network as data communications: a VoIP^3 network solu-
tion. Like the other alternatives, a VoIP solution appeared
to be neither simple nor cheap.
A new in-house PBX would improve the treatment
of callers with its Automatic Call Distribution capability,
which put callers in a queue if all available staff were busy.
Multiline telephone sets, an online caller directory capabil-
ity, and better management reports would help to improve
telecommunications services throughout the university and
provide quicker access to personnel. For students, private
voice mailboxes could be assigned with each student hav-
ing their own phone number. Many organizations own and
manage an in-house PBX system utilizing traditional voice
circuits, but newer VoIP solutions was an interesting trend
in the communications industry. The potential cost savings
from placing voice traffic on the data network—VoIP—
caught the eye of Butler’s technology group. However,
VoIP was a relatively new technology, and embarking on a
marketplace solution that was this new would mean that
there wasn’t yet a “clear path to success.”
Only twelve to thirteen percent of the market had
VoIP installed in 2004. Even though the telecommu-
nications landscape was changing with an emerging
trend of increasing IP lines, the current statistics were
still daunting and left us wondering if this was a good
path to take. Needless to say, we became intrigued.
—Scott Kincaid, CIOThe limited adoption rates weren’t the only risks Butler had to
consider. By converging traditional data networks and voice
networks into one, the reliability of the voice services on cam-
pus would likely be less than what the campus had experi-
enced for telephone services in the past: The VoIP phone sets
would depend on network operations that weren’t used by tra-
ditional analog phones. The Butler data network was known to
be prone to occasional outages due to equipment failure,
insufficient capacity at times, or odd behavior from rogue
student-owned computers. Several constituents were con-
cerned about the potential voice quality of IP-based telephony.
Coincidentally, in January 2004, the Information
Resources group at Butler had obtained formal approval to
begin a three-year program to upgrade all of the network
switches, routers, and hubs, a major endeavor. The network
upgrade funding would come from two sources: two-thirds
would be supplied by university gifts and the remaining
third would come from the annual IR operations budget
spread over three years. So Butler was on a path to improve
the network, but it was not in place now.
The thought of a data network being capable of
accommodating high-quality, business-class phone calls
was a real source of apprehension. This meant that perhaps
the biggest risk that a VoIP PBX solution posed was intro-
ducing a less proven technology to its users and gaining
their buy-in to this emerging solution. Gaining buy-in
would entail accepting the adoption of a new method of
communication and new performance risks. Everyone was
also worried about virus attacks that commonly affected
data networks, but not traditional voice lines.People were concerned we’d drag down our voice
systems to the quality of data network. Our goal,
however, was to bring the data network up to the
quality of our traditional voice network.—Joe Indiano, Director Network and SystemsMatching Butler’s Needs with the Network
Alternatives
In order to look at the alternatives, the Telephony Evaluation
Team was formed in March 2004 (Exhibit 2). The team was
led by Joe Indiano, IR’s director of network and systems.
The team included the telecom coordinator, a data network
engineer, the university’s Facilities Management telecom
technician, and the CIO, Scott Kincaid.
Given that this evaluation was a new project to
Butler, but had been done by many other organizations, Joe
Indiano made the recommendation to engage an experi-
enced consulting firm to coordinate a formal needs analy-
sis, including end-user surveys. To find a qualified outside
firm without spending months of analysis on that alone,
Butler utilized the expertise of a professional trade group
(ACUTA^4 ) of which it was a member. Through the
ACUTA listserv, they asked peers for recommendations
regarding consultants who had helped other similar organ-
izations with telephony system evaluations. This quickly
identified two primary candidates, who Butler contacted
and interviewed.
Butler decided to engage Dietrich Lockard Group,
an independent telecommunications consulting firm based
in St. Louis, Missouri, to help determine if the investment
in a new phone system could improve communication and
advance Butler’s mission.
To engage the university community in the telephony
needs analysis, a formal User Advisory Group was created
to work alongside the consulting firm. This committee
included end users of the phone system: administrative staff146 Part I • Information Technology
(^4) ACUTA: Association for Communications Technology Professionals in
Higher Education.
(^3) Voice over Internet Protocol allows for transmission of voice traffic over
an Internet protocol network that is either public (the Internet, for example)
or private.