Desktop management suite RFP

Shopping for the little extras - such as topology recommendations, network diagrams and server and software specifications - instead of price alone will get you an RFP response with the right combination of functionality and price.

Network World solicited all fourteen vendors in our Desktop Management Suites Buyer's Guide and received responses from five to our mock RFP for Patchwork. Among those were Intel, Microsoft, ClickNet Software, Vector Networks and Aprisma Management Technologies. While all of the RFP responses had their merits and clearly show how competitive the desktop management marketplace is we choose Intel's RFP response as our overall winner due to price, performance and ability to meet Patchwork's requirements.

We analyzed these RFP responses from a variety of angles, looking for the right combination of functionality, price and deployment strategy that met our requirements without blowing our budget. Each response was first considered individually and then compared collectively against the other four offerings. We looked at how each response was tailored to solve Patchwork's specific needs as opposed to regurgitating and repackaging marketing literature, customer testimonials and implementation notes.

Any well-rounded RFP analysis should consider price as a factor. However, shopping by price alone will not always give you the best bang for your buck. Regardless of the importance of price, expect to devote a sizable portion of your budget to purchasing, installing and integrating a desktop management system into your enterprise. The prices ranged from ClickNet's low of $240,938 to Aprisma's high of $787,532. The prices in between were Vector at $313,950, Microsoft at $420,408 and Intel at $525,000.

With price on the table, we turned our attention to the products that most closely met Patchwork's feature set and client needs. Since Patchwork's has 10,500 desktops in various geographic locations, we didn't take this decision lightly. Vector and Aprisma were easily eliminated because their responses didn't indicate support for Patchwork's Macintosh client base. On the other hand, responses from Intel, Microsoft and ClickNet indicated support for all the different Patchwork client desktops.

A close look

Identifying the right combination of functionality, price and deployment strategy led us directly to Intel's LANDesk Management Suite 6.3 response. Intel's entire RFP offering responded directly to address the Patchwork setup, providing network diagrams and topology recommendations and specifying client configuration issues. Intel also provided specifications for servers and software needed to facilitate the rollout of LANDesk Management Suite 6.3.

Microsoft's Systems Management Server 2.0 RFP response was quite descriptive and well written addressing each Patchwork need on an individual basis. But it fell a bit short when compared to Intel's proposed implementation. For example, Microsoft would require us to run Systems Management Server 2.0 and SMS 1.2 to support our Macintosh clients - an eyebrow raising proposition. And Microsoft's response didn't offer built-in antivirus features, a Patchwork desirable, requiring us to turn to a third-party antivirus product.

While ClickNet Software's Professional 5 RFP response totaled all of two pages it provided a fairly detailed total cost of ownership analysis which indicated the potential savings in the support time Patchwork would save by implementing ClickNet's Professional 5 product. However, ClickNet's summary approach left us wanting more. For example, there was no indication of the hardware requirements needed to host Professional 5's management consoles or the required network topology changes, network protocol support or specialized support for remote users.

Aside from not offering the required client support, Vector Networks' LANutil32 Suite 5.0 RFP response didn't provide any total cost of ownership analysis, leading us to wonder how much money we would save if we choose the LANutil32 Suite 5.0 offering. However, it was concise and to the point. Outside of this we also found gaps in other areas. For example, we weren't certain if the proposed solution would offer support for Web-based Enterprise Management or the Common Information Model.

Leafing through the Vector response was a walk-in-the park compared to Aprisma's Spectrum Enterprise Manager 5.0 with Metrix WinWatch 2.3 RFP response. It was the most disappointing not only because it didn't offer the required support for Patchworks' clients, it proved that bigger isn't always better. While we won't argue with the power of Aprisma's product and their alliances with other desktop management vendors, only three pages of the 38-page response were actually tailored to Patchwork's needs. These pages provided an overview of Patchwork's infrastructure and requirements, followed by a brief discussion on Aprisma's proposed implementation and associated budget. The remaining pages were glossy overviews of Aprisma product offerings, partnerships and self-promotional kudos. By the time we finished pouring over the text, we found ourselves wishing the Aprisma response addressed more of the specifics on how the implementation would operate within Patchwork's network environment and hardware requirements instead of generalizing on the state of the desktop management market in general.

Overall, we feel Intel's LANDesk Management Suite 6.3 response is the best proposal to Patchwork's dollar and feature requirements. In our opinion, Intel's RFP response offers the best mix of price and performance and it may even exceed Patchwork's requirements.