive   what   they   get   for   what  they  pay  for.  In  other  words,  are  they  getting  their  “bang  for  the  buck?”    ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   5  
    •    Results  Summary   Unified Communications: All Vendors, Overall Scores 4.30 4.27 4.20 4.17 4.10 4.11 4.00 4.05 3.90 3.95 3.93 3.80 3.79 3.78 3.70 3.70 3.60 3.50 s co ya l s l EC nt t Te ite en tu of e a is e N M Lo uc os Av em or C l-L r Sh M ic Si IB te M a lc A Market Leaders Market ChallengersChart  1:  Overall  Scores,  Unified  Communications,  2011    ⇒ Among  Market  Challengers,  Siemens  wins  the  PilotHouse  Award.   • Siemens’  overall  score  is  4.27.    ⇒ Among  Market  Leaders,  Cisco  wins  the  PilotHouse  Award.   • Cisco’s  overall  score  is  4.17.    ⇒ A  total  of  nine  providers  received  enough  responses  for  us  to  include  them  in   this  year’s  analysis.   • Four  providers  are  Market  Leaders;  five  are  Market  Challengers.   • Market  Leaders’  overall  average  score  is  4.06.   • Market  Challengers’  overall  average  score  is  3.90.  ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   6  
    •    A NALYSIS   Nemertes 2011 PilotHouse Awards Unified Communications Market Leaders Market Challengers Avaya, Cisco, IBM Lotus, Microsoft Alcatel-Lucent, Mitel, NEC, ShoreTel, Siemens Customer Winners Overall Technology Service Value Siemens 4.27 4.27 4.18 4.36 Cisco 4.17 4.23 4.16 4.12 Other Finalists Avaya 4.11 4.19 4.10 4.03 Microsoft 4.05 4.13 3.96 4.06 ShoreTel 3.95 3.92 3.85 4.08 IBM Lotus 3.93 3.88 3.90 4.03 Mitel 3.79 3.64 4.05 3.68 NEC 3.78 3.67 3.67 4.00 Alcatel-Lucent 3.70 3.72 3.67 3.72 Rating Scale: 5=Excellent; 4=Good; 3=Fair; 2=Poor; 1=UnacceptableTable  2:  Vendor  Scores,  Unified  Communications,  2011  Overall,  scores  for  UC  lagged  slightly  behind  those  for  other  technology  areas,  with  only  four  vendors  scoring  higher  than  a  4.0.    Winners  significantly  outperformed  non-­‐winners,  especially  in  the  Market  Challenger  category  where  Siemens  was  the  only  vendor  to  score  higher  than  a  4.0  in  all  categories.    Notable  is  the  lack  of  any  consistency  of  scores  among  ratings  categories.    Cisco,  for  example  saw  its  highest  score  in  technology,  while  Siemens  scored  best  in  value.    Absent  are  any  consistently  poor  scores  in  a  single  category  (e.g.  “customer  service  consistently  lagging  behind  value”).        What  does  this  mean?    Each  vendor  has  strengths  and  weaknesses  that  it  must  focus  on  improving,  rather  than  a  weak  area  (or  areas)  existing  for  the  entire  UC  marketplace.      Cisco’s  biggest  weakness  (customer  service)  isn’t  the  same  as  Avaya’s  (value)  or  IBM  Lotus’  (technology).  It  also  reflects  the  relative  “newness”  of  the  UC  market  and  the  fact  that  it’s  rapidly  changing  in  terms  of  product  capabilities.    Like  last  year,  those  who  approach  the  UC  market  from  a  telephony  perspective  (Cisco,  Avaya)  outscored  those  who  have  moved  from  IM/messaging  into  telephony  ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   7  
    •    (Microsoft,  IBM  Lotus).    This  reflects  the  continued  struggle  for  IM/messaging  vendors  to  play  in  a  space  where  customers  focus  far  more  attention  on  reliability,  resiliency,  performance,  and  support  than  in  the  desktop  applications  space.    This  year,  like  last,  both  UC  winners  come  from  telephony  backgrounds.    IM/messaging  vendors  must  continue  their  efforts  to  demonstrate  to  IT  leaders  that  they  understand  the  real-­‐time  application  requirements,  of  telephony  and  increasingly  video.    ⇒ Overall,  Market  Leaders  score  a  4.06;  Challengers  earn  a  3.90.    Siemens  is  the   exception  to  the  rule,  outperforming  all  vendors  regardless  of  size.   • Reason:  The  primary  gaps  between  Market  Leaders  and  Market  Challengers   exists  in  technology  and  customer  service.    Market  Leaders  have  deeper   pockets,  larger  support  networks,  and  a  large  installed  base  from  which  they   can  cross-­‐sell;  using  bundled  licensing  programs  to  deliver  UC  as  an  add-­‐on   to  existing  telephony,  video,  or  IM/messaging  or  other  application  licenses.    ⇒ In  technology,  Market  Leaders  compile  a  score  of  4.11  and  Challengers  get  a   3.84.   • Reason:  Market  Leaders  typically  have  the  broadest  product  offering,  the   largest  R&D  budgets  and  often  the  greatest  support  for  mobility,  a  hot  area   among  IT  leaders  these  days.    ⇒ In  customer  service,  Market  Leaders  receive  a  score  of  4.03  and  Challengers  earn   a  3.88.   • Reason:  Market  Leaders  typically  have  the  fiscal  wherewithal  to  devote   substantial  resources  to  not  just  first-­‐tier  customer  service,  but  higher-­‐level   technical  support.    Market  Challengers  tend  to  more  often  sell  and  support   customers  through  channels,  where  support  may  vary.    Many  IT  leaders  say   they  see  differences  in  the  support  they  receive  from  multiple  channels  for   the  same  vendor.    ⇒ In  value,  Market  Leaders  garner  a  4.06  and  Challengers  receive  a  3.97.   • Reason:  Here  is  where  Market  Challengers  are  placing  their  competitive   emphasis,  using  innovative  approaches  such  as  cloud,  or  support  for   virtualization  to  offer  compelling  services  as  a  reduced  cost.    Although  they   aren’t  yet  demonstrating  greater  value  than  Market  Leaders,  they  are  close.    ⇒ No  single  score  factored  into  winner’s  advantages,  rather  all  winners  outscored   their  competitors  across  the  board  in  all  scores.   • Siemens  has  the  top  overall  scores  among  all  vendors,  in  all  scoring   categories.   • No  Market  Leader  outscored  Cisco  in  any  of  the  three  ratings  categories.  ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   8  
    •    P ILOT H OUSE   M ARKET   C HALLENGER   W INNER   Siemens Ratings 4.40 4.36 4.30 4.27 4.27 4.20 4.18 4.10 4.00 Overall Technology Customer Service ValueChart  2:  PilotHouse  Market  Challenger  Winner:  Siemens,  Unified  Communications,  2011  Siemens  Summary:    Siemens’  4.27  is  the  top  overall  score  among  Market  Challengers,  and  it’s  also  the  highest  overall  score  among  all  UC  vendors.    In  fact,  Siemens  receives  the  highest  score  in  each  of  the  three  categories  measured.    Siemens  is  somewhat  of  a  pioneer  in  the  UC  space,  having  introduced  arguably  the  first  UC  product,  OpenScape,  back  in  the  early  2000s  (now  knows  as  OpenScape  UC  Server).    Siemens  continues  to  innovate,  offering  both  on-­‐premise  and  hosted  solutions,  as  well  as  a  cloud-­‐based  service.    Though  Siemens  lacks  the  U.S.  market  share  of  Cisco  and  Avaya,  its  offering  is  just  as  broad,  featuring  a  full  suite  of  UC  and  telephony  services  covering  small  and  large  offices;  contact  centers,  and  specific  vertical  solutions  (e.g.  trading  floors).  “OpenScape  is  a  great  tool/service  for  us,”  says  the  IT  manager  of  a  state  government  agency.      ⇒ Then  and  Now:    Siemens  improved  its  scores  across  the  board  from  last  year,   from  an  overall  3.75  to  this  year’s  4.27  with  the  largest  jumps  coming  in   technology  (3.71  to  4.27)  and  value  (3.71  to  4.36).    These  scores  reflect  Siemens’  ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   9  
    •     efforts  to  not  only  broaden  its  solution  set,  but  to  differentiate  itself  from   competitors  by  offering  delivery  models  such  as  cloud-­‐based  services.    ⇒ Future  Direction:  The  big  challenge  for  Siemens  is  to  expand  its  reach  in  the  U.S.   market  beyond  the  SMB  and  specific  verticals  such  as  healthcare,  education,  and   government,  where  it  has  had  historical  strength.    This  year,  about  80%  of  the   firms  rating  Siemens  were  smaller  than  $50  million  in  revenue.    The  good  thing   for  Siemens  is  that  customers  evenly  praise  its  performance  across  all  ratings   areas.    IT  leaders  in  hospitality  and  manufacturing  both  praise  its  quality,  while   the  IT  director  of  a  small  education  institution  says,  “It’s  all  about  service.”      Technology  ⇒ Siemens’  4.27,  like  all  its  scores,  is  the  highest  among  all  UC  vendors,  Market   Leader  and  Market  Challenger  alike.    With  its  broad  product  set,  and  ability  to   support  multiple  delivery  models,  Siemens’  customers  consider  it  to  be  a   technology  leader.  Customer  Service  ⇒ Siemens’  customer-­‐service  score  of  4.18  is  its  lowest  rating,  considerably  lower   than  its  other  scores  but  overall  still  the  highest  among  all  vendors.    Siemens’   score  is  particularly  impressive  given  the  change  the  company  has  gone  through   over  the  last  few  years  as  Siemens  AG  sold  a  majority  stake  in  the  firm  to   investment  firm  Gores  Group.     • One  strength  for  Siemens  is  its  international  footprint.    “We  choose  Siemens   because  it  is  international,  able  to  support  us  in  multiple  countries,”  says  the   CIO  for  a  midsize  professional-­‐services  firm.  Value  ⇒ Value  is  Siemens  top-­‐scoring  area,  with  a  4.36,  and  again,  the  highest  score   among  all  rated  firms.    Customers  perceive  Siemens  as  providing  tremendous   bang  for  the  buck.   • “For  us,  it’s  price  that  makes  us  choose  Siemens,”  says  the  IT  buyer  for  a   small  construction  company.              ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   10  
    •    P ILOT H OUSE   M ARKET   L EADER   W INNER   Cisco Ratings 4.30 4.23 4.20 4.17 4.16 4.10 4.12 4.00 Overall Technology Customer Service ValueChart  3:  PilotHouse  Market  Leader  Winner:  Cisco,  Unified  Communications,  2011  Cisco  ⇒ Summary:    Cisco’s  4.17  is  the  second-­‐highest  overall  score,  and  the  top  overall   score  among  Market  Leaders.    Cisco  wins  its  second  consecutive  Market  Leader   PilotHouse  award.    Customers  routinely  cite  reliability,  service  and  support,  and   Cisco’s  breadth  of  products  as  key  buying  criteria.     • Says  the  IT  director  for  a  global  publishing  and  media  company,  “Cisco   provides  us  good  range  of  options  for  voice,  video,  conferencing,  and   messaging.”    Adds  the  IT  manager  for  a  regional  healthcare  firm,  “Cisco   means  reliability.”    ⇒ Then  and  Now:  Cisco  continues  to  demonstrate  continued  improvement;  raising   its  score  from  a  4.08  in  2010  (after  increasing  from  a  3.88  in  2009).      Cisco’s   increasing  scores  demonstrate  its  payoff  from  recent  acquisitions  to  broaden  its   UC  portfolio  including  Jabber  and  Tandberg.    Overall  Cisco  is  a  reliable  vendor   with  good  support  services,  says  the  IT  director  for  a  regional  manufacturing   firm.    ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   11  
    •    ⇒ Future  Direction:  For  Cisco,  the  key  challenge  is  branching  out  beyond  voice  and   selling  its  customers  on  its  vision  of  video  emerging  as  the  key  component  of  a   collaboration  strategy.    “Cisco  envisions  presence  and  video  and  all  this  usability.   We  arent  really  seeing  the  value  out  of  it  yet,”  says  the  telecom  manager  for  a   global  manufacturing  organization.    However  Cisco’s  push  to  drive  technology   change  is  resonating  with  its  customers,  its  4.23  technology  score  is  its  highest,   and  the  highest  of  all  Market  Leaders.  Technology  ⇒ As  noted,  Cisco  scores  a  4.23  on  technology,  highest  of  all  Market  Leaders,  and  a   solid  improvement  over  last  year’s  4.08.    Cisco  continues  to  differentiate  its  UC   offerings  through  support  for  ubiquitous  video  and  extensibility  beyond  the   enterprise  firewall,  an  effort  that  is  resonating  with  its  customers.   • “Cisco  makes  it  easier  for  us  to  stay  connected  to  the  outside  world,”  says  the   CTO  of  a  midsize  manufacturing  organization.  Customer  Service  ⇒ Cisco  scores  a  4.16  on  customer  service,  just  .02  below  overall  winner  Siemens,   but  ahead  of  its  fellow  Market  Leaders.    Here  again,  Cisco  improved  on  its  2009   score  of  3.99.    Customers  continue  to  praise  Cisco’s  service  and  support,  which  is   a  departure  from  recent  years  and  a  clear,  concerted  effort  on  Cisco’s  part.   • “With  Cisco  we  always  get  fast  response  times  whenever  we  need  support,”   says  the  CIO  of  a  small  manufacturing  company.   • “Cisco  provides  great  service  across  the  board,”  says  the  head  of  IT  for  a   midsize  education  organization  notes.  Value  ⇒ Cisco’s  value  score  of  4.12  was  its  lowest  overall  score  in  any  rating  area,  but   even  here  Cisco  beats  all  of  its  Market  Leader  competition  (and  improves  from  a   3.86  in  2009,  its  largest  improvement  in  any  area).    We’ve  often  heard  the   perception  that  Cisco  is  a  premium  brand,  more  expensive,  than  other  products,   but  that  “nobody  gets  fired  for  buying  Cisco.”  Cisco’s  improved  score  this  year  is   evidence  that  it  is  increasingly  able  to  demonstrate  the  value  of  its  products,   even  in  cases  where  the  actual  price  is  more  expensive  than  competitors.     Perhaps  more  importantly,  we  hear  praise  for  Cisco’s  cost  competitiveness,   something  we  rarely  heard  before.   • “We  looked  at  ShoreTel,  and  ShoreTel  was  more  expensive.  We  looked  at   video  this  year  with  Lifesize;  Cisco  was  cheaper  there,  too,”  says  the  senior   architect  of  a  global  manufacturing  company.        ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   12  
    •    P ILOTHOUSE   F INALISTS :   M ARKET   L EADERS     Unified Communications: Market Leaders Cisco Avaya Microsoft IBM Lotus 4.30 4.23 4.20 4.17 4.19 4.16 4.11 4.13 4.10 4.12 4.10 4.06 4.05 4.03 4.00 4.03 3.96 3.93 3.90 3.90 3.88 3.80 Overall Technology Customer Service ValueChart  4:  PilotHouse  Market  Leaders:  Unified  Communications,  2011      ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   13  
    •     Avaya Ratings 4.20 4.19 4.10 4.11 4.10 4.03 4.00 Overall Technology Customer Service Value  Chart  5:  Market  Leader:  Avaya,  Unified  Communications,  2011  Avaya  ⇒ Avaya  and  Overall  Scores  Avaya  closes  the  gap  between  it  and  Cisco  this  year,  narrowing  its  overall  disadvantage  to  just  .06,  versus  .13  in  2010.    It’s  impressive  that  it  improved  its  competitive  positioning  despite  the  upheaval  of  executing  on  its  integration  of  Nortel,  shifting  to  a  channel-­‐based  model  for  the  SME,  and  delivering  a  new  line  of  products  focused  around  its  Aura  SIP  session  manager.    Avaya’s  scores  are  marked  by  significant  disparity  between  its  technology  (4.19)  and  value  (4.03)  ratings,  reflecting  on  both  the  success  of  Avaya  in  using  Aura,  it’s  expanded  mobility  products,  new  video  offerings,  and  its  recently  launched  Flare  user  experience  to  portray  itself  as  a  technical  leader;  and  the  failure  of  Avaya  to  improve  its  value  score  as  much  as  its  other  scores  (value  is  the  one  ratings  category  where  Avaya  trails  the  average  within  its  market  classification).    For  comparison,  the  margin  between  Avaya’s  highest  and  lowest  score  in  2010  was  .13  where  this  year  it  grows  to  .16.    While  Avaya  improved  its  technology  score  from  a  3.95  to  4.19,  it  only  improved  value  from  3.82  to  4.03.    ⇒ The  average  overall  score  of  all  Market  Leaders  is  4.06;  Avaya’s  is  4.11.  ⇒ The  average  technology  score  of  all  Market  Leaders  is  4.11;  Avaya’s  is  4.19.   • “I  like  the  fact  that  Avaya  is  an  open  system  and  will  integrate  with  other   applications,”  says  the  IT  director  of  a  midsize  services  firm.  ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   14  
    •    ⇒ The  average  customer  service  score  of  all  Market  Leaders  is  4.03;  Avaya’s  is  4.10.   • “We  have  great  account  team.  They  find  us  answers,  and  are  willing  to  work   with  us.  You  cant  ask  for  much  more  than  that,”  says  the  IT  manager  of  a   large  professional-­‐services  company  ⇒ The  average  value  score  of  all  Market  Leaders  is  4.06;  Avaya’s  is  4.03.   • “There  are  better  phones  out  there  at  a  lower  price  point,  but  Avaya’s   products  work,”  says  the  manager  of  IT  at  a  small  educational  institution.        ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   15  
    •     Microsoft Ratings 4.20 4.10 4.13 4.06 4.05 4.00 3.96 3.90 3.80 3.70 3.60 3.50 Overall Technology Customer Service Value  Chart  6:  Market  Leader:  Microsoft,  Unified  Communications,  2011  Microsoft  ⇒ Microsoft  and  Overall  Scores  Microsoft’s  overall  score  is  a  4.05,  trailing  Avaya  by  only  .06,  narrowing  the  gap  between  it  and  Avaya  from  .12  in  2010.    Microsoft  continues  to  gain  tremendous  momentum  for  its  UC  offering,  with  more  companies  citing  Microsoft  as  their  strategic  vendor  for  UC  than  any  other  vendor.    With  the  introduction  of  Lync  in  2011,  Microsoft  has  taken  direct  aim  at  not  only  the  desktop  messaging  and  conferencing  portion  of  the  UC  market,  but  at  the  core  voice  services  largely  owned  by  Market  Leaders  Cisco  and  Avaya.    Microsoft  still  has  work  to  do  to  convince  IT  buyers  that  it  is  able  to  offer  reliable,  feature  rich  voice  services,  though  its  slightly-­‐higher-­‐than-­‐average  technology  score  demonstrates  that  Microsoft  is  convincing  its  customers  that  it  is  driving  technology  change.    Microsoft’s  biggest  challenge  is  in  customer  service,  where  it  trails  the  mean  Market  Leader  score  by  .07.    As  in  2010,  customer  service  remains  Microsoft’s  Achilles  heel,  though  its  score  improved  from  3.66  last  year  to  3.96  this  year.    If  Microsoft  can  continue  to  improve  on  customer  service,  it  can  challenge  Market  Leaders  for  the  2012  PilotHouse  award.  ⇒ The  average  overall  score  of  all  Market  Leaders  is  4.06;  Microsoft’s  is  4.05.   • “We  havent  had  many  problems;  their  overall  support  has  been  good.    They   are  proactive  in  including  us  in  demos/pilots,  have  allowed  us  to  collaborate  ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   16  
    •     with  other  large  companies,”  says  the  director  of  telecom  for  a  global  energy   firm.  ⇒ The  average  technology  score  of  all  Market  Leaders  is  4.11;  Microsoft’s  is  4.13.   • “It  works  well  for  what  it  does,  but  the  voice  side  is  a  little  shaky,”  says  the   senior  architect  for  a  financial-­‐services  firm.  ⇒ The  average  customer-­‐service  score  of  all  Market  Leaders  is  4.03;  Microsoft’s  is   3.96.   • “They  are  very  confusing  and  difficult  to  work  with.  Sometimes  they  want  to   work  directly  with  you  and  sometimes  they  want  to  send  you  to  a  partner.   Sometimes  they  send  you  to  an  account  team  that  gives  you  wrong   information,”  says  the  IT  director  for  a  global  manufacturing  firm.  ⇒ The  average  value  score  of  all  Market  Leaders  is  4.06;  Microsoft’s  is  4.06.   • “The  fact  that  weve  been  able  to  take  this  product  and  offer  so  many   capabilities  is  huge  value;  never  thought  Id  say  Microsoft  and  value  in  the   same  sentence,”  says  the  IT  manager  for  a  global  technology  company.      ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   17  
    •     IBM Lotus Ratings 4.10 4.00 4.03 3.93 3.90 3.90 3.88 3.80 3.70 3.60 3.50 Overall Technology Customer Service Value  Chart  7:  Market  Leader:  IBM  Lotus,  Unified  Communications,  2011  IBM  Lotus  ⇒ IBM  and  Overall  Scores  IBM  improved  its  scores  across  the  board  from  2010,  with  the  greatest  gain  coming  in  value,  where  it  rose  from  a  3.56  in  2010  to  a  4.03  in  2011,  tying  Market  Leader  runner-­‐up  Avaya  though  still  trailing  Microsoft.    IBM  Lotus,  like  Microsoft,  comes  at  the  UC  market  from  a  history  of  providing  messaging  and  non-­‐real-­‐time  collaboration  applications.    Unlike  Microsoft,  Lotus  isn’t  competing  for  the  telephony  market,  rather  its  strategy  is  based  on  delivering  presence,  Web  conferencing,  instant  messaging  and  softphone/video  clients  that  integrate  with  standards-­‐based  voice/video  backend  platforms  from  others.    Given  its  more  narrow  focus,  it’s  not  surprising  that  technology  is  still  the  area  where  Lotus  greatly  trails  the  competition.    Customers  like  the  value  in  what  they  get  for  their  money,  but  they  don’t  perceive  IBM  Lotus  as  a  technical  leader.    ⇒ The  average  overall  score  of  all  Market  Leaders  is  4.06;  IBM’s  is  3.93.  ⇒ The  average  technology  score  of  all  Market  Leaders  is  4.11;  IBM’s  is  3.88.   • “Great  integration  with  Lotus  Notes,  good  IM,  but  lousy  integration  with   other  products,”  says  the  IT  architect  of  a  global  manufacturing  firm.    ⇒ The  average  customer-­‐service  score  of  all  Market  Leaders  is  4.03;  IBM’s  is  3.90.  ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   18  
    •     “We  have  IBM  Lotus  UC  products,  and  they  work  well,  but  getting  good   • customer  support  is  challenging,”  says  the  IT  director  of  a  midsize   manufacturing  company.  ⇒ The  average  value  score  of  all  Market  Leaders  is  4.06;  IBM’s  is  4.03.   • “IBM  has  a  much  better  licensing  strategy,  and  is  less  aggressive  in  auditing   our  licensing,  especially  compared  to  Microsoft,”  says  the  director  of  telecom   for  a  global  manufacturing  firm.    ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   19  
    •    P ILOT H OUSE   F INALISTS :   M ARKET  C HALLENGERS   Unified Communications: Market Challengers Siemens ShoreTel NEC Mitel Alcatel-Lucent 4.40 4.36 4.30 4.27 4.27 4.20 4.18 4.10 4.08 4.05 4.00 4.00 3.95 3.92 3.90 3.85 3.79 3.80 3.78 3.72 3.72 3.70 3.70 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.68 3.64 3.60 3.50 Overall Technology Customer Service Value  Chart  8:  PilotHouse  Market  Challengers:  Unified  Communications,  2011      ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   20  
    •     ShoreTel Ratings 4.10 4.08 4.00 3.95 3.90 3.92 3.85 3.80 3.70 3.60 3.50 Overall Technology Customer Service Value  Chart  9:  Market  Challenger:  ShoreTel,  Unified  Communications,  2011  ShoreTel  ⇒ IBM  and  Overall  Scores  ShoreTel  comes  in  as  the  Market  Challenger  runner  up,  trailing  Siemens  in  all  categories,  but  leading  all  other  Market  Challengers  in  every  ratings  area  other  than  customer  service,  where  it  trails  Mitel.    As  a  relative  newcomer  in  the  UC  space  compared  with  Siemens,  ShoreTel  is  still  increasing  its  portfolio,  recently  improving  its  mobility  and  messaging  services.  ShoreTel’s  customers  largely  praise  the  value  and  feature  sets  of  what  they  are  buying,  but  ShoreTel  must  address  customer-­‐  service  concerns  (historically  a  strong  spot  for  it  in  the  IP  telephony  market)  to  increase  its  UC  success.  ⇒  The  average  overall  score  of  all  Market  Challengers  is  3.90;  ShoreTel’s  is  3.95.  ⇒ The  average  technology  score  of  all  Market  Challengers  is  3.84;  ShoreTel’s  is   3.92.   • “ShoreTel’s  solution  is  reliable,  and  provides  a  complete  feature  set,”  says  the   manager  of  a  small  software  firm.  ⇒ The  average  customer-­‐service  score  of  all  Market  Challengers  is  3.88  ShoreTel’s   was  3.85.   • “They  need  to  improve  on  their  software  engineering  practices.  It  seems  like   there  are  patches.  Fix  a  few,  break  a  few.  And  thats  caused  a  little  it  of  ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   21  
    •     frustration  with  us.  You  put  in  a  patch,  and  a  new  issue.  I  just  patched  last   night  after  identifying  three  issues.  One,  receptionists  couldnt  get  to  certain   calls,”  says  the  CIO  of  a  midsize  professional-­‐services  company.  ⇒ The  average  value  score  of  all  Market  Challengers  is  3.97;  ShoreTel’s  is  4.08.   • “For  us  ShoreTel’s  cost  was  the  biggest  driver,”  says  the  head  of  IT  for  a  small   professional-­‐services  firm.      ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   22  
    •     Mitel Ratings 4.10 4.05 4.00 3.90 3.80 3.79 3.70 3.68 3.64 3.60 3.50 Overall Technology Customer Service Value  Chart  10:  Market  Challenger:  Mitel,  Unified  Communications,  2011  Mitel  ⇒ Mitel  and  Overall  Scores  Save  not  for  the  second-­‐highest  score  among  Market  Challengers  in  customer  service,  Mitel  would  have  finished  last  among  all  others  in  its  category,  trailing  other  Challengers  in  value  and  technology.  Although  Mitel  improved  its  customer-­‐service  score  from  2010  (3.99)  to  this  year’s  4.05,  it’s  technology  score  dropped  from  a  4.05  to  3.64,  and  its  value  score  also  dropped;  going  from  3.86  in  2010  to  3.68  in  2011.  Despite  recent  turmoil  that  have  resulted  in  management  changes  at  the  top,  these  scores  suggest  Mitel  and  its  channel  partners  are  overall  improving  their  customer  service  and  support.    If  Mitel  addresses  technology  and  value  concerns,  it  will  position  itself  among  the  top  of  the  Market  Challengers.  ⇒ The  average  overall  score  of  all  Market  Challengers  is  3.90;  Mitel’s  is  3.79.  ⇒ The  average  technology  score  of  all  Market  Challengers  is  3.84;  Mitel’s  is  3.64.   • “Mitel’s  products  come  in  at  a  competitive  price,  but  their  technology  is   behind  the  competition,”  says  the  IT  director  for  a  small  education   organization  ⇒ The  average  customer-­‐service  score  of  all  Market  Challengers  is  3.88;  Mitel’s  is   4.05.  ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   23  
    •     • “Our  voice  provider  pushed  us  to  go  with  Mitel,  Mitel  provides  great  Level  2   support,”  says  the  IT  manager  of  a  midsize  healthcare  firm.    ⇒ The  average  value  score  of  all  Market  Challengers  is  3.97;  Mitel’s  is  3.68.   • “Mitel  won  our  RFP,  coming  in  $15k  less  than  anyone  else,  and  with  more   functionality,”  says  the  IT  manager  of  a  small  healthcare  firm.          ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   24  
    •     NEC Ratings 4.10 4.00 4.00 3.90 3.80 3.78 3.70 3.67 3.67 3.60 3.50 Overall Technology Customer Service Value  Chart  11:  Market  Challenger:  NEC,  Unified  Communications,  2011   Alcatel-Lucent Ratings 3.80 3.72 3.72 3.70 3.70 3.67 3.60 3.50 Overall Technology Customer Service Value  Chart  12:  Market  Challenger:  Alcatel-­‐Lucent,  Unified  Communications,  2011  ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   25  
    •    O THER   M ARKET   C HALLENGERS    ⇒ NEC  and  Alcatel-­‐Lucent  finish  as  the  bottom  two  finalists  in  the  Market   Challenger  category;  NEC  did  post  a  strong  value  score,  good  for  third  overall   among  Market  Challengers;  Alcatel-­‐Lucent  struggles  in  all  categories.    Compared   to  2010,  NEC  sees  strong  improvements  in  technology  (3.43  to  3.67)  and   customer  service  (3.50  to  3.67),  while  its  value  score  improves  by  a  whopping   .64  (3.36  to  4.00).    If  NEC  can  continue  to  improve  in  both  technology  and   customer  service,  it  stands  a  chance  of  contending  for  next  year’s  Market   Challenger  award.     Alcatel-­‐Lucent’s  scores  fall  across  the  board  from  2010.    Technology  drops  from   a  3.80  to  3.72,  customer  service  falls  from  3.96  to  3.67,  and  value  declines  from  a   3.96  to  a  3.72.  The  overall  score  thus  declines  from  3.91  to  3.70,  representing  the   biggest  decline  of  any  UC  vendor.    Alcatel-­‐Lucent  has  its  work  cut  out  for  it  if  it   wishes  to  improve  its  market  position.    ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   26  
    •    C ONCLUSION  ⇒ The  UC  market  continues  to  consist  of  largely  three  types  of  vendors:   • Enterprise  telephony  companies  (Avaya,  Cisco)  fighting  to  put  their   applications  onto  the  desktop.   • Desktop  IM/messaging  vendors  (IBM  Lotus,  Microsoft)  attempting  to  either   supplant,  or  exist  alongside  telephony  vendors.   • Market  Challengers  offering  integrated  solutions  aiming  to  grow  market   share,  serve  vertical  markets  and/or  size  segments,  and  challenge  their   larger  competitors.  ⇒ For  another  year,  the  telephony  centric  Market  Leaders  post  the  highest  overall   scores,  but  the  gap  is  narrowing  as  Microsoft  continues  to  show  improvement,   while  IBM  Lotus  again  trails  other  market  leaders  overall.    Continue  to  evaluate  a   wide  variety  of  UC  vendors,  paying  attention  to  areas  including  customer  service,   long-­‐term  vision,  value,  and  demonstrated  implementation  success.  ⇒ Vendor  Selection:  Based  on  the  outcome  of  the  PilotHouse  program,  here  is   Nemertes’  guidance  (with  vendors  listed  in  priority  order):   • Evaluate  a  minimum  of  four  providers.  Cisco,  Siemens,  Avaya  and  Microsoft   are  solid  options.    For  smaller  and  mid-­‐size  firms,  consider  ShoreTel,  as  well.       • If  technology  is  your  key  concern,  consider  Siemens,  Cisco,  Avaya,  Microsoft,   ShoreTel,  and  IBM  Lotus.   • If  customer-­‐service  is  your  key  decision  criteria,  consider  Siemens,  Cisco,   Avaya,  and  Microsoft.   • If  value  is  your  key  goal,  consider  Siemens,  Cisco,  ShoreTel,  Microsoft,  Avaya,   and  NEC.  ⇒ Differentiation  of  Leaders  and  Challengers:  Overall  Market  Leaders  outscored   Market  Challengers  across  the  board.    Challengers  may  offer  a  better  solution  for   small  and  midsize  businesses  concerned  with  getting  lost  among  many  larger   companies.  And,  based  on  other  services  you  may  have  with  the  Challengers,   they  may  be  a  good  fit  based  on  minimum  annual  revenue  commitments.    ⇒ Improvement  Outlook:  Watch  out  for  continued  development  of  new  services  as   vendors  expand  their  offerings  into  voice  and/or  desktop  collaboration.    Also   keep  your  eye  on  expanding  hosted  offerings  that  will  increasingly  provide  an   alternative  (or  complement)  to  the  on-­‐premises  solutions  evaluated  for  this   award.          ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   27  
    •    M ETHODOLOGY  The  population  includes  individuals  primarily  from  U.S.  companies  (based  in  the  U.S.,  but  many  of  which  are  global  multinationals)  who  are  responsible  for  selecting,  or  influencing  the  selection  of,  suppliers  of  data-­‐center  and  communications  products  and  services.    Sample  Frame  In  selecting  the  sampling  frame,  Nemertes  has  asked  individuals  in  the  following  populations  to  rate  their  providers:   ± U.S.   business   subscriber   lists,   including   individuals   who   have   opted   to   participate   in   surveys   and   who   have   been   pre-­‐screened   to   determine   responsibility  for  selecting  or  influencing  relevant  products  and  services.   ± Nemertes   Research   IT   executive   database,   limited   to   individuals   who   meet   the   criteria   for   the   representative   population.   Individuals   from   this   list   represent   primarily   U.S.   companies,   but   also   include   companies   based   elsewhere   that   have   presence   in   North   America.   The   database   includes   individuals   who   have   participated   in,   or   who   have   expressed   interest   in   participating   in   our   research,   or   with   whom   Nemertes’   analysts   have   established  a  business  relationship.Individuals  participated  in  this  project  using  three  methods:   ± Web-­‐based  survey.  This  is  the  largest  percentage  of  the  respondents.  Those   who   meet   the   sample   frame   randomly   received   invitations   to   participate   in   the  survey.   ± Visitors   to   Nemertes’   Web   site,   and   recipients   of   Nemertes’   blogs   and   columns   in   third-­‐party   media   partners’   Web   sites.   They   must   meet   the   criteria  to  participate.     ± Benchmark   interviews.   This   is   a   smaller   percentage   of   the   respondents.   Nemertes’   analysts   asked   numerous   detailed   qualitative   questions   to   gauge   why   they   rated   their   service   providers   the   way   they   did,   as   well   as   gathering   other  information  about  their  usage  of  communications  services.      Benchmark  participants  spent  one  to  three  hours  on  the  phone  or  in  person  with  a  Nemertes  analyst  discussing  issues  relating  to  their  use  of  products  and  services.  The  Web-­‐based  survey  participants  answered  a  subset  of  the  benchmark  questions  that  focus  on  rating  the  providers,  stack-­‐ranking  important  criteria,  providing  financial  data,  open-­‐ended  comments,  and  demographics.  Planned  Sample  Size  According  to  U.S.  Census  Bureau  figures,  there  are  2,306,070  companies  with  five  or  more  employees.  Our  goal  was  to  receive  responses  from  a  minimum  of  1,000  ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   28  
    •    individuals,  which  would  give  us  a  95%  confidence  level  and  3%  margin  of  error—if  every  individual  rated  every  vendor  in  every  technology  area  rated.  We  received  substantial  ratings  for  each  technology  category  (several  hundred  per  category),  but  each  vendor  in  each  area  did  not  receive  a  rating  from  every  research  participant.  About  4,000  individuals  accessed  the  survey  or  participated  in  a  benchmark  interview.  Of  those,  about  2,000  meet  Nemertes’  standards  to  be  considered  “valid.”  Our  survey  tool  automatically  exited  individuals  employed  by  IT  vendors  and  providers.  Analysts  reviewed  all  other  ratings  (survey  and  benchmark)  line  by  line,  and  categorized  as  “invalid”  those  who  demonstrated  inconsistencies  or  inaccuracies  in  their  responses  as  part  of  Nemertes’  complex  qualification  methodology.  We  achieved  validity  across  the  survey  and  interviews  by  ensuring  the  questions  we  asked  were  the  same  and  that  the  interview  group  and  survey  group  represent  discrete  samples  of  the  same  population.  Nemertes  achieves  survey  and  interview  consistency  through  the  use  of  pre-­‐scripted  interview  forms  and  peer  review  of  interview  protocols.  Analysts  also  relied  upon  their  own  knowledge  of  the  technology  areas,  natural  breakpoints  in  the  data,  and  interview  notes  from  the  survey  participants  to  further  validate  ratings.  Survey  Sub-­‐Groups/Stratification  Nemertes’  analysts  researched  which  providers  offer  products  and  services  in  each  category  and  created  lists  from  which  participants  identified  their  primary  service  providers.  Participants  also  were  able  to  select  “other,”  and  identify  a  service  provider  they  use  that  may  not  be  included  on  the  explicit  list  provided.  The  challenge  is  that  some  providers  (Market  Leaders)  have  thousands  of  business  customers  and  significant  market  share,  while  others  (Market  Challengers)  have  a  few  hundred  or  few  thousand  customers  and  smaller  market  share.  We  realized  some  providers  would  garner  a  relatively  large  number  of  ratings,  based  on  the  number  of  customers  they  have,  while  others  would  have  a  relatively  small  number  of  ratings.    Therefore,  we  created  the  two  distinct  categories  for  the  awards,  Market  Leaders  and  Market  Challengers,  and  compared  providers  within  each  category.  Nemertes  placed  providers  within  each  category  based  on  its  own  research  and  publicly  available  data.  Analysts  also  examined  natural  breakpoints  in  the  data.  Market  Leaders  typically  have  >10%  of  market  share,  based  on  these  analyses.  Market  Challengers  typically  have  smaller  market  shares.  In  some  categories,  there  were  not  enough  ratings  to  issue  an  award  in  the  Market  Challenger  category,  or  the  ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   29  
    •    market  is  so  new  that  all  vendors  are  considered  Challengers.  In  these  cases,  Nemertes  issues  an  award  only  in  the  appropriate  category.    Nemertes  reserves  the  right  to  address  acquisitions  occurring  during  the  benchmark  and  survey  period  on  a  case-­‐by-­‐case  basis.    Unless  otherwise  noted,  an  acquisition  merging  two  companies  in  the  same  award  category  must  be  complete  before  the  start  of  the  survey  and  benchmark  interview  period  to  be  counted  as  one  company  in  the  ratings.  ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   30  
    •    Awards  Nemertes  is  issuing  awards  in  the  following  categories:   Nemertes PilotHouse Awards, 2011 Award Category Market Leaders Market Challengers Advanced Communications Services MPLS Services ü ü Carrier Ethernet Services ü ü Internet Access Services ü ü SIP Trunking Services ü No award Managed Router Services ü ü Managed Internet Services ü ü Wireless and Mobility Wireless LANs ü ü Wireless Voice & Data Services ü ü Application Delivery Application Delivery Optimization ü ü Virtual Desktops ü ü Voice Communications IP Telephony ü ü Managed IP Telephony ü ü Hosted Voice Over IP ü No award Data-Center Technologies Servers for Virtualization ü ü Storage for Virtualization ü ü Data-Center Colocation ü ü Unified Communications Unified Communications ü ü IP Contact Centers ü ü Security Managed Firewall/IDS/IPS ü ü Data-Center Firewalls ü ü Small Branch Firewalls ü ü Cloud Software as a Service: Office ü No award  ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   31  
    •    Timing  The  Web-­‐based  survey  was  conducted  between  March  and  May  2011.  The  benchmark  research  was  conducted  between  January  and  April  2011.  Incentives  to  Participate  &  Time  Commitment  Participants  of  the  Web-­‐based  survey  received  a  small  incentive  for  participating  in  the  survey.  Participants  from  Nemertes’  database  receive  the  findings  and  are  invited  to  participate  in  a  Webcast,  in  exchange  for  their  time.  The  Web-­‐based  survey  takes  about  15  minutes  to  complete;  the  benchmark  requires  one  to  three  hours  of  participants’  time.  Future  Plans  Nemertes  plans  to  conduct  its  PilotHouse  Awards  program  annually,  though  it  retains  the  right  to  cancel  the  project  at  any  time.      About  Nemertes  Research:    Nemertes  Research  is  a  research-­‐advisory  and  strategic-­‐consulting  firm  that  specializes  in  analyzing  and  quantifying  the  business  value  of  emerging  technologies.  You  can  learn  more  about  Nemertes  Research  at  our  Website:  http://www.nemertes.com          ©Nemertes  Research  2011  ±  www.nemertes.com  ±  888-­‐241-­‐2685  ±  DN  1530   32