4 out of 5.0, Reviewed May 10, 2016
Schedule met and service works.
Planning makes a difference.
It works well.
Reduce time to deliver.
Nothing. We are satisfied with the outcome.
2 out of 5.0, Reviewed Oct 4, 2015
Cost savings were not realized, handset (phones) are low quality, reliability and quality concerns persist.
Be wary of hidden costs. The solution we chose was feature rich with a flexible cost model to pay for features (only pay for features we use), but there are numerous technical issues to be resolved to provide a SaaS over existing network.
Unified communications in general. The provider has a feature rich solution that more easily adapts to other solutions - less propietary.
Lack of control over changes and speed of issue resolution. The solution we selected leverages the providers Serive Desk, but that is both the good news and the bad news. We seem to be managed as one of many without the personal touches one might recieve with an on-premises solution.
Focus on reliability and quality rather than volume and pace of deployment.
We would not trust critical core servives to a SaaS provider. If we did this again, we would opt for on-premise solutions.
Provider has a complete set of tools and options that make the solution very appealing.
Solution provider was too large to take a personal interest in us. We seem to be folded into the mix and not treated uniquely. This may be more perception than fact, but has lead to an overall dissatisfaction with the solution.
Deployment was well managed, but pace may have been too fast. Open issues and quality concerns were not addressed early enough. This has lead to an overall dissatisfaction with the solution.