I came across an article a few weeks ago which I've seen promoted a number of times on Twitter. Perhaps my math is off, or maybe I'm still stuck in vacation mode, but this just sounds like it doesn't make sense:
"The university's maintenance agreements were costing them $250,000
annually, and they wanted to conclude the transition before they needed
to renew the next agreement. Still, their projected total is $2.5
million over the next five years by making the move to Office 365."
I'm not understanding. Instead of paying $250,000 per year in maintenance costs, they've moved to another solution and paying twice as much per year? How are they "saving close to half a million dollars as a result, with other anticipated savings down the road."
No mention of increased productivity, IT staff reduction, or anything else...just, ahem...cost savings.
Also, "they weren't going to attempt during the project to set appropriate
expectations, such as migrate Lotus applications, upgrade desktops to a
new operating system, or transfer archived or personal email data."
So, from this I gather that they are still probably running Lotus Notes for their Lotus applications and mail archives. They're just not paying their support costs. Fair enough.
I work for a small business. I couldn't cost justify this type of migration based on this Office 365 customer story. I'd be taken out and flogged! It sounds like a nightmare with zero upside.
But hey, they're in the cloud. If my decision resulted in a similar result, I'm sure I'd be asked "what the heck was the point?"