DePaul University opts for a multivendor IP telephony system
DePaul University chooses Cisco and Adomo for convergence
Convergence & VoIP Alert
By
Steve Taylor
and
Larry Hettick
,
Network World
, 08/13/2007
Sign up for this newsletter now!
Steve Taylor and Larry Hettick offer news and analysis on the latest in IP convergence from fixed-mobile convergence, presence management, IP video and unified communications.
- Share/Email
- Tweet This
- Print
About two years ago, DePaul University’s IT staff began plans to replace its Nortel 81 and Meridian Mail PBX communications
systems that serve some 4,500 users at the university. Like many conversions, the shift to IP telephony (IPT) was designed
to take several years and was going to be phased in by user-group. The new messaging system needed to provide interworking
between the new IPT system and the legacy TDM PBX and it needed to provide full integration with Microsoft Exchange and Active
Directory.
The staff decided on a Cisco solution (Call Manager and Unity) to provide telephony features, but after an initial pilot the
team decided to use an Adomo Unified Messaging system to supply unified messaging. Since Cisco’s Unity platform includes unified
messaging capabilities, we asked John Ourada, DePaul’s senior enterprise architect why the organization decided on a two-vendor
approach.
Ourada said: “We had to integrate tightly with Exchange and we found out that the Cisco Unity was built on an older platform
and was complex and difficult to support. It was good, but it didn’t have all the architectural features that we needed and
it required more modifications to ADS [Microsoft’s Active Directory Service].”
He continued, “We needed a system that tightly integrated with Nortel Meridian PBXs, Cisco Call Manager, and with Exchange
and, while Unity could do that, we would have to make upgrades to [our] Nortel [infrastructure] that would have been very
expensive.” He also commented that he was favorably impressed with the flexibility and quick response from a smaller company
to provide him with the features he needed even if the features were on an existing roadmap.
Our analysis: While it’s usually easier to introduce a single vendor solution rather than a multivendor one, IT teams will
find this isn’t always the best solution. We look at a single vendor IPT solution as a “Swiss army knife” approach; it fits
well together and is easy to carry as a single tool, but each individual blade isn’t always the “best-in-class” when compared
to alternatives. The moral of the story: Make sure that IPT conversion plans include a hard look at both multivendor and single
vendor solutions because even though a single vendor solution may have certain advantages, sometimes adding another supplier
to the mix can both save money and make integration easier.
Steve Taylor is president of Distributed Networking Associates and publisher/editor-in-chief of Webtorials. Larry Hettick is a principal analyst at Current Analysis.
Comments (1)
RE: DePaul University opts for a multivendor IP telephony systemBy mostafa on August 16, 2007, 6:03 amsalut
Reply | Read entire comment
View all comments