ITC: The University of Edinburgh. Information Technology Committee

Transcription

1 Brief description of the paper The University of Edinburgh Information Technology ommittee 6 March 2012 University Telephone System Replacement This paper is a copy of a paper to the Estates ommittee meeting of 6 March It reports the outcome of the Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Strategy Review. The review recommends that the University proceeds to procure a replacement telephone system based on VoIP technology, with Unified ommunication capability. Action requested IT is invited to note the paper. There will be a presentation from Dr hris Adie at the meeting and an opportunity for discussion on the consultation process leading into the procurement. Resource implications Does the paper have resource implications? Staff resource only at this stage. Risk Assessment Does the paper include a risk analysis? No Equality and Diversity Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No Freedom of information an this paper be included in open business? Yes Originator of the paper Dr hris Adie, Manager, Telephones and Security Systems, Information Services.

2 University Telephone System Replacement VoIP Strategy Review The strategic review of the University s telephone provision (as described in a paper to the 30 November Estates ommittee) has now been completed. The Management Summary of the report is appended to this paper. The full report is available at: The report has two main recommendations: 1. The University should commence a competitive procurement for a replacement telephony and Unified ommunications solution during 2012, with a view to inviting tenders from suppliers in Autumn 2012, and selecting and contracting with a preferred supplier early in In parallel with developing the Invitation To Tender (ITT), Information Services should conduct a stakeholder consultation exercise, to ensure that business and user needs are identified and appropriately represented in the ITT. Funding Requirements A formal EU Procurement Journey (Route 3), probably using the Restricted Procedure or otherwise as advised by the Director of Procurement, will be undertaken. At this stage, no funding is formally being sought from the Estates capital programme. However, it is anticipated that spend totalling up to 3.5M over up to four years, starting late in FY 2012/13, will be required. A formal approach will be made to Estates ommittee for funding approval prior to contracting with the selected supplier. Please note that the costings in the Review Report and its management summary are indicative, and do not represent a budget for the project. They do not, for instance, include any additional temporary staff resource to implement the rollout. Project Organisation A Project Board will be established to oversee the replacement of the University s telephone system. The membership of the Board is yet to be established and Estates ommittee will be informed of this at the next E meeting on 9 May. Information Services, advised by the Project Board and the University s IT ommittee, will then establish a project team (which will include representatives from outside IS) to progress the stakeholder consultation and the procurement.

3 E is invited to: note that the strategic review of the University s telephone provision has now been completed note the strategic review recommendation to commence a competitive procurement for a replacement telephony and Unified ommunications solution during 2012, with a view to inviting tenders from suppliers in Autumn 2012, and selecting and contracting with a preferred supplier early in note the strategic review recommendation that Information Services should conduct a stakeholder consultation exercise, to ensure that business and user needs are identified and appropriately represented in the ITT. note that it is anticipated that spend totalling up to 3.5M over up to four years, starting late in FY 2012/13, will be required and that a formal approach will be made to Estates ommittee for funding approval prior to contracting with the selected supplier. note that a Project Board will be established to oversee the replacement of the University s telephone system and that Estates ommittee will be informed of this at the next E meeting on 9 May. hris Adie 29 February 2012

4 Appendix University of Edinburgh VoIP Strategic Review 1. Management Summary 1.1 Summary The University telephone network is primarily based on technology which is now 20 years old. The Sopho telephone systems were originally manufactured by Philips, who subsequently sold their telecommunications business to NE. Information Services has set an objective to be able to decommission the legacy NE Sopho infrastructure by Whilst NE have indicated they will be able to support these systems beyond that date, there are limited deployments of this technology within the UK, and the level of expertise available to support the systems may make them unsustainable. We are also very vulnerable should NE elect to sell its telecoms business a purchaser might well elect to discontinue Sopho support earlier than promised by NE. Information Services has therefore concluded that there is a reasonable possibility of the systems becoming unsustainable in the period and wishes to ensure the critical telephony service is protected beyond this date. In addition it has been established that continued investment in the NE systems at current pricing levels does not represent good value for money. Whist the NE IP telephony solution provides adequate basic voice functionality, it restricts the University s options in terms of providing Unified ommunications and ollaboration (U) features to users, insofar as the only viable (semi-)compatible option is to deploy Microsoft Lync. An analysis of the market, together with reference to Gartner research documents available to the University, reinforces the view that NE is not a market leader / visionary for the provision of IP telephony or U features and that there may better and more cost effective alternatives available Whilst it is intended following this report to undertake a stakeholder consultation exercise, at this point Information Services recognises that it has to consider the provision of Unified ommunications (U) as part of its medium term strategy. There are many definitions of U, however for the purposes of this report we have broadly considered U (Unified ommunications) and U (Unified ommunications and ollaboration) as set out by Gartner and represented in the following diagram.

5 Source: Gartner (December 2009) 1.2 Options Looking ahead, the University has the following high level options for moving forward They are as follows: Option 1. Option 2. Option 3. Option 4. ontinue to migrate to NE IP telephony and offer a basic voice service. Migrate to Lync (Lync is the Microsoft application for enterprise voice and U) Replace the NE systems with a new IP telephony (IPT) solution. o This could be complemented with U software to provide additional features in addition to the voice functionality (option 3a) Deploy a hosted voice service This report sets out to review these options at a high level and to compare the predicted costs of ownership. 1.3 omparative osts We have reviewed the potential costs of the above options and the following table and graph sets these out on the following basis. An anticipated 7 year cost of ownership. A 4 year migration period from the NE Sopho

6 Option 7 Year omparative ost Option 1 - ontinue with NE 2,326,000 Option 2 - Migrate to Lync 2,275,000 Option 3 - New IPT Deployment 2,617,000 Option 3 a -New IPT deployment Plus U 3,057,000 Option 4 - Hosted Service (no U) 8,264,370 The cumulative cost of all the options is shown in the following graph: It can be seen from the table and graph above that the Hosted option costs distort the graph, therefore the following does not include this option.

7 1.4 Strategic Options The following key conclusions have been drawn for each of the options: Option 1 ontinue to migrate to NE IP telephony and offer a basic voice service. This option does not meet the key criteria of providing a mechanism to deliver U features as part of the overall strategy. The NE U application is not widely deployed and is not considered a viable long term option for the University. NE s proposition for U is focussed on Microsoft Lync, and therefore a more sustainable option would be to migrate from NE to Lync enterprise voice. This is considered as Option 2. Option 2 Migrate to Lync (Lync is the Microsoft application for enterprise voice and U) This option would deliver voice and U to the University users but would currently be restricted to those with either Windows or MA desktops. Whilst telephony could be provided using standalone handsets to other users with Linux desktops the U features would not be available to these users. This solution leverages some cost benefits from the University s campus license agreement, but similarly the University would be locked into this agreement as it would underpin the telephony provision. This is a viable option for the University however it is Microsoft biased and the impact of this will need to be carefully considered.

8 Option 3 Replace the NE systems with a new IP telephony solution. This option would deliver a new telephony solution to meet the University s requirements following a competitive procurement process. The costs for this option have been calculated as a comparison to option 1 continue with NE. It should be noted that costs for this option are based on replacing all11100 handsets, compared with option 1 which leverages some cost benefit from the existing investment in NE IP handsets and licenses. Option 3a Replace the NE systems with a new IP telephony solution with added U features This option would enable the University to select a product set able to best fit with its requirements including a mixed desktop environment. The University would have options as to the pace and extent of U deployment dependent in user demand and need. This option would meet the overall requirement and deliver against the business and user needs established to date. Option 4 Deploy a hosted voice service This option would involve the University purchasing a hosted service on predominantly a revenue basis and incurring a cost per user per month. ore equipment would be hosted off site although some equipment would be required on site to prove resilience. Whilst a viable technical option the current cost model for hosted service is not a good fit for the University and this is reflected in the costs compared to the other options.

9 1.5 onclusions and Recommendations Key onclusions ontinuing with the current strategy to migrate to NE IP telephony will not meet the University s goal to provide additional U features, and represents poor value for money. Whilst the NE system could be migrated to Lync, this is just one alternative product option available and there is no compelling technical or commercial reason to pursue this strategy without proper consideration of the alternatives. Recommendations It is recommended that the University go to tender for a replacement telephony and U solution during This course of action will allow all viable product options to be considered and evaluated. It is recommended that a stakeholder consultation exercise is undertaken to inform the ITT as to the business and user requirements of the University. This will establish the user demand and need for enhanced telephony and U features and enable the University to select a solution which best meets these requirements.