IBM Rapid FUD Responder blog: migration case study says very little

March 4 2006

Gartner recently published a case study which examines the Notes to Exchange migration done by RSM McGladrey.  Microsoft also has a version of the case study posted.  It's very enlightening to read them both, and see what a difference the independent view from Gartner is.

While I never like to lose a customer, this one is a result of an acquisition.  There appear to have been some business drivers as well, but those don't appear to have been considered equally for both platforms.  Regardless, the decision was made to go to MS.

As my colleague Antony Satyadas writes on the FUD responder blog, the Gartner analysis concludes very little in the way of firm business results.  Lots of expense -- US$214 per user for a cut-over e-mail migration... no coexistence, no application migration.  Lots of "hopes" -- the Gartner writeup uses the word "hope" or "believe" thrice.  And the Notes applications are still in place -- with an estimate of two years and another $200 per user to migrate them (plus the two-year cost of running the Notes infrastructure in parallel to Exchange).  Interesting that they believe they'll spend less per-user to migrate applications than they did to migrate mail.

I always encourage customers to apply a critical eye to reference stories from any vendor.  I especially encourage customers to ask to talk to a customer being referenced, especially the big ones that are claimed as winbacks.  In many many cases, the story from MS customers is the same as RSM McGladrey -- ok, we moved the commodity e-mail.  Now what do we do?  And they end up running both infrastructures for a long time, because there's nothing quite like the value of Lotus Notes and Domino.

Ed Brill Highland Park, IL USA Category:  Microsoft  Add/View Comments [15]

Post a Comment

  1. 1  Steven Byrne  | 3/4/2006 11:26:22 AM

    Focusing on Microsoft's case study being more positive is probably having your "eye off the ball".

  1. 2  Christer Eklundh  | 3/4/2006 12:02:26 PM

    I have the same experience. I worked 7 years as a consultent for a 12 000 users "firm" in Sweden.

    They used Notes/Domino (R5-clients/webmail, 6.5.x servers) for email and applications. The "firms" IT-department has always been very MS-friendly, same of the people working there are really fanatic MS-soldiers. We (me and IBM) tryed to convince them to upgrade the client but always got NO.

    I believe they where trying to starve Notes/Domiono to death. Last year the "firm" took a decistion to "migrate" to Lookout/Exchange. The "migration" was to set up a new MS enviroment and not migrate

    any mail... So what about the applications, they are still on Domino and what I have heard they are going to be expensive to "migrate".

    I don't work there anymore...

  1. 3  Ben Langhinrichs http://www.GeniiSoft.com/showcase.nsf/GeniiBlog | 3/4/2006 12:25:04 PM

    I don't have access to the Gartner report. Do they happen to mention, as Microsoft does not, that RSM McGladrey wound up buying lots of licenses for CoexLinks so that they could keep workflow applications on Notes/Domino after all? Just wondering.

  1. 4  Subhan http://www.subcoded.com | 3/4/2006 11:19:52 PM

    Yes its quite funny to see that app. migration cost is less than mail migration. The reality is it can be as high as 3x of mail migration.

    The firm I currently work at is in migration phase. Lotus was used for years and they had deployed many workflow services. The decision to migrate was primarily made by new managers who had preference to MS tech. Also a small but vocal user group was against LN. But if one is using R5 in year 2006, then its only so much the IT people can do.

    The mail migration was done over a period of 6mths. The same set of users uses various LN Apps and Workflows, and these will be migrated over 2yrs period. Earlier where we had 2/3 resources to make all the workflows and collab. apps on LotusNotes, now we have 10 developer team for building the same features on MS using Sharepoint, ASP.Net, C#, SQL, and K2.NET (a third party Workflow platform, since MS doesn't have one)

  1. 5  Peter Wilson  | 3/5/2006 3:41:58 AM

    Bring on Hannover...HOPEFULLY it will be the simple, snazzy looking email client that MS lovers (including managers) will love....oh, and if they get that groupware stuff it will be a bonus.

    It's all about the interface look and feel. Just as everyone who owns an iPod and love everything Apple do.

    Pete

  1. 6  Darren http://www.dadams.co.uk | 3/5/2006 5:32:24 AM

    Well, at least the users get to use Outlook now, which (as we know) EVERYONE in the whole world uses at home. Even people who don't have it installed.

    </sarcasm>

  1. 7  Lyset  | 3/5/2006 2:11:32 PM

    Any chance to read the complete Gartner report somewhere?

    I don't have an account for downloading the Gartner reports.

    Thanks, Lyset

  1. 8  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 3/5/2006 3:05:13 PM

    I don't have reprint/distribution rights for it, sorry. Perhaps ask microsoft? :)

  1. 9  Neeraj Shaabi  | 3/5/2006 9:53:15 PM

    We just went through this whole roller-coaster with a major customer with approx 20,000 users. The idea of moving across to Microsoft Exchange, Outlook and Sharepoint was introduced by new management. There was an intense evaluation over a period of 8 months, and lots courtship with top Microsoft executives from Redmond with the idea that "migration is really simple" and "everybody can live happily ever after with .NET".

    Eventually the evaluation made it very clear this was not the case. There would be significant expense and risk involved and no net new value added to the business or IT. At the end of the migration the result would be pretty much the same or less functionally as where they start from. They decided their budgets and efforts are better spent enhancing and evolving the Domino platform towards 7.0, enabling the key apps for web services, consolidating to realize the performance and TCO gains coming from Domino7.0 servers and building a Websphere based portal to integrate the legacy with the new. By the way, yes there were some of those end users looking forward to the Outlook "look and feel" but they have now seen "Hannover" and are happy to wait for it as it gives them all those pretty looking things along with the powerful collaboration application capabilities that Outlook could not even try.

    (I am responsible for IBM's Lotus business in South Asia and involved with customers most of my time - both IBM Lotus and Microsoft's)

  1. 10  Christer Eklundh  | 3/6/2006 1:12:07 AM

    @9

    It's nice to hear that where are some smart CEO:s out there...

  1. 11  Subhan http://www.subcoded.com | 3/6/2006 3:53:48 AM

    Agreed with @10. Not all companies are run by sensible people especially in government sectors who also care for expenditures.

  1. 12  Deleted  | 3/6/2006 2:09:37 PM

    Deleted at comment author's request

  1. 13  interested reAder  | 3/25/2006 11:15:51 PM

  1. 14  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 3/26/2006 6:32:20 PM

    I've deleted the previous anonymous comment. If the poster really believed what they wrote, they'd have been willing to give a name and valid e-mail address.

  1. 15  John Smart www.greyduck.com | 5/9/2006 4:59:00 PM

    A little late for web readers, but FYI for everyone else: The Minnesota Lotus User Group invited RSM McGladrey to speak on this in September. { Link } We wanted an earlier date but RSM McGladrey's head admin wanted more time in order to establish a track record for comparison. I'm excited about this event because it's a rare chance to hear truth instead of hype from either side. (No, I'm not accusing Ed of hype here, I'm just saying that blunt and accurate end-user comparisons of MS vs Lotus don't come often.)

    P.S. Ed, given what you knew of the author comment #13 (i.e. zilch), and given previous history of this blog (e.g. the astro-turf movement a la Tonyo@Radacati) I'd have done the same thing you did in a heart beat.

    That said, while I don't exactly know what was said in #13 and wasn't aware I knew the author until very recently, I can vouch that the author really believed what he/she wrote and had other reasons for wanting to remain anonymous.