Case Study I-3 • The VoIP Adoption at Butler University 149(^5) Lightweight Directory Access Protocol provides an online, fully-
indexed telephone directory service developed and freely distributed by
the Regents of the University of Michigan. [Eudora]
- Provide more immediate access to specific Butler
personnel - Remain competitive with peer institutions in the
level of services offered, particularly those that
impact students and their families
As part of the business case, cost estimates for vari-
ous alternative telephony systems were determined. These
cost estimates incorporated the investments in hardware,
software, phone equipment, and on going expenditures,
based on projections of what each option would cost given
industry research on pricing and the effort it would take to
support each option ongoing.
Based on the cost-benefit estimates, the decision was
made to consider four alternative scenarios:
1.Continuing with the current solution: Centrex serv-
ice outsourced to SBC
2.Continuing with the outsourced Centrex service—
but with a significant investment in upgrades and
new “bolt-on” equipment
3.Acquiring an in-house PBX system, using either tra-
ditional equipment or VoIP
4.Continue with the current solution (Option 1)—but
adding an independent 50-seat VoIP system for a few
selected offices
With Butler’s needs analysis completed, the results
were presented to the university vice presidents in July
- Butler management then gave the team the go-ahead
to solicit bids from vendors, but was nervous about the
potential investment.
Request for Proposal to the Selected Vendors
Based on the strategic goals and the key criteria developed
by the User Advisory Group, the Telephony Evaluation
Team and the consultants crafted a detailed request for pro-
posal (RFP). Dietrich Lockard Group identified vendors
that appeared to be well-aligned with the needs of Butler.
Dietrich Lockard Group contacted the six vendors and
identified the best local implementation partners (manu-
facturer resellers) for each of the manufacturers. Four of
the vendors, through the local resellers, submitted bids.
SBC presented Butler with three bids: continue the out-
sourced Centrex service option, add equipment to the serv-
ice, or move to an in-house PBX using Nortel equipment.
Then the User Advisory Group and the Telephony
Evaluation Team began the journey of listening to vendor
presentations, interviewing vendor representatives, evalu-
ating all of the features, making visits to selected vendor
customers, and striving to do an apples-to-apples compari-
son of the various proposals. The number of features and
factors considered was extensive with 400 different data
points provided in the RFP. To summarize the criteria, a
three-level priority scheme (shown in Exhibit 3) would be
used as a weighting scale to help ensure that the selected
alternative would best address Butler’s critical issues.
Butler’s main criteria were total overall cost and
meeting the needs defined in the RFP (as summarized in
Exhibit 3), and most venders could meet Butler’s require-
ments. However, during the comparative analysis, issues
bubbled up as key differentiators. Local support from an
experienced reseller was proving to be imperative if Butler
was going to move all of its telephony in-house.
Experience with new VoIP systems and integrating other
enterprise systems (i.e., PeopleSoft, LDAP^5 ) would be cru-
cial as well. With Macintosh users representing 25 percent
of the faculty population at Butler, the university also
wanted a system that offered equivalent features, such as
video conferencing capabilities, for both Mac and PC
users. An effective and flexible integrated emergency noti-
fication system, which allowed for a simultaneous broad-
cast of text and audio to all campus phones, as well as
other data network security concerns were other key differ-
entiators reflecting their increased priorities in a post-9/11,
Internet era.
In addition, what the manufacturers were planning to
invest in R&D were also considered. Most telephony ven-
dors currently sold both IP-based PBX systems and also tra-
ditional analog systems, with several promoting the ability
to interconnect the two types of systems. But during last-
minute visits to several of the manufacturers’ headquarters,
it became obvious to the Telephony Evaluation Team that
the manufacturers were putting all of their R&D dollars into
IP-based systems. While VoIP was certainly the more risky
approach, the Telephony Evaluation Team came to the
uncomfortable realization that if they invested in a new ana-
log PBX, they might end up with a system that had a limited
life. Suddenly, staying with the SBC Centrex service for a
couple more years looked like a serious option.Vendor Selection
Butler narrowed the field down to five main candidates
from a list of nine potential options presented to them.
The final alternatives included the following:- Continue with SBC’s current Centrex service (out-
sourcing option) - Continue with SBC’s Centrex service, but add a
Nortel 50-seat IP system