Unified Communications Vendor Matrix

Unified Communications (UC) is complex technology precisely because it unifies several different applications.  So, in evaluating vendors on their unified communications products ABI Research has focused not only on each of the critical application components but also on how well everything truly is integrated and fully featured.  ABI Research has prepared this vendor matrix to give an unbiased rating of leading Unified Communications vendors on the basis of each company’s perceived “Innovation” and “Implementation.” Profiled vendors were selected based on our research as well as interviews with and feedback received from industry participants including hardware vendors, integrators, and end-users.

The Unified Communications Vendor Matrix evaluates unified communications vendors on a number of criteria.  Because UC is a complex set of technologies, a knowledgeable channel of resellers is critical.  Similarly key technology partners are essential since no single UC vendor has all the necessary technology in-house.  Mobile support, including support for key mobile operating systems and handsets is a necessary ingredient for UC success.  UC vendors are also rated on the cost of their solutions, their overall UC product portfolio, their application development platforms and tools offered, and the breadth and depth of their UC professional services.  From an Innovation perspective, ABI Research rates UC vendors on criteria including their UC architectures, the security and scalability of their UC products, the interoperability of these products, and the comprehensiveness of their IP telephony, messaging, and video/telepresence offerings.  The result of this analysis is a vendor matrix that provides insight into these UC vendors' strengths and weaknesses.

Description of Criteria

Criteria used to develop this vendor matrix are related to product and company characteristics that serve as proxies for vendor performance in the two areas of Innovation and Implementation.  Numerical scores are aggregated, weighted, and analyzed to provide overall rankings, which are assigned to each vendor on the Innovation and Implementation axes. 

Innovation

The seven Innovation scoring criteria and their associated weighting are as follows:

1.     UC Channel  (15% weighting)

·         The number of resellers specializing in UC

·         The global reach of the vendor

·         The mix of distributors for SMBs and Large Enterprises

·         The strength of the service provider channel

-         UC certifications for channel partners

-         Relative UC knowledge of channel partners

2.     UC Mobility (15% weighting)

·         Offers its own client with the same look and feel on different devices

·         Mobile platforms supported

·         The degree to which fixed mobile convergence is supported

3.      UC Technology Partners  (15% weight)

·         Quality and depth of partnerships

-         Telephony technology partnerships

-         Mobility technology partnerships

-         Video technology partnerships

-         Telepresence technology partnerships

-         Conferencing and collaboration technology partnerships

-         Contact centers technology partnerships

4.     UC Cost  (5% weight)

·         Licenses and equipment needed for UC

-         Forklift upgrade or incremental change?

-         What’s included in the basic offerings?

5.     UC Application Development  (10% weight)

·         Application development tools offered

·         Application development support

·         Strength of developer channel

6.     UC Professional Services  (10% weight)

·         UC professional services offered

·         Own professional services?

·         Range of professional services offered.

7.     UC Product Portfolio (30% weight)

·         Telephony products

·         Messaging products

·         Video and telepresence products

·         Conferencing and collaboration products

·         Fixed mobile convergence products

·         Contact center and other UC products

Implementation

The seven Implementation scoring criteria and their associated weighting are as follows:

1.     UC Security  (10% weight)

·         UC security features

·         Awards for UC security

·         Independent lab bake-offs on security

2.     UC Architecture (20% weight)

·         Architecture as a development platform

·         Openness of the architecture

·         Architecture roadmap

·         Architecture’s flexibility

3.     UC Scalability  (15% weight)

·         The maximum number of users supported

·         The applicability to SMBs

·         Service Provider applicability

4.     UC Interoperability  (10% weight)

·         Standards supported

·         Support for proprietary protocols of other vendors

·         Ability to interoperate with other major platforms

·         Specific public statements on product set’s UC interoperability and future directions of it

5.     UC Video & Telepresence /Served (15% weight)

·         Video conferencing support

·         Telepresence support

·         Support for video on the UC platform including video e-mail

6.     UC Messaging  (10% weight)

·         Support for Microsoft messaging

·         Support for IBM messaging

·         Support for Novell messaging

·         Support for other messaging platforms

7.     UC IP Telephony  (20% weight)

·         Specific UC IP telephony features

·         IP telephony elements included in basic package

·         Specific IP telephony features applicable to specific UC verticals such as Healthcare & Hospitality

Scoring

Vendors receive a “rating score” for each ABI Research-defined criterion under Implementation and Innovation.  These scores range from 0-100 and are based on available information as well as ABI Research assumptions.  Points are awarded in 1 point increments.  Each criterion (and its score) is weighted based on ABI Research’s opinion of each criterion’s level of influence on and importance to the overall assessment of Innovation and Implementation.  The number of criteria for Implementation and Innovation may vary; however, this does not impact vendor ranking.  Vendors receiving higher scores in higher weighted criteria will benefit in terms of a better overall position via higher Innovation and Implementation scores.  Lower scores in higher weighted categories will result in a weaker overall placement due to the impact of the weighting.

A mathematical formula is then applied to take into account the weights and scores so that vendors can be positioned along the x- and y-axes (with a maximum score of 100 for Implementation and Innovation. 

It is ABI Research’s policy not to publicly disclose individual scores for each criterion.

Rankings

After individual scores are established for Innovation and Implementation using the above criteria, an overall company score is established using the RMS (Root Mean Square) method.  The resulting overall scores are then ranked and used for percentile comparisons.

The RMS method, in comparison with a straight summation or average of individual innovation and implementation values, rewards companies for standout performance. 

Rankings

After individual scores are established for Innovation and Implementation using the above criteria, an overall company score is established using the Root Mean Square (RMS) method:

The resulting overall scores are then ranked and used for percentile comparisons.

The RMS method, in comparison with a straight summation or average of individual innovation and implementation values, rewards companies for standout performance.

For example, using this method a company with an innovation score of 9 and an implementation score of 1 would score considerably higher than a company with a score of 5 in both areas, despite the mean score being the same. ABI Research believes this is appropriate as the goal of these matrices is to highlight those companies that stand out from the others.