Research Migrating Off Notes/Domino Email May Make Sense in ...

Research Migrating Off Notes/Domino Email May Make Sense in ...

Research Migrating Off Notes/Domino Email May Make Sense in ...


You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Research</strong><br />

Publication Date: 22 August 2011 ID Number: G00215901<br />

<strong>Migrat<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>Off</strong> <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> <strong>Email</strong> <strong>May</strong> <strong>Make</strong> <strong>Sense</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />

Some Circumstances, 2011 Update<br />

Tom Aust<strong>in</strong><br />

IT professionals often re-evaluate <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> for email because they sense that the<br />

market is mov<strong>in</strong>g away from the product, because SharePo<strong>in</strong>t leads them to consolidate<br />

around Microsoft, or for other reasons. <strong>Migrat<strong>in</strong>g</strong> to another third-generation email<br />

product may not, generally, make economic sense, but consolidat<strong>in</strong>g vendors, mov<strong>in</strong>g to<br />

cloud email services, seek<strong>in</strong>g capabilities not available <strong>in</strong> the product's ecosystem or<br />

pursu<strong>in</strong>g a larger collaboration strategy, may offer valid reasons for migration.<br />

Key F<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs<br />

From July 2010 through June 2011, 116 Gartner clients asked for advice about<br />

migrat<strong>in</strong>g away from Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> email; essentially the same number as between July<br />

2009 through April 2010 (although <strong>Notes</strong> application migration <strong>in</strong>quiries appear to be<br />

<strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g).<br />

Based on confidential discussions with these clients, we expect that at least one-third<br />

will have stopped us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> email by year-end 2013.<br />

Neither IBM nor its customers face an immediate crisis, because IBM will cont<strong>in</strong>ue<br />

<strong>in</strong>vest<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the platform to add more value and susta<strong>in</strong> service revenue.<br />

We estimate that it costs about $200 per user to migrate users from one third-generation<br />

email platform to another, but the cost of a major version upgrade can be almost $150<br />

per user. (Migration to software-as-a-service [SaaS] or cloud-based email could cost as<br />

little as $30 per user.)<br />

Recommendations<br />

Treat email as part of a three- to five-year <strong>in</strong>vestment strategy for collaboration<br />

capabilities, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Web conferenc<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong>stant messag<strong>in</strong>g, team workspaces and<br />

social software.<br />

Consider the range of on-premises, outsourced, SaaS, appliance and cloud provision<strong>in</strong>g<br />

options.<br />

Determ<strong>in</strong>e what emotional factors may be at play <strong>in</strong> the decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g process, and<br />

the degree to which they are truly relevant.<br />

© 2011 Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Gartner is a registered trademark of Gartner, Inc. or its<br />

affiliates. This publication may not be reproduced or distributed <strong>in</strong> any form without Gartner's prior written permission. The<br />

<strong>in</strong>formation conta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> this publication has been obta<strong>in</strong>ed from sources believed to be reliable. Gartner disclaims all<br />

warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of such <strong>in</strong>formation and shall have no liability for errors,<br />

omissions or <strong>in</strong>adequacies <strong>in</strong> such <strong>in</strong>formation. This publication consists of the op<strong>in</strong>ions of Gartner's research organization<br />

and should not be construed as statements of fact. The op<strong>in</strong>ions expressed here<strong>in</strong> are subject to change without notice.<br />

Although Gartner research may <strong>in</strong>clude a discussion of related legal issues, Gartner does not provide legal advice or<br />

services and its research should not be construed or used as such. Gartner is a public company, and its shareholders may<br />

<strong>in</strong>clude firms and funds that have f<strong>in</strong>ancial <strong>in</strong>terests <strong>in</strong> entities covered <strong>in</strong> Gartner research. Gartner's Board of Directors<br />

may <strong>in</strong>clude senior managers of these firms or funds. Gartner research is produced <strong>in</strong>dependently by its research<br />

organization without <strong>in</strong>put or <strong>in</strong>fluence from these firms, funds or their managers. For further <strong>in</strong>formation on the<br />

<strong>in</strong>dependence and <strong>in</strong>tegrity of Gartner research, see "Guid<strong>in</strong>g Pr<strong>in</strong>ciples on Independence and Objectivity" on its website,<br />


Re-evaluate whether software product ma<strong>in</strong>tenance agreements make economic sense,<br />

particularly for <strong>in</strong>frequently upgraded commodity products such as email and<br />

calendar<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

Publication Date: 22 August 2011/ID Number: G00215901 Page 2 of 11<br />

© 2011 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.


Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 4<br />

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4<br />

Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> <strong>Email</strong> is Under Pressure, But Still a Safe Investment .................................... 4<br />

Gartner Client Inquiries on Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> <strong>Email</strong> ...................................................... 4<br />

Catalysts for These Inquiries ............................................................................... 4<br />

Implications for Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> <strong>Email</strong> and Its Customers .......................................... 5<br />

Reasons to Stay With, or Leave, Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> <strong>Email</strong> ......................................................... 5<br />

Stay<strong>in</strong>g With Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> <strong>Email</strong> ........................................................................... 5<br />

<strong>Migrat<strong>in</strong>g</strong> Away From Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> <strong>Email</strong> ............................................................. 6<br />

Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 7<br />

If You Are Decid<strong>in</strong>g Whether to Migrate ............................................................... 7<br />

Costs ...................................................................................................... 7<br />

Context ................................................................................................... 8<br />

If You Are Stay<strong>in</strong>g on Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> <strong>Email</strong> ............................................................. 9<br />

If You Are <strong>Migrat<strong>in</strong>g</strong> Away From Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> <strong>Email</strong> ............................................. 9<br />

Recommended Read<strong>in</strong>g ............................................................................................................. 10<br />


Table 1. Per-User Costs of <strong>Migrat<strong>in</strong>g</strong> Versus Upgrad<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>Email</strong> System .................................... 7<br />

Publication Date: 22 August 2011/ID Number: G00215901 Page 3 of 11<br />

© 2011 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.


Introduction<br />

Many clients have asked Gartner for advice about migrat<strong>in</strong>g away from Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> email. Many<br />

seek that advice year after year; that is, not everyone who asks about migrat<strong>in</strong>g actually does it.<br />

Some decide the time is right, others do not. Either choice may serve the enterprise well,<br />

depend<strong>in</strong>g on its needs and circumstances. Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> email users consider<strong>in</strong>g a migration<br />

should learn about the product's place <strong>in</strong> the market and about the factors they need to consider<br />

before mak<strong>in</strong>g a decision.<br />

Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> <strong>Email</strong> is Under Pressure, But Still a Safe Investment<br />

Some clients ask Gartner about migrat<strong>in</strong>g from Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> email because they are concerned<br />

about the viability of the product. Clients have some legitimate concerns, but we believe that IBM<br />

will cont<strong>in</strong>ue to make reasonable <strong>in</strong>vestments to susta<strong>in</strong> and grow all related revenue streams<br />

(<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g licens<strong>in</strong>g, SaaS, software ma<strong>in</strong>tenance, consult<strong>in</strong>g and outsourc<strong>in</strong>g). Thus, the product<br />

rema<strong>in</strong>s safe and valuable for enterprises that wish to stay on it.<br />

Gartner Client Inquiries on Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> <strong>Email</strong><br />

Gartner's <strong>in</strong>teractions with clients conv<strong>in</strong>ce us that some are mov<strong>in</strong>g away from Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> for<br />

email. From 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011, 116 different clients booked one or more calls with<br />

Gartner analysts seek<strong>in</strong>g advice on migrat<strong>in</strong>g away from <strong>Notes</strong> for email. These <strong>in</strong>quiry clients<br />

represent enterprises based <strong>in</strong> North and South America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa<br />

and Australia. Most were consider<strong>in</strong>g mov<strong>in</strong>g to Microsoft Outlook/Exchange for email (either onpremises<br />

or SaaS), with some th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g about Google Apps, a cloud offer<strong>in</strong>g, as well.<br />

By comparison, dur<strong>in</strong>g the same 12-month period no Microsoft email customers called us for<br />

advice on whether to migrate to <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> for email (although there are a grow<strong>in</strong>g number of<br />

companies who have moved, or are mov<strong>in</strong>g, to Google).<br />

Catalysts for These Inquiries<br />

Several factors contribute to the <strong>in</strong>quiries; the ma<strong>in</strong> po<strong>in</strong>ts are discussed below.<br />

Clients fear that third parties will make fewer <strong>in</strong>vestments around <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> (and Quickr and<br />

Sametime), so that the platform will see less <strong>in</strong>novation and a dim<strong>in</strong>ished choice of services,<br />

packages, add-<strong>in</strong>s, widgets and applications. They cite many cases where the desired new<br />

capabilities are either not available at all on the <strong>Notes</strong> platform or are delivered many months (or<br />

years) after those capabilities are available for <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong>. In general, clients perceive that<br />

there are more Exchange (and SharePo<strong>in</strong>t and Lync) resources than <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> (and Quickr<br />

and Sametime) resources, and are concerned that the gap is widen<strong>in</strong>g. The issue raised is not<br />

the frequency with which IBM updates its technologies <strong>in</strong> comparison with Microsoft's frequency<br />

of change, because IBM delivers more frequently than Microsoft. It's the apparent depth of the<br />

Microsoft ecosystem versus the IBM ecosystem.<br />

These clients also told us that they f<strong>in</strong>d Microsoft's collaboration products <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly attractive<br />

compared with the IBM collaboration products. They believe that Microsoft's offer<strong>in</strong>gs (from<br />

operat<strong>in</strong>g systems, through network and directory <strong>in</strong>frastructure, to productivity tools and <strong>Off</strong>ice<br />

servers) <strong>in</strong>tegrate together better than the comb<strong>in</strong>ation of Microsoft and IBM tools. (However,<br />

there are costs and risks associated with standardiz<strong>in</strong>g on a s<strong>in</strong>gle vendor that also need to be<br />

considered.) Emotion plays a role <strong>in</strong> many enterprise decisions. Some people have emotional<br />

biases for or aga<strong>in</strong>st certa<strong>in</strong> vendors or certa<strong>in</strong> products. Gartner clients often confess to us that<br />

Publication Date: 22 August 2011/ID Number: G00215901 Page 4 of 11<br />

© 2011 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

someone <strong>in</strong> their enterprise has what we call "Outlook envy." For example, a new CFO told a<br />

client, "I want Outlook. Just tell me how much it will cost to get me Outlook, and I will f<strong>in</strong>d you the<br />

money." Our clients also report that some senior executives claim that "everyone else <strong>in</strong> bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />

class uses Outlook." (Conversely, no Gartner client on a confidential <strong>in</strong>quiry has told us that users<br />

are agitat<strong>in</strong>g to move to <strong>Notes</strong>, or that senior executives want to replace Outlook/Exchange with<br />

<strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong>.)<br />

Two other factors are:<br />

<strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> email users that also run Microsoft often believe that they have already<br />

paid for email <strong>in</strong> their Microsoft Enterprise Agreement.<br />

Users often demand Microsoft <strong>Off</strong>ice products.<br />

Other factors may have little to do with Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> email specifically. In software markets,<br />

momentum can become self-re<strong>in</strong>forc<strong>in</strong>g as enterprises become concerned about the future of a<br />

product whose customers are seen to be leav<strong>in</strong>g and, therefore, decide to seek a "safer" product.<br />

Some enterprises with multiple email systems may migrate away from one of them simply to<br />

consolidate vendors. In addition, questions about migrat<strong>in</strong>g from <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> email may reflect<br />

that IT organizations are perform<strong>in</strong>g due diligence before mak<strong>in</strong>g a major <strong>in</strong>vestment to upgrade<br />

or migrate.<br />

Implications for Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> <strong>Email</strong> and Its Customers<br />

Based on confidential discussions with the 116 client organizations that asked us about migrat<strong>in</strong>g,<br />

we expect that at least one-third of them will have stopped us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> email by yearend<br />

2013, because they told us they have already moved — or <strong>in</strong>dicated that they have already<br />

made the decision to move. Unless IBM can significantly alter market perceptions, the trend to reevaluate<br />

<strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> email — and potentially migrate away — will cont<strong>in</strong>ue.<br />

The cost of migrat<strong>in</strong>g to a different system is a huge <strong>in</strong>hibitor to enterprises consider<strong>in</strong>g whether<br />

to migrate from <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong>. (The cost of application migration is even larger.) The f<strong>in</strong>ancial<br />

benefit of migrat<strong>in</strong>g is not obvious. In fact, all th<strong>in</strong>gs be<strong>in</strong>g equal, migrat<strong>in</strong>g from one thirdgeneration<br />

collaboration offer<strong>in</strong>g (such as <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong>) to another third-generation system is<br />

not f<strong>in</strong>ancially justifiable. When all the costs and benefits are considered, IBM — along with<br />

Microsoft and a number of other vendors — delivers mature, well-eng<strong>in</strong>eered, enterprise-class<br />

email systems that are evolv<strong>in</strong>g toward cloud services (see "IBM Gets Serious About Cloud E-<br />

Mail").<br />

The impact of those enterprises that do decide to leave <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> email does not appear to<br />

impact the overall f<strong>in</strong>ancial health of this bus<strong>in</strong>ess. IBM appears to reta<strong>in</strong> most <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong><br />

revenue, even when email is migrated, because customers are less likely to migrate applications<br />

away from <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> — <strong>in</strong> part because application migration costs far more than email<br />

migration.<br />

Reasons to Stay With, or Leave, Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> <strong>Email</strong><br />

Stay<strong>in</strong>g With Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> <strong>Email</strong><br />

IBM rema<strong>in</strong>s a strong and viable email provider. It derives significant revenue from<br />

<strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong>, both as an email platform and as an application platform. It cont<strong>in</strong>ues to <strong>in</strong>vest,<br />

and it delivers frequent updates and upgrades that create real value for its customers.<br />

Furthermore, IBM has shown leadership <strong>in</strong> a number of areas and has articulated a bolder vision<br />

for its fourth-generation collaboration system than Microsoft has (see "The Emergence of Fourth-<br />

Publication Date: 22 August 2011/ID Number: G00215901 Page 5 of 11<br />

© 2011 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Generation Collaboration Services" and "IBM Jo<strong>in</strong>s the Race to Revolutionize Collaboration").<br />

Fourth-generation systems will <strong>in</strong>tegrate multiple communication modes, smart work<br />

environments and social features. However, it is still too early to tell whether IBM will succeed<br />

with that vision, and it will take years for these systems to displace email. At Lotusphere 2011,<br />

IBM shifted its focus somewhat — from collaboration technology to social bus<strong>in</strong>ess frameworks<br />

(see "Pay Attention to IBM's Lotus Strategy Shift" and "<strong>Notes</strong> and <strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> Next: A Glimpse Into<br />

IBM's Collaboration Future").<br />

Some enterprises have standardized on IBM technologies: rang<strong>in</strong>g from Symphony on the<br />

desktop to <strong>Notes</strong>, <strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong>, Sametime, Quickr, Content Manager, WebSphere, DB2, Tivoli, and<br />

other IBM frameworks and offer<strong>in</strong>gs. These enterprises often refer to themselves as IBM/J2EE<br />

(or, more recently, Java EE) shops, just as some enterprises standardized on Microsoft<br />

technologies refer to themselves as Microsoft/.NET shops. Fully dedicated, homogeneous<br />

IBM/J2EE shops have a much harder time rationaliz<strong>in</strong>g a move to Microsoft Exchange and<br />

SharePo<strong>in</strong>t, because it requires far more change <strong>in</strong> how IT functions. (Most enterprises seek<strong>in</strong>g<br />

advice on migration are <strong>in</strong> a mixed operat<strong>in</strong>g mode.)<br />

Many Gartner clients report that their <strong>in</strong>ternal analysis shows that either the costs of migrat<strong>in</strong>g<br />

away from <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> email exceed the benefits, or that they cannot obta<strong>in</strong> the sav<strong>in</strong>gs they<br />

foresee unless they migrate away from <strong>Notes</strong> for applications as well as email.<br />

Application migration (from <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> to anyth<strong>in</strong>g else) is typically a complex process. It is<br />

certa<strong>in</strong>ly nontrivial, usually quite expensive, and someth<strong>in</strong>g that typically requires several years to<br />

complete (see "Seven Critical Steps to Migrate Legacy Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> Applications").<br />

<strong>Notes</strong>-based applications are "sticky," so enterprises are reluctant to tamper with them. <strong>Migrat<strong>in</strong>g</strong><br />

a large collection of rich, mission-critical <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> applications typically requires a complete<br />

redesign — mak<strong>in</strong>g it difficult to demonstrate ROI for the migration.<br />

Exclud<strong>in</strong>g application migration costs, we estimate that it costs about $200 per user to migrate<br />

from one email platform to another. Approximately half of that figure is for personnel costs, the<br />

other half assumes capital <strong>in</strong>vestments <strong>in</strong> new email licenses, hardware and migration utilities.<br />

Thus, a migration for a midsize enterprise with 5,000 users would cost $1 million — a lot of<br />

money if you're simply mov<strong>in</strong>g to another email vendor with similar functions.<br />

Gartner clients that re-evaluate but then decide to stay with <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> email, typically do so<br />

because the application cont<strong>in</strong>ues to serve their enterprise and IT organization needs. Clients can<br />

then put their efforts <strong>in</strong>to other <strong>in</strong>itiatives that will provide more bus<strong>in</strong>ess value (for advice for<br />

enterprises stay<strong>in</strong>g on Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> email, see the section If You Are Stay<strong>in</strong>g on Lotus <strong>Notes</strong><br />

<strong>Email</strong>).<br />

<strong>Migrat<strong>in</strong>g</strong> Away From Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> <strong>Email</strong><br />

Consolidation around a s<strong>in</strong>gle supplier can drive enterprises to drop vendors with which they are<br />

otherwise satisfied. Cost cutt<strong>in</strong>g drives a lot of consolidation. IBM faces pressure <strong>in</strong> this regard: a<br />

majority of enterprises — <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g many IBM email customers — already run Microsoft <strong>Off</strong>ice<br />

SharePo<strong>in</strong>t Server, and SharePo<strong>in</strong>t deployments typically signal a heightened <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong><br />

replac<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> email with Exchange. SharePo<strong>in</strong>t is a general collaboration platform that<br />

<strong>in</strong>tegrates with Outlook and other personal productivity applications; SharePo<strong>in</strong>t offers portals,<br />

content management, team rooms, and other social software and collaboration functions. Users<br />

like the close <strong>in</strong>tegration of components. This SharePo<strong>in</strong>t momentum leads many IT leaders and<br />

planners responsible for <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> email, to consider switch<strong>in</strong>g entirely to Microsoft<br />

workplace applications, rather than build<strong>in</strong>g out workplace functions with IBM offer<strong>in</strong>gs such as<br />

Lotus Quickr and Connections.<br />

Publication Date: 22 August 2011/ID Number: G00215901 Page 6 of 11<br />

© 2011 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Cloud collaboration services, start<strong>in</strong>g with email, have prompted few enterprises to migrate away<br />

from <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong>, or other email solutions, as yet. However, <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> cloud comput<strong>in</strong>g is<br />

grow<strong>in</strong>g, and cloud services will penetrate more of the email and collaboration market. Most early<br />

adopters are small firms, although some are large enterprises. We expect cloud collaboration<br />

services will penetrate 10% of the market by year-end 2014, reach<strong>in</strong>g 55% by the end of the<br />

decade. Higher education, discrete manufactur<strong>in</strong>g, hospitality and retail are the sectors most<br />

likely to adopt cloud collaboration services today, while <strong>in</strong>telligence, defense, healthcare<br />

providers and the regulated portions of f<strong>in</strong>ancial services are the least likely to do so (see "The<br />

Cloud <strong>Email</strong> and Collaboration Services Market, 2011 Update").<br />

Recommendations<br />

If You Are Decid<strong>in</strong>g Whether to Migrate<br />

Enterprises consider<strong>in</strong>g whether to migrate away from <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> email should consider<br />

several factors, but one factor they should not consider deserves emphasis first. Many Gartner<br />

clients express concern about the product's longevity and ask whether <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> will be<br />

around for a long time. <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> customers should not worry about product longevity, at<br />

least <strong>in</strong> the two- to five-year plann<strong>in</strong>g period. Customers concerned about longevity should<br />

consider a migration if and when IBM significantly cuts <strong>in</strong>vestment, but not before — because<br />

tak<strong>in</strong>g a migration cost hit early and speculatively is hard to justify.<br />

Planners should also <strong>in</strong>vestigate to what extent emotional factors may drive the decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />

process, and determ<strong>in</strong>e whether these emotions conceal real bus<strong>in</strong>ess issues that haven't been<br />

articulated. If planners ignore emotions, they may steer decisions <strong>in</strong> the wrong direction.<br />

Likewise, if planners recognize emotions, yet disregard them <strong>in</strong> favor of other bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />

requirements, they may overlook real user needs; for example, for better user <strong>in</strong>terfaces — which<br />

may seem to be just a matter of personal preference but could affect productivity, employee<br />

morale and job satisfaction.<br />

Costs<br />

Every enterprise must factor cost <strong>in</strong>to a decision about whether to migrate away from<br />

<strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> email (see Table 1). We estimate that a migration will cost about $200 per user.<br />

However, enterprises must compare this cost with the cost of any version upgrade they may need<br />

to make if they stay with the current vendor's product. IBM supports both 32-bit and 64-bit<br />

servers, so a hardware upgrade is not required. Nevertheless, 64-bit servers yield better<br />

performance. Thus, an upgrade to a new major version of the same product may benefit from an<br />

equal capital <strong>in</strong>vestment <strong>in</strong> hardware and software to get the current version and move to 64-bit<br />

hardware — that is, $100 per user. The labor required for a version upgrade typically costs less<br />

than half of what a vendor migration requires — that is, less than $50 per user. Therefore, a<br />

version upgrade may cost nearly $150 per user altogether, whereas a vendor migration will cost a<br />

little over $50 per user more. For an enterprise with 5,000 users, a vendor migration may cost<br />

$250,000 more than a version upgrade — a substantial amount, but still not prohibitively<br />

expensive.<br />

Table 1. Per-User Costs of <strong>Migrat<strong>in</strong>g</strong> Versus Upgrad<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>Email</strong> System<br />

Costs Migration to New System Major Version Upgrade<br />

Hardware and Software $100 $100<br />

Labor $100

With cloud-based or SaaS email, there can be m<strong>in</strong>imal to no costs for hardware, software<br />

licenses or migration utilities — result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> costs as low as $30 per user.<br />

Planners should look at <strong>in</strong>dividual components of the cost before decid<strong>in</strong>g about email migration.<br />

In particular, a number of clients mov<strong>in</strong>g away from <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> email cite the cost of people<br />

with <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> skills as a factor <strong>in</strong> favor<strong>in</strong>g migration to Outlook/Exchange. The cost of IT<br />

staff with <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> skills generally runs somewhat higher than the cost of people with<br />

comparable Outlook/Exchange skills. Be sure to assess skill costs locally, because they will vary<br />

greatly by geography — <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> skills cost less <strong>in</strong> some cases. Also consider the<br />

availability of skills <strong>in</strong> the relevant labor markets, and the availability, breadth and depth of thirdparty<br />

offer<strong>in</strong>gs. In some areas, enterprises report that they have virtually no option other than to<br />

tra<strong>in</strong> their own <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> experts.<br />

Operat<strong>in</strong>g costs can also affect decisions. We estimate that the cost of runn<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>in</strong>frastructure<br />

with both Microsoft and IBM <strong>in</strong> use is greater than the cost of deal<strong>in</strong>g with either vendor's<br />

technology stack alone — at least for enterprises with fewer than 10,000 employees. In general,<br />

however, if the enterprise runs email and calendar<strong>in</strong>g on W<strong>in</strong>dows servers and no other<br />

applications, <strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> and Exchange cost about the same to operate. We typically see quotes for<br />

outsourced <strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> email servers runn<strong>in</strong>g somewhat higher than similar services for Exchange<br />

host<strong>in</strong>g, but, <strong>in</strong> some cases, <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> outsourc<strong>in</strong>g costs appear comparable to, or better<br />

than, similar services for Exchange. Aga<strong>in</strong>, <strong>in</strong>vestigate these costs for your particular location or<br />

circumstances.<br />

On-premises implementations and cloud email services differ greatly <strong>in</strong> cost for the same<br />

features, but this difference shr<strong>in</strong>ks as the size of enterprise gets larger. Cloud services today<br />

may not suit enterprises with more than 10,000 users. Furthermore, there are the hidden costs of<br />

manag<strong>in</strong>g a cloud email service, because many on-premises features are not yet present <strong>in</strong> cloud<br />

email services. In this relatively immature market, the cloud or SaaS email offer<strong>in</strong>gs from Google,<br />

IBM, Microsoft and others are all at very different stages of development, and this market is<br />

bound to evolve.<br />

Context<br />

Planners should not focus on email <strong>in</strong> isolation. For example, if they plan an email migration as<br />

part of a broader effort to consolidate vendors, they should also consider the cost of migrat<strong>in</strong>g<br />

other applications from the same platform. Application migration costs can be significantly higher.<br />

The broader context of any decision about email typically <strong>in</strong>cludes enterprise architectures,<br />

workplace and bus<strong>in</strong>ess applications, technology framework and <strong>in</strong>tegration strategies, and<br />

security, privacy and <strong>in</strong>formation retention policies, as well as sourc<strong>in</strong>g, provision<strong>in</strong>g and support<br />

programs for employees, contractors and others. Any of these issues could affect the ultimate<br />

success or value of an email migration.<br />

Planners should treat email as part of a broader, three- to five-year <strong>in</strong>vestment strategy for a<br />

range of collaboration capabilities, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Web conferenc<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong>stant messag<strong>in</strong>g, team<br />

workspaces and social software. These capabilities will converge with email over time (see "The<br />

Emergence of Fourth-Generation Collaboration Services").<br />

In the future, many enterprises will turn to cloud providers (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Google, Microsoft and IBM)<br />

for email, calendar<strong>in</strong>g and related services for employees. Planners should consider a mix of onpremises,<br />

outsourced, SaaS and cloud-provision<strong>in</strong>g options. Hybrid models can sometimes make<br />

sense; that is, a mix of on-premises and cloud implementations. Externally managed and locally<br />

<strong>in</strong>stalled email and collaboration appliances offer another <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g provision<strong>in</strong>g model that is<br />

emerg<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

Publication Date: 22 August 2011/ID Number: G00215901 Page 8 of 11<br />

© 2011 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

If You Are Stay<strong>in</strong>g on Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> <strong>Email</strong><br />

Enterprises that choose to stay on <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> email can take several steps to control costs,<br />

most of which apply to any email product.<br />

First, planners should re-evaluate whether software product ma<strong>in</strong>tenance agreements make<br />

economic sense, particularly for <strong>in</strong>frequently upgraded commodity products (see "Dropp<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Collaboration Software Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance"). Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance for any product represents a significant cost<br />

that exceeds the orig<strong>in</strong>al cost of the license over time.<br />

Next, planners should consider their approach to <strong>in</strong>tegrat<strong>in</strong>g their email system to other services<br />

or applications. Loosely coupl<strong>in</strong>g transport services, rout<strong>in</strong>g and the presentation layer, for<br />

example, provides more agility; that is, more degrees of freedom to modify and evolve<br />

technologies <strong>in</strong> ways that may not currently be well understood. By contrast, some enterprises<br />

f<strong>in</strong>d that tight coupl<strong>in</strong>g of email to workflow (and heavy customization) delivers more benefits per<br />

dollar. Loose coupl<strong>in</strong>g works better <strong>in</strong> times of rapid change and uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty, as well as with<br />

systems that have little customization. Tight coupl<strong>in</strong>g and heavy customization make more sense<br />

<strong>in</strong> more slowly chang<strong>in</strong>g bus<strong>in</strong>ess environments.<br />

In general, planners should m<strong>in</strong>imize the customization of straightforward commodity systems.<br />

For example, modifications of <strong>Notes</strong> email templates should be avoided, and reversed out over<br />

time. Customizations <strong>in</strong>crease vendor lock-<strong>in</strong> and reduce the enterprise's options, should it<br />

consider a migration <strong>in</strong> the future. Planners should choose third-party components (and<br />

subsystems, systems and services) over custom, <strong>in</strong>-house development. Third parties have a<br />

larger base aga<strong>in</strong>st which to spread the cost of track<strong>in</strong>g changes <strong>in</strong> underly<strong>in</strong>g platforms. Standalone<br />

products and onl<strong>in</strong>e services are often superior to extensions developed by third parties or<br />

<strong>in</strong>-house, especially because it is easier to determ<strong>in</strong>e what meets user requirements (see "Magic<br />

Quadrant for Social Software <strong>in</strong> the Workplace").<br />

F<strong>in</strong>ally, enterprises should clean up their workplace applications over time, by substitut<strong>in</strong>g pure<br />

Web <strong>in</strong>terfaces where appropriate and rely<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>in</strong>dustry-standard service <strong>in</strong>terfaces (such as<br />

SMTP) where available. This cleanup will modernize the applications and give the enterprise<br />

additional freedom. IBM has promoted application modernization via Web <strong>in</strong>terfaces and XPages,<br />

but the bulk of applications appear to rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>Notes</strong>-client-based. <strong>Notes</strong> customers should exploit<br />

these new capabilities when the opportunity presents itself; for example, when an application is<br />

be<strong>in</strong>g updated to reflect revised functional requirements, consider upgrad<strong>in</strong>g the user <strong>in</strong>terface<br />

technology as well.<br />

If You Are <strong>Migrat<strong>in</strong>g</strong> Away From Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> <strong>Email</strong><br />

Enterprises that do decide to migrate away from <strong>Notes</strong>/<strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> email should not immediately<br />

focus on a particular offer<strong>in</strong>g. They should consider the range of delivery models, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g onpremises<br />

software, outsourc<strong>in</strong>g, appliances and cloud provision<strong>in</strong>g. Cloud provision<strong>in</strong>g will<br />

primarily appeal to smaller enterprises concerned with cost, but enterprises should require their<br />

suppliers to cont<strong>in</strong>ue to reduce cloud-based services prices — as prices, <strong>in</strong> general, fall <strong>in</strong> the<br />

market.<br />

IBM customers migrat<strong>in</strong>g to Microsoft will probably be disappo<strong>in</strong>ted. IBM's approach is typically<br />

more hands-on through its services arm, while Microsoft's focus is on products, technology and<br />

platform ecosystem, deferr<strong>in</strong>g to its partners to take responsibility for its customers' migration<br />

projects. Microsoft does not, typically, take responsibility for the migration. Like IBM, Microsoft will<br />

encourage customers to build applications on top of the Microsoft <strong>in</strong>frastructure, which will lock<br />

customers <strong>in</strong>to the Microsoft platform for a long time. We are concerned that enterprises will<br />

repeat <strong>in</strong> SharePo<strong>in</strong>t 2010 environments, many of the mistakes they made previously <strong>in</strong> the<br />

Publication Date: 22 August 2011/ID Number: G00215901 Page 9 of 11<br />

© 2011 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

<strong>Notes</strong> environment — such as a lack of governance and poor application architectures. (Best<br />

practices and tools to support organizations are available, but too many fail to exploit them.)<br />


"One Company Cuts Lotus <strong>Dom<strong>in</strong>o</strong> Costs by $11 Million Over Two Years"<br />

"IBM Gets Serious About Cloud E-Mail"<br />

"The Emergence of Fourth-Generation Collaboration Services"<br />

"IBM Jo<strong>in</strong>s the Race to Revolutionize Collaboration"<br />

"Seven Critical Steps to Migrate Legacy Lotus <strong>Notes</strong> Applications"<br />

"The Cloud <strong>Email</strong> and Collaboration Services Market, 2011 Update"<br />

"The Emergence of Fourth-Generation Collaboration Services"<br />

"Dropp<strong>in</strong>g Collaboration Software Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance"<br />

"Magic Quadrant for Social Software <strong>in</strong> the Workplace"<br />

Publication Date: 22 August 2011/ID Number: G00215901 Page 10 of 11<br />

© 2011 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.


Corporate Headquarters<br />

56 Top Gallant Road<br />

Stamford, CT 06902-7700<br />

U.S.A.<br />

+1 203 964 0096<br />

European Headquarters<br />

Tamesis<br />

The Glanty<br />

Egham<br />

Surrey, TW20 9AW<br />


+44 1784 431611<br />

Asia/Pacific Headquarters<br />

Gartner Australasia Pty. Ltd.<br />

Level 9, 141 Walker Street<br />

North Sydney<br />

New South Wales 2060<br />


+61 2 9459 4600<br />

Japan Headquarters<br />

Gartner Japan Ltd.<br />

Aobadai Hills, 6F<br />

7-7, Aobadai, 4-chome<br />

Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-0042<br />

JAPAN<br />

+81 3 3481 3670<br />

Lat<strong>in</strong> America Headquarters<br />

Gartner do Brazil<br />

Av. das Nações Unidas, 12551<br />

9° andar—World Trade Center<br />

04578-903—São Paulo SP<br />

BRAZIL<br />

+55 11 3443 1509<br />

Publication Date: 22 August 2011/ID Number: G00215901 Page 11 of 11<br />

© 2011 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!