IP Telephony & Unified Communications Optimisation · Data Sheet
IP Telephony Financial Results
Quantified evidence from a national voice, connectivity and infrastructure review — separated into selected outcomes, modelled comparisons, identified controls and estate metrics.
Why the results are classified rather than totalled
The source pack contains several commercial versions, as settlement terms, escalation structures and technical options changed through the project.
The classification below therefore describes what each figure is, instead of presenting every scenario as an achieved saving.
3 · Indexed comparison
Four comparisons, incumbent indexed to 100
Scroll table sideways →
| Comparison | Incumbent | Selected / model | Variance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Selected opening finance rental against current comparator | 100.0 | 83.5 | −16.5% |
| Subsequent model against projected incumbent comparator | 100.0 | 80.9 | −19.1% |
| Discounted finance settlement against gross settlement benchmark | 100.0 | 88.5 | −11.5% |
| Observed connectivity schedule after estate change, against original contracted schedule | 100.0 | 86.5 | −13.5% |
The connectivity movement is an estate and billing-position comparison. It should not be read as a pure negotiated supplier saving — the estate itself changed.
2 · Estate evidence
The denominator moved as the estate was verified
Scroll table sideways →
| Evidence point | What it shows |
|---|---|
| Locations in the initial tender map | 14 |
| Endpoint positions in early mapping | 104 — 80 physical phones and 24 soft-phone positions |
| Selected-device count | 80 devices, demonstrating scope refinement rather than a copy of the inherited estate |
| Connectivity architecture | Main hubs specified at materially higher bandwidth than branches; a specialised lower-capacity link allowed for a care facility |
| Equipment estate | Routers, managed switches, access points, cabinets, patching and legacy connectivity devices catalogued by site |
4 · Settlement and billing findings
Material to the case, and not safely aggregated
The retained model separately tested legacy settlement exposures and potential credits. Some of these items touch both the service provider and the finance structure, so they cannot simply be added together.
- A finance-house settlement model included a discounted scenario 11.5% below the gross benchmark.
- A site-count discrepancy: the financed estate reflected more sites than the later operational position.
- A separate insurance-related finance item was challenged in the settlement analysis.
- The incumbent-service analysis identified SLA charges where the underlying service was recorded as not implemented.
- Itemised-billing gaps were quantified as a separate prejudice category.
- The latest supplier quote embedded a legacy-settlement provision inside the finance structure — which is why migration cost and new-service cost had to be analysed together.
5 · Escalation sensitivity
The cheapest month one is not the cheapest contract
Scroll table sideways →
| Lever | Observed effect |
|---|---|
| Opening rental | Varied inversely with the escalation option in the latest quote set — a lower start was paired with a steeper climb. |
| Escalation | Multiple alternatives were modelled, each changing the later-year cost curve. |
| Settlement provision | Embedded within the selected finance structure, and therefore inseparable from the headline rental comparison. |
| Later connectivity rental | The latest quote stated that line-rental treatment changes later in the contract — which prevents any lifecycle claim built on the opening rental alone. |
6 · Non-price value
What the selected model included beyond rate
- Hosted PBX architecture with central management, rather than isolated branch systems.
- Inter-branch and on-net calling at zero usage charge.
- Static addressing, proactive link monitoring and reporting in the connectivity model.
- Punitive service-level provisions tied to link performance, with credits against affected-site charges.
- Number porting structured as part of cut-over, rather than left as an uncontrolled cancellation event.
- Training included in the supplier proposal.
- Equipment serial-number audit and site-level proof of delivery as implementation controls.
- Ownership of the financed hardware contemplated after the rental period, subject to contract conditions.
7 · Publication interpretation
The most defensible public headline is the 16.5% selected opening finance-rental reduction against the comparator used in the retained model.
It should be accompanied by the qualification that the engagement also contained legacy settlement, separate SLA and call charges, and later connectivity-rental treatment.
The deeper value of the project was the reconstruction and control of the full voice-and-data architecture, not a single percentage.