What will enterprises do with their on-prem Skype for Business deployments after 2020? What factors weigh upon those decisions? I asked you…and you answered!
I received several responses from enterprise admins, all running Skype for Business Servers on-prem. Some went as I expected…while others gave me a few surprises!
Thank you to everyone who responded. Now it’s time to collate the feedback and see what the future may hold.
These are my overall feedback impressions:
- All respondents knew about the 2020 on-prem ‘deadline’
- Most have a plan to address it already, but those plans have either not begun or are still in debate with Management
- Cost is one major factor, but Call Performance and Maintenance are equally important
- Approximately half were in favor of moving to Teams. Half were not.
Let’s go through all of these.
Expected Costs, and What’s More Important
I didn’t get much in the way of direct numbers. Some admins had their Skype for Business costs wrapped into larger server stacks; others had third parties supporting their Skype4B and would have to take time away from other projects to request numbers. C’est la vie.
What numbers I did get indicated the following…
Costs for (virtual) servers averaged around $1500-1800 per, over 5 years. However this didn’t appear to weigh heavily on future updates/migrations. Since deployments are complete by now, install costs aren’t seen as a consideration. Neither is power, curiously enough…no one brought it up as a cost concern OR post-2020 savings.
The bigger cost concerns are:
- New user licenses & phones. If we assume a deskphone like the Polycom VVX 300, then the phone cost is about $100. Add $36 for a user CAL and you have $136 per new user. Not a huge cost, but one that adds up over time.
- Maintenance. Costs for monthly server maintenance ranged from almost $0 to nearly $500. This concerned the majority of respondents. While server maintenance is a part of every admin’s life, it takes up time we could use productively elsewhere. Regaining that time through a reduction in servers – or a cloud migration – appeals to most.
Which costs would they save on with Teams? Most said administrators. Going from 4 admins to 1-2, for example. Reduced need for maintenance = less admin time required = fewer admins ultimately needed.
(This is not to say you should drop all admins when going to Teams. Our own experience shows that Office 365 is NOT 100% maintenance-free!)
One respondent, Rob G., said it wasn’t really a matter of cost—but rather performance. From his feedback:
“The reality is, enterprise security teams/policies will end up pushing many companies to ‘as a service’ solutions not due to any inherent cloudy advantages but simply because it’s the cheapest way to shadow IT any latency-sensitive applications out of a dynamic security agent network.”
Interesting position to take…and illuminating. Whether or not costs change, at least one enterprise will move to Teams for performance’s sake. I have to admire such a position, honestly.
The Skype for Business ecosystem advanced real-time, Internet-based voice communications a LONG way in the past few years. Still some hiccups though, depending on bandwidth and systems architecture. Focusing on performance makes a lot of sense for any company with thousands of employees under its roof.
After 2020, Skype4B Enterprises Will Scatter
So, the original question:
Is moving to Teams/Office 365 at enterprise-level really a cost savings over on-prem Skype for Business?
In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. But it turns out that the question itself is immaterial.
Some enterprises will move to Teams, even if it costs more. Others will move to another on-prem UC solution. A few will cling onto Skype for Business Server until the very last.
When that time comes, we’ll have to check back in with everyone. See what factors are in play then!
Running an on-prem Skype for Business Server? What are your plans for the future?