Cisco Unity vs. Other VM Systems

[jneiberger]

My company is currently trying to decide between VoIP solutions from Cisco, Nortel, Avaya, and Mitel. I'm curious to find out how Cisco's Unity VM system stacks up against other systems.

I've heard from some that it is a pretty decent system, but I've heard others say that it is a hideous piece of junk that pales in comparison to a "real" voice mail system.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
John

 

[johnpoole]

if i had a pure cisco solution, i would use that mail, and buy a spare. if i had a nortel pbx i would use the call pilot. i've never cared for avaya or centigram. i would still match my mail to my largest voice switch. the pilot does work well with the cisco call manager, i have that working on my site. 400 wireless voip, 8000 tdm sets and call pilot.. it works, i programed it, and it stays up.. if i can software it, it ain't that hard

john poole
bellsouth business
columbia,sc

 

[avayaconsultant]

I would first have to see what you current environment is. I believe that ultimately you will be happier with the Avaya product line than most others. The newer IP Office systems from Avaya are great and the VM Pro is better than most. If you need the more traditional PBX, Avaya Intuity Audix LX or there are other Avaya solutions that couuld easily meet you needs. What are the specifix needs for you guys?

Chris

 

[jneiberger]

Chris,

There are too many requirements to go through here. It's a pretty complex environment in many ways. We're talking multiple call centers, a few sites with 100-300 people and an additional 110 remote sites with 10-40 employees.

We've been dealing with Avaya through a VAR, with Mitel through a VAR, and then with Cisco and Nortel directly although VARs are involved in those discussions. The Avaya solution looked pretty good but there we have a few quibbles with it. The Mitel solution is probably cooler than Avaya's, but I have a few problems with it, as well.

Nortel's solution is the messiest of all, and that's sad considering we're a Nortel shop already. I would definitely give the nod to Cisco at this point. They don't have a perfect solution (who does?) but it does a lot of things really well and they seem to have a better overall approach to true integration.

 

[avayaconsultant]

I won't disagree that Cisco has a good product. With that said, I have experienced most of the environments that you have mentioned and then some. I would be prone to push Avaya as as the leader in Call Center technology. If it were in my lap to decide, I would eliminate all the others and choose between Avaya and Cisco. Avaya has definitely been the "telecom" leader since the days of yesteryear. The roots are probably the deepest in call center technology in regards to technology and experience. Avaya would also have one of the best and most complete multisite options. In these modern times, almost all of the systems should offer some form of IP integration. Avaya and Cisco being the leaders in that arena. Also keep in mind that the real success will be in the VAR/ Business Partner or even the manufacturer that integrates the system. Strangely enough, Cisco used Avaya Call Center technology and IVR technology and only started using their own equipment in late 2000 and early 2001. Merrill Lynch is now using a combination of Cisco and Avaya. They actually got rid of all Cisco telephone equipment back in 2003 and replaced it with Avaya. Now in 2005, they are using both systems worldwide. Keep in mind that the Cisco solutions will be all IP based. Avaya will offer both tradition TDM and IP based systems in the same switch. That my 2 cents worth. Hope it helps some.

Chris

 

[jneiberger]

I always welcome the opinions of those with experience!

Thanks,
John

 

[ITArch]

My two cents...We have also looked at both solutions and have decided to go with the Cisco IPT solution. I'm not here to bad mouth Avaya, but Cisco is better positioned especially since most Major Data networks are based on a Cisco Infrastructure. As for the comment concerning Merrill Lynch, lets not forget that they went back to Cisco because Avaya couldn't provide what was required. Avaya Voice mail solutions are good with Avaya Systems, but don't like to play nice with other vendor systems (not to mention how expensive they are). I've also heard that there would be no more development on their G3 or Intuity platforms, which will force customers to their new server based systems. Lastly, the advantages of using the Cisco IP Phones and equipment in a Cisco Network environment gives a company many advantages such as being able to dynamically negotiate the Voice VLAN and Power Requirements (beyond AF standard). Avaya is good in the traditional PBX arena, but Cisco definitely gets the advantage when it come to the IP arena.

 

[ITArch]

Just one more thought....too many IT folks get caught up on the Vendor A vs. Vendor B, and seem to forget that without an overall understanding and strategy on how IPT will be implemented, ANY IPT endeavor is at a high risk of failing. Some of these factors include Cost of ownership, Infrastructure readiness (QOS, Gatekeepers, Gateways, etc.), WAN environment sizing, redundancy requirements, solution flexibilty and vendor partners, just to name a few. My post is not meant to question your skills or what you have done, but more so you can see that I'm not just posting comments to bash anyone.

 

[avayaconsultant]

Another thing to look for is platform basis. Cisco is still using all Windows based platforms. They do, however, say that in the near future, they will be changing the OS layer of their systems. They have made that claim for severl years. Avaya and several others run on a very tightened Unix/Linux Kernel. If you actually research back enough, you will probably find that Avaya aka..Lucent aka... AT&T aka...Bell Labs, etc.. was in mix of the development of Unix. Not quiet like we know if today, but still there. I also agree with the strategy to implement. everything does have to be ready for things to happen. Avaya actually offers the best approach to any solution. They have both traditional TDM and IP solutions that are extremely proven over time. I would suggest that the prople that have had problems were not prepared for the implementation to start with. As a rule of thumb question... Do you really trust an all IP based multinetwork call center. What is the reliability rating there. That is why I would look into other solutions beyond Cisco.

 

[Dunstan]

BCR

Business Communications Review has done the recent high end system tests from most of the vendors mentioned. Avaya won...and after initially stuimbling to the IPT market they are now starting to pull away from Cisco. These tests are from an independant third party and review everything from Multi-site configs, Security, IP features, standard telephony features, failover on and on. All things equal (meaning you are starting from scratch Avaya atm offers the best product line.

If you are pre-disposed to the data side of the house and derive comfort from the Cisco boxes they are certainly worthy of implementation. However I have yet to see a comprehensive third party place Avaya below them when all aspects are considered.

 

[jneiberger]

It's interesting to note that BCR docked Cisco for their failover time (SRST) but it's actually a better implementation that Avaya offers. If the primary CallManager fails and you're not using your phone, the failover can take up to 90 seconds, as I recall. However, if you attempt to use your phone at any time then the failover is instantaneous. Avaya's failover times (in the design presented to us) is 2-5 minutes. Which do you prefer?

 

[avayaconsultant]

Avaya offers several reliability platforms from high reliability to critical reliability in their platforms. We tested failover last week, on accident, for a customer install and failover took approx 45 seconds for 4 carriers to be live on the backup server. Did anyone see yesterdays Wall Street Jouranal with the artice about the CallMAnager having 2 major security flaws in the CallManager VOIP system?

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112130846807785482,00.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo

 

[jneiberger]

I believe two flaws that are already patched. Granted, CM is on a Windows platform which tends to make it less secure (or at least a bigger target), but how many flaws do you think Avaya has or had that simply went unreported?

 

[avayaconsultant]

The patches are available upon request the last I heard. The big thing of worry on the Windows platform should be more of a virus risk than a hacker risk. The majority of teh systems are located on internal Lans and, albeit a slight risk, are open to internal employees. With the employees, comes the adventure of virus outbreaks that rip through a network, which will hammer ALL Windows besed machines and never touch the "Unix" based boxes. I had a friend that managed a Cisco tel system until they were wiped out by a Virus. They now have a full blown Avaya Call Center after the company Pres couldn't be reassured that it woudl not happen again by Cisco. Granted, theor is always the chance that someone will finally be smart enough to build a unix based virus that will do the same damage. Technology.... can't live with it, can't live without it! I am not purposely trying to slam Cisco. I have stated before that they do offer a viable system. I don't frrl with either solutions, someone would be wrong. I am just Avaya biased. Tried, trued and proven!

 

[jneiberger]

Well, all of our Windows machines, PCs and Servers, have AV software running on them with updated definitions. We also have other mitigating factors, such as not using Outlook.

The latest incarnation of CallManager comes with Cisco Security Agent. That software combined with a good AV solution and a fully patched system is pretty secure.

Regardless, the first Linux version of CallManager should be out by the end of the year, and as soon as the Linux version has the same features as the Windows version, we're switching to Linux.