Network Computingwww.networkcomputing.com

	Issue TOC Print full article Print this page Download as PDF E-Mail this URL Discuss this article Flame the author     In this article Introduction Calculations PerformanceIT Network Management Service iNOC IMonitor HCL Technologies Intelligent Network Operations Services NetProactive Services Remote Infrastructure Management Scenario Complete Responses to RFI Cost Comparison: Chewing the Fat Weblinks Report Card Explained Report Card

HCL's response, at 100-plus pages, laid out the strongest operational and reporting response of all the vendors, but pricing was higher than iNOC's and PerformanceIT's, and HCL didn't specifically address some of TacDoh's service-level management concerns.

HCL, which has 25 offices in 14 countries and is based in India, was the only vendor that planned to continue to use the management applications TacDoh's in-house staff supports. This raised the overall TacDoh IT budget by missing a reduction the rest of the vendors took. It did, however, make for redundant and distributed data collection as HCL uses OpenView in its NOC, letting it leverage the existing hardware and software architecture.

The RFI contained a requirements analysis and solution overview, but we never got the feeling that HCL was particularly focused on TacDoh's needs. The requirements were nothing more than a reorganization of the RFI we submitted, and the solutions suggested missed the mark. The responses were very detailed, explaining what tools were to be used, the roles and behaviors governing the relationship and what metrics were to be gathered, but HCL didn't directly answer some requirements.

For example, we specified that branches were to experience 99.9 percent uptime and no more than 2 seconds in network latency. But nothing in the 100-page response spoke directly to these thresholds. There was detailed SLA governance documented, with ongoing feedback built in to guide and align service delivery and expectations; all good, but not on point. Further, we would have expected some push back, like we got from NetProactive, about being held responsible for the WAN circuit providers, but HCL didn't address this.