JT Packard is the nation’s largest independent service provider of network-critical power equipment. The company’s foothold on the industry began with uninterruptable power supply (UPS) equipment sales. After recognizing the lack of a streamlined UPS service model, the organization expanded to fill the need for its customers, and as its service delivery matured, JT Packard naturally increased coverage to encompass the entire critical power supply: UPS, batteries, DC plants, generators and HVAC equipment. The company, headquartered in Verona, Wisc., has more than 150 field offices across the country to maintain its service agreements in all 50 states. Prestigious property management firms and Fortune 500 companies alike trust JT Packard to ensure the constant flow of power to their mission-critical operations. In fact, more than 25 percent of Fortune 500 companies depend on JT Packard.
Problem
In early 2007, JT Packard had an NEC PBX-based telephone system that was quickly becoming outdated and lacking in features. Parts were no longer being supported and the system itself was reaching end-of-life. The company decided it was time to look into an entirely new system. According to Kevin Mengelt, CIO for JT Packard, “We wanted to reduce overall phone system costs — both operational and usage costs. We also wanted new features — we wanted to eventually integrate a new system with Salesforce.com, and we wanted the ability to see direct dial numbers, conduct conference calls on our own, and display caller information on the computer screen. We weren’t able to do any of these things before.”
Mengelt assigned a team to start doing research, arming them with a list of features JT Packard required, so that a list of viable contenders could be established. The team came up with a list of both PBX and IP telephony vendors. To these qualified vendors, including Avaya, Cisco, Nortel and ShoreTel, JT Packard issued a RFP. Eventually, it came down to Cisco and ShoreTel.
Mengelt and his team considered cost, architecture, scalability and ease of use closely when comparing ShoreTel to Cisco. They also considered support capabilities and expertise of both the vendors and their integration partners. Cisco dropped its price considerably and even met the ShoreTel price. However, the team knew in terms of ongoing costs, ShoreTel would be less expensive over time, and since the company was going to expand, it was obvious it would be beneficial to stick with a solution that was cost-effective without discounts.
Solution
“Upfront costs are not all that matter,” said Mengelt. “We did a total cost of ownership analysis and ShoreTel came out on top. We knew we’d save money over time with ShoreTel, which is what counts. The ShoreTel architecture was simpler than Cisco’s, so it was less costly to expand and grow the system. ShoreTel was easier to operate, which results in lower costs. It’s easier to set up users, which lowers general support costs. And ShoreTel met our needs in terms of features. It was also more robust, resulting in fewer failures and outages and a more reliable system.”
ShoreTel's integration partner had brought ShoreTel in for the evaluation process and therefore supplied the ShoreGear voice switches and ShorePhone IP telephones at the time of the deployment, in May 2007. The partner provided JT Packard with 20 ShoreGear voice switches and more than 460 ShorePhone IP telephones distributed across 18 locations. In addition, JT Packard has 25 ShoreWare SoftPhone licenses.
