Armstrong Infographic PDF
-
Upload
jonathan-moran -
Category
Documents
-
view
21 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Armstrong Infographic PDF
![Page 1: Armstrong Infographic PDF](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052310/553309ce4a795998578b47a2/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
ShoreTel is the easiest to IMPLEMENT.
ShoreTel’s EASE OF USE & TCO ADVANTAGE
67%SAVING
ShoreTel customers experienced a 67 percent saving in internal implementation cost per phone when compared to Avaya Aura Communication Manager.
Up-front training costs per administrator for ShoreTel systems were one-third the cost of training an administrator for a Cisco UCM solution. Ongoing annual training costs are 85 percent less than Avaya IP Office and 73 percent less than the average for all telephony.
System management and administration of a ShoreTel system cost 42 percent less than Avaya Aura Communications Manager and 77 percent less than Cisco Unified Communications Manager.
Performing moves, adds, and changes (MACs) on a ShoreTel system took one-third the time it takes to perform MACs on a Microsoft OCS/Lync system, and 60 percent less than the average for all telephony.
Contact
Armstrong Communications0845 345 0045
1/3COST OF TRAINING
2/3QUICKER
42%COST
LESS
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
TDM Avaya ACM Cisco UCM MSFT Lync ShoreTel
$Mill
ions
Vendor / Technology
Long Distance Charges
Network Costs
Electricity Consumption
System Management, MACs, Downtime
Support Services (maintenance, upgrades)
Implementation, Provisioning & Training
Capital Cost for Network Upgrade
Capital Cost for Telephony System
$31.9M
$17.4M
$22.3M
$18.4M
$11.1M
Source Data: Aberdeen Research, Nemertes Research, Alinean Research, ShoreTel
ShoreTel is the easiest to TRAIN and CERTIFY.
ShoreTel is theMOST FLEXIBLE
ShoreTel is the easiest and most COST-EFFECTIVE to manage.
TCO Comparison of major
UC system vendors (pre-tax)10 year total cost of ownership
using the ShoreTel TCO tool
2,000 users across 3 sites
(1750 at HQ, 200 at RO1, and 50 at RO2)
The case for the lowest total cost of ownership