1.
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

2.
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

3.
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

4.
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 Siemens
Table
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

5.
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

6.
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 Challengers
Chart
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

7.
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=Unacceptable
Table
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

8.
(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

9.
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 Value
Chart
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

10.
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

11.
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 Value
Chart
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

12.
⇒ 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
aren't
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

13.
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 Value
Chart
4:
PilotHouse
Market
Leaders:
Unified
Communications,
2011
©Nemertes
Research
2011
±
www.nemertes.com
±
888-­‐241-­‐2685
±
DN
1530
13

14.
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

15.
⇒ 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
can't
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

16.
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
haven't
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

17.
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
we've
been
able
to
take
this
product
and
offer
so
many
capabilities
is
huge
value;
never
thought
I'd
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

18.
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

19.
“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

20.
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

21.
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
that's
caused
a
little
it
of
©Nemertes
Research
2011
±
www.nemertes.com
±
888-­‐241-­‐2685
±
DN
1530
21

22.
frustration
with
us.
You
put
in
a
patch,
and
a
new
issue.
I
just
patched
last
night
after
identifying
three
issues.
One,
receptionists
couldn't
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

23.
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

24.
• “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

25.
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

26.
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

27.
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

28.
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

29.
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

30.
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

31.
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

32.
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