Corporate IT Buying Behavior & Customer Satisfaction Study ...bladesmadesimple.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/... · T B R 4 ©3Q13 | TBR — x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction

TBR

T EC H N O LO G Y B U S I N ES S R ES EAR C H , I N C .

TBR

T EC H N O LO G Y B U S I N ES S R ES EAR C H , I N C .

Publish date: Oct. 25, 2013

Contributors: Greg Richardson ([email protected]), Senior Analyst Angela Lambert, Analyst Matt Parker, Data Analyst Matt Bowden, Research Analyst John Spooner, Director, Computing Practice

Corporate IT Buying Behavior & Customer Satisfaction Study x86-based Servers Third Quarter 2013

mailto:[email protected]

TBR

3Q13 | TBR — x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study ©2013 Technology Business Research Inc. 2

Contents

3 Executive Summary

17 x86-based Server Attribute Analysis

22 Appendix A: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Sales and Setup Satisfaction

41 Appendix B: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Server Hardware Satisfaction

63 Appendix C: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Service and Support Satisfaction

91 Appendix D: Firmographics

98 Appendix E: Analytical Procedures and Survey Instrument

107 TBR Coverage

109 About TBR

Table of Contents

TBR


Executive Summary

TBR


DELL HP IBM

Sales Satisfaction Index 72.1 70.9 72.2

Product Satisfaction Index 75.9 75.3 75.1

Service Satisfaction Index 72.9 71.6 72.6

Loyalty Index 86.6 87.1 84.0

Importance Multiplier 99.3% 100.7% 99.9%

TBR Weighted Satisfaction Index 74.5 74.5 74.3

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

Rolling 6 Month Satisfaction Index TBR

TBR

Executive Summary

Dell took the No. 1 weighted satisfaction index position this quarter after a tie-breaker with HP

TBR builds its index from four key attribute areas composed of 22 total factors

*Detailed explanation of methodology and calculations can be found in the technical appendix (slide 98).

Attribute DELL HP IBM

Purchase Price/Acquisition Cost 5.2 5.0 5.1

One-time Services and Setup 4.9 4.9 5.1

Delivery Time and Product Availability 5.1 5.1 5.2

Sales Responsiveness 5.0 4.9 5.0

Post-purchase Customer Care 5.0 4.9 5.0

Online Product Information 5.0 5.0 5.0

Initial Hardware Quality 5.4 5.3 5.3

Ongoing Hardware Reliability 5.3 5.3 5.3

Performance 5.4 5.4 5.4

Virtualization, Efficiency, Scalability 5.3 5.4 5.3

Total Cost of Ownership 5.2 5.1 5.1

Management Capabilities 5.2 5.2 5.1

Product Design/Features 5.3 5.2 5.2

Phone Support Availability 5.2 5.1 5.1

Phone Support Technical Expertise 5.2 5.0 5.1

On-site Response Time 5.2 5.1 5.2

On-site Technical Expertise 5.1 5.1 5.3

Online Technical Support 5.2 5.0 5.0

Ongoing Services and Maintenance 5.2 5.1 5.3

Replacement Parts Availability 5.3 5.3 5.2

Self-support/Automated Support 5.0 5.0 5.0

Social Media Support 4.6 4.5 4.6

Will buy again 86.9 88.2 84.6

Would recommend 86.2 85.9 83.3

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

Loyalty Index

Rolling 6 Month Mean Satisfaction

Product Mean Satisfaction

Sales Mean Satisfaction

Service Mean Satisfaction

TBR

The tie between Dell’s and HP’s scores was broken by a count of the total number of “delighted” (7s) scores awarded by customers across all attributes.

TBR


TCO remains one of the most important attribute areas for customers when making a purchase decision. Along with TCO, attributes such as initial hardware quality, ongoing hardware reliability, performance and virtualization continue to be key attributes that affect customers’ purchase decisions. TBR believes customers place higher importance on these attributes, as they wish to prolong the life of their servers to minimize disruptions in their environments.

Compared to sales and services attributes, hardware attributes tend to be most competitive across vendors for satisfaction, giving very little room for differentiation. As a result, customers increasingly view services and support as the determining decision factor between vendors. Dell was able to use this fact to its advantage and pulled its scores past its competitors, earning the No. 1 position for support services and the No. 1 position overall.

Server customers place high emphasis on long-term value

Services and support continue to be the key areas for differentiation

Mean satisfaction scores trended mostly upward across vendors in 3Q13, with the exception of a slight decline in some attributes — the majority of which came from IBM customers. With this mix of scores, IBM lost its hold of the No. 1 position, allowing Dell to take its place this quarter, followed very closely by HP. TBR believes that overall satisfaction scores are likely to fall slightly this quarter as they are generally higher in the first half of the year — often dictated by consumer budget availability and new product offerings.

Seasonality impacts customer satisfaction throughout the year

Customers focus on what they are getting for their dollar — high value is key when making long-term server hardware investments

Executive Summary

Reliability Value

TBR


Executive Summary

Dell continued to drive high satisfaction through sales-, product- and support-related attributes — earning the top spot followed closely by HP

Dell

Dell competed with HP and IBM across all attributes, particularly in product-related attributes. 3Q13 loyalty scores fell across all vendors compared to the prior quarter, earning Dell the No. 1 position for recommending loyalty. After TBR’s tie-breaker, Dell won the No. 1 position.

HP

HP customers were most likely to continue to buy from the vendor in the future, and HP was the only vendor to increase in satisfaction scores across all attributes this quarter. Despite some lower-than-average scores, HP came very close to taking the overall No. 1 position from Dell this quarter, aided greatly by its high loyalty scores.

IBM

IBM performed competitively across all metrics this quarter, tying or surpassing the competition in many of the attributes. Declining scores from the prior quarter and lower-than-average loyalty scores pulled down IBM’s overall position, landing it in the No. 3 spot for the quarter.

Attribute DELL HP IBM

Purchase Price/Acquisition Cost 5.2 5.0 5.1

One-time Services and Setup 4.9 4.9 5.1

Delivery Time and Product Availability 5.1 5.1 5.2

Sales Responsiveness 5.0 4.9 5.0

Post-purchase Customer Care 5.0 4.9 5.0

Online Product Information 5.0 5.0 5.0

Initial Hardware Quality 5.4 5.3 5.3

Ongoing Hardware Reliability 5.3 5.3 5.3

Performance 5.4 5.4 5.4

Virtualization, Efficiency, Scalability 5.3 5.4 5.3

Total Cost of Ownership 5.2 5.1 5.1

Management Capabilities 5.2 5.2 5.1

Product Design/Features 5.3 5.2 5.2

Phone Support Availability 5.2 5.1 5.1

Phone Support Technical Expertise 5.2 5.0 5.1

On-site Response Time 5.2 5.1 5.2

On-site Technical Expertise 5.1 5.1 5.3

Online Technical Support 5.2 5.0 5.0

Ongoing Services and Maintenance 5.2 5.1 5.3

Replacement Parts Availability 5.3 5.3 5.2

Self-support/Automated Support 5.0 5.0 5.0

Social Media Support 4.6 4.5 4.6

Will buy again 86.9 88.2 84.6

Would recommend 86.2 85.9 83.3

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

Loyalty Index

Rolling 6 Month Mean Satisfaction

Product Mean Satisfaction

Sales Mean Satisfaction

Service Mean Satisfaction

TBR

TBR


Customer feedback commends reliability of servers and knowledgeable services, increasing each vendors’ overall customer satisfaction

Executive Summary

“We have always had excellent reliability with our Dell equipment, and it is very much the exception, rather than the rule, that we experience hardware issues.” — Dell customer

“Ongoing hardware reliability has always been good with HP rack servers. Performance is excellent.” — HP customer

Dell HP IBM

Dell server customers focused on the reliability of the servers, stating that Dell’s products rarely fail and typically remain functional for the entirety of their server life cycle.

HP customers place high value on reliability as well, stating that the uptime on servers is critical to their business needs. Customers also considered management capabilities as high-quality.

IBM customers praised the vendor’s performance, but price continues to be mentioned as a barrier to decision makers’ purchases.

“Reliable servers and fantastic management capabilities make this an obvious choice for running our enterprise workloads.” — HP customer

“Best-in-class combined features of management, reliability and performance.” — IBM customer

“We haven’t had any issues that weren’t easily resolved. The performance has always met our expectations, and we have continually been able to optimize our servers.” — IBM customer

“ We are a 24/7/365 company that relies on dependability, and Dell delivers.” — Dell customer

TBR


Dependable hardware qualifies a vendor in a deal, but perceived high value and a strong set of services drive differentiation

Executive Summary

Customers’ Perceived Importance of Server Attributes

Essential Elements: Initial Hardware Quality Ongoing Hardware Reliability Performance Virtualization, Efficiency, Scalability TCO Product Design Purchase Price Replacement Parts Availability

Important Elements: On-site Expertise On-site Response Time Ongoing Services Management Capabilities Phone Support Expertise Phone Support Availability Delivery Time and Availability

Essential Elements

ImportantElements

Value-added Elements

Value-added Elements: Post-purchase Care One-time Services and Setup Online Technical Support Online Product Information Sales Responsiveness Self-support/Automated Social Media Support

TBR Assessment

Meeting the demand for essential elements is necessary to attract enterprise customers; value-added elements serve as differentiators and result in customer advocacy and loyalty.

In 3Q13, server customers emphasized the reliability, performance and value of servers with a secondary focus on on-site and ongoing services.

TBR


Executive Summary

Customers Who Will Buy Again

Although customer loyalty dipped slightly for all vendors this quarter, TBR believes it was not due to customer expectations not being met. Rather, customer loyalty fell mostly due to economic influences and seasonality — the lack of new products in the second half of the year causes customers to delay purchases. Customers who stated they would not or may not buy again noted an imbalance in the value they receive from their servers in reliability, price and/or TCO.

Customers aim to maximize server value through management costs, reliability and longevity

85

.7%

79

.5%

83

.2%

88

.4%

86

.9%

91

.6%

86

.5%

87

.6%

88

.9%

88

.2%

81

.9% 87

.7%

88

.2%

87

.0%

84.6

%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. VENDOR HISTORICAL SERVERLIKELINESS TO BUY AGAIN

Dell HP IBMSOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Executive Summary

Of Dell customers, 87% said they would buy again, citing solid reliability and performance as key factors of purchase

Top criteria for customers buying again and considering switching

Yes — Will buy again % of Yes

Servers are reliable 77.9%

Server performance meets our expectations 62.7%

Servers integrate well with our IT environment 41.3%

Maybe/Will not buy again % of Maybe/No

Dissatisfied with TCO 29.3%

Dissatisfied with phone support 22.0%

Servers have inadequate online technical support 19.5%

Sales staff is not responsive enough 19.5%

Server efficiency did not meet our expectations 19.5%

87%

11%2%

6 Mo. DELL LOYALTY: WILL BUY AGAIN

Yes

Maybe

No

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Executive Summary

HP continued to have the highest percentage of customers who said they would buy again, but energy and efficiency have become concern areas







We are buying another brand of servers instead 24.3%

Servers use too much energy 21.6%

Server efficiency did not meet our expectations 18.9%

Servers did not integrate well with our IT environment

18.9%

Servers are too expensive 18.9%

88%

11%1%

6 Mo. HP LOYALTY: WILL BUY AGAIN

Yes

Maybe

No

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Executive Summary

IBM customers are most willing to purchase the vendor’s servers again due to their high reliability, performance and integration







Servers are too expensive 22.9%

Dissatisfied with TCO 20.8%

Servers are a poor value 20.8%

85%

14%

1%

6 Mo. IBM LOYALTY: WILL BUY AGAIN

Yes

Maybe

No

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Executive Summary

Top customer recommendations

Recommendation by a customer is directly linked to perceived value and high satisfaction among attributes customers deem critical. TBR believes the declines in the vendors’ recommendation scores were not caused by lack of satisfaction, but influenced by seasonality and economic influences.

Dell customer “Through the years, Dell servers have been highly reliable and a good return on investment.”

HP customer “Very well-designed servers that perform admirably and for a very long time.”

IBM customer “We’ve never had a problem they couldn’t resolve, and they’re always here when we need them to be.”

Although server value meets customers’ expectations, loyalty scores declined across all vendors compared to the prior quarter

87.7

%

78.8

%

82

.9%

87

.1%

86

.2%

89

.6%

85

.9%

87

.3%

89

.2%

85.9

%

81

.3%

83

.1%

84.6

%

85

.3%

83

.3%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. VENDOR HISTORICAL SERVERLIKELINESS TO RECOMMEND


TBR

TBR


Executive Summary

Although customer loyalty scores fell slightly, Dell’s satisfaction scores increased overall, earning the vendor the No. 1 position for the quarter

Dell continues to be a leader in server value, earning it the No. 1 position this quarter

Similar to 2Q13, Dell customer satisfaction scores indicated high satisfaction among attributes that relate to value this quarter. Dell was able to take hold of the No. 1 overall satisfaction position this quarter despite the slight decline in customers’ loyalty. Across all other satisfaction attributes Dell performed competitively, with satisfaction scores rising or remaining at the No. 1 and No. 2 positions. Delivery time and product availability was the only attribute to see a decline in position, falling from No. 1 to No. 2 this quarter.

Loyalty scores declined, but not enough to affect Dell’s overall positioning

Although Dell’s loyalty scores fell slightly compared to the prior quarter, all vendors experienced this decline, causing Dell to rise in position for vendor recommendation and take the No. 1 spot.

Industry rank indicates position of an attribute’s mean satisfaction score compared to industry peers. Arrows represent positive, negative or neutral change in industry rank from the previous quarter. For mean satisfaction, positive or negative changes of +/- 5% are highlighted green and red, respectively.

Attribute

3Q13

Satisfaction

Purchase Price/Acquisition Cost 5.2 1 1.6%

One-time Services and Setup 4.9 2 -1.2%

Delivery Time and Product Availability 5.1 2 0.0%

Sales Responsiveness 5.0 1 0.2%

Post-purchase Customer Care 5.0 1 0.4%

Online Product Information 5.0 1 0.8%

Initial Hardware Quality 5.4 1 1.1%

Ongoing Hardware Reliability 5.3 1 0.8%

Performance 5.4 1 0.6%

Virtualization, Efficiency, Scalability 5.3 2 0.2%

Total Cost of Ownership 5.2 1 0.6%

Management Capabilities 5.2 1 0.6%

Product Design/Features 5.3 1 -0.6%

Phone Support Availability 5.2 1 2.2%

Phone Support Technical Expertise 5.2 1 1.2%

On-site Response Time 5.2 1 1.0%

On-site Technical Expertise 5.1 2 0.4%

Online Technical Support 5.2 1 1.2%

Ongoing Services and Maintenance 5.2 2 2.0%

Replacement Parts Availability 5.3 1 1.7%

Self-support/Automated Support 5.0 1 0.0%

Social Media Support 4.6 1 0.2%

Loyalty

3Q13 Loyalty

Metric

Will buy again 86.9 2 -1.7%

Would recommend 86.2 1 -1.0%

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

Dell: 6 Mo. Server Performance DashboardIndustry

Rank

Satisfaction vs.

2Q13

Industry

Rank

Loyalty vs.

2Q13

TBR

TBR


HP earned the No. 2 position, despite a decline in server customer loyalty, as all attributes increased in satisfaction scores

Executive Summary


HP’s satisfaction scores increased across the board, rising or staying the same in most vendor positioning

HP’s satisfaction scores, primarily in product and sales attributes, rose marginally from the prior quarter, aiding the vendor in earning the No. 2 position overall and becoming the only vendor to increase satisfaction scores across all attributes. This increase in satisfaction pushed all HP’s attributes to a higher position or kept them in a similar positioning to the prior quarter (except for the ongoing services and maintenance attribute).

HP’s customer loyalty fell slightly from the prior quarter for the second consecutive quarter, but remained strong compared to the competition

HP customer loyalty scores saw a decline this quarter, falling mostly in the recommendation category. However, this was not enough to derail HP in taking the No. 1 position for the loyalty index for the second consecutive quarter. TBR believes customer expectations are having little impact on customer loyalty; instead, the growing economic stresses are causing customers to rethink purchases.

Attribute

3Q13

Satisfaction


One-time Services and Setup 4.9 2 2.1%


Sales Responsiveness 4.9 3 1.5%

Post-purchase Customer Care 4.9 3 2.7%

Online Product Information 5.0 1 2.0%




Virtualization, Efficiency, Scalability 5.4 1 2.9%

Total Cost of Ownership 5.1 2 2.6%


Product Design/Features 5.2 2 2.7%

Phone Support Availability 5.1 2 1.4%

Phone Support Technical Expertise 5.0 3 0.2%


On-site Technical Expertise 5.1 2 1.4%

Online Technical Support 5.0 2 0.8%

Ongoing Services and Maintenance 5.1 3 0.6%


Self-support/Automated Support 5.0 1 1.8%


Loyalty

3Q13 Loyalty

Metric



SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

HP: 6 Mo. Server Performance DashboardIndustry

Rank

Satisfaction vs.

2Q13

Industry

Rank

Loyalty vs.

2Q13

TBR

TBR


Executive Summary

IBM’s customer satisfaction and loyalty scores fell overall this quarter, sacrificing the vendor's No 1 position for the first time since 3Q12


IBM fell to the No. 3 position overall for the first time since 3Q12

IBM experienced an overall decline from the prior quarter, falling in satisfaction across all indexes. However, IBM continues to drive high levels of customer satisfaction across blade and rack server customers in product-related attributes, ranking No. 1 in all but purchase price. While the greatest declines in satisfaction were observed in the phone support availability and TCO attributes, management capabilities and replacement parts were the only attributes to fall to the No. 3 position.

Loyalty continued to decline for the second consecutive quarter

IBM remains the lowest-positioned vendor for customers who would recommend the company and buy again. Although TBR believes this is a result of customer expectations not being met, we also believe seasonality and economic stress influence decision makers. IBM customers tend to have a higher standard of satisfaction — even if the server is near perfect, one small issue may cause the customer to view the experience as negative.

Attribute

3Q13

Satisfaction


One-time Services and Setup 5.1 1 0.0%


Sales Responsiveness 5.0 1 -0.6%

Post-purchase Customer Care 5.0 1 -1.4%

Online Product Information 5.0 1 -1.0%




Virtualization, Efficiency, Scalability 5.3 2 -1.3%

Total Cost of Ownership 5.1 2 -2.3%


Product Design/Features 5.2 2 0.0%

Phone Support Availability 5.1 2 -2.3%

Phone Support Technical Expertise 5.1 2 -1.0%


On-site Technical Expertise 5.3 1 -0.8%

Online Technical Support 5.0 2 -1.6%

Ongoing Services and Maintenance 5.3 1 -0.4%


Self-support/Automated Support 5.0 1 -0.2%


Loyalty

3Q13 Loyalty

Metric



SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

IBM: 6 Mo. Server Performance DashboardIndustry

Rank

Satisfaction vs.

2Q13

Industry

Rank

Loyalty vs.

2Q13

TBR

TBR


x86-based Server Attribute Analysis

TBR


Statistical Significance Key

Higher Mean than Dell — 99% confidence level



Higher Mean than HP — 99% confidence level



Higher Mean than IBM — 99% confidence level



3Q13 Results by Vendor

Server Hardware Attributes 7. Initial Hardware Quality 8. Ongoing Hardware Reliability 9. Performance 10. Virtualization, Efficiency, Scalability 11. TCO 12. Management Capabilities 13. Product Design/Features

Sales and Setup Attributes 1. Purchase Price/Acquisition Cost 2. One-time Services and Setup 3. Delivery Time and Product

Availability 4. Sales Responsiveness 5. Post-purchase Customer Care 6. Online Product Information

Service and Support Attributes 14. Phone Support Availability 15. Phone Support Technical Expertise 16. On-site Response Time 17. On-site Technical Expertise 18. Online Technical Support 19. Replacement Parts Availability 20. Ongoing Services and Maintenance 21. Self-support/Automated Support 22. Social Media Support

Report attributes and statistical significance key

*Statistical Significance Key applies to slides 19, 20, 21, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35, 38, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, 64, 67, 70, 73, 76, 79, 82, 85 and 88

TBR



On average, customers indicated lower satisfaction across all sales attributes compared to product and services satisfaction

Sales Satisfaction Drivers

• Customer expectations were highest for the delivery time and product availability, and purchase price attributes this quarter, scoring slightly lower than the product and services attributes.

• TBR believes the amount of time spent on product and service attributes pushes customers to focus more on those attributes rather than sales, driving overall importance and satisfaction scores down.

Customer Comments

“Flawless implementations; they exceeded our delivery commitments.” — IBM customer

5.18

4.945.10

5.01 5.02 5.044.994.90

5.07

4.87 4.93 5.005.12 5.10 5.16

4.97 5.034.95

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

OVERALL SERVER CUSTOMERS' AVERAGE SATISFACTIONBY SALES ATTRIBUTE (6 MONTHS)

DELL HP IBMSOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR



Hardware reliability, performance and virtualization remained the most satisfying attributes; TCO and management capabilities scored lowest

Server Hardware Satisfaction Drivers

• Initial hardware quality, ongoing hardware reliability, performance and virtualization satisfaction were the highest-scored attributes across the industry. TCO and management capabilities did not score as well in the product-related attributes, ranked respectively as “critically important” and “important” among customers.

• Total cost of ownership continues to be one of the lowest-ranked server hardware attributes, implying that customers are more likely to switch brands if the price is right.

Customer Comments

“We spend way too much on support-related issues, driving the total cost of ownership up.” — Dell customer

5.36 5.345.43

5.315.23 5.23 5.275.31 5.31 5.37 5.35

5.13 5.18 5.245.31 5.34 5.415.33

5.08 5.115.20

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

OVERALL SERVER CUSTOMERS' AVERAGE SATISFACTIONBY PRODUCT ATTRIBUTE (6 MONTHS)


TBR

TBR



Customers continue to be most satisfied with replacement parts availability while social media remains the least satisfying and important

Service and Support Satisfaction

Similar to the prior quarter, customers were most satisfied with replacement parts availability, closely followed by ongoing services and maintenance, and least satisfied with social media support. Customer responses were generally positive for all support attributes but social media support, where it was stated that the support it offered was not substantial or relevant enough for organizations to be of use.

Customer Comments

“Online technical support is great. We never use social media support.” — Dell customer

“HP goes above and beyond to quickly get parts on site and do work after hours.”— HP customer

“We’ve never had a problem that they couldn’t resolve; they’re always here when needed.” — IBM customer

5.21 5.16 5.15 5.12 5.16 5.205.29

5.00

4.61

5.07 5.015.08 5.07 5.04

5.135.28

4.99

4.45

5.08 5.05

5.24 5.26

5.02

5.28 5.23

4.99

4.61

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

OVERALL SERVER CUSTOMERS' AVERAGE SATISFACTIONBY SUPPORT ATTRIBUTE (6 MONTHS)


TBR

TBR


Appendix A x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Sales and Setup Satisfaction

TBR


Appendix A: Purchase Price/Acquisition Cost: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell’s six-month satisfaction score for purchase price experienced a slight increase compared to last quarter — enough to distance it from IBM and land it in first place.

• Dell’s high satisfaction score was primarily due to its leading level of satisfaction among small and medium IT departments.

• HP’s six-month purchase price satisfaction score increased from last quarter, but continued to remain behind the competition for the third consecutive quarter.

• HP took the second-highest position in satisfaction in small IT departments. However, low scores in medium and large IT departments dragged the vendor’s score downward.

• IBM customers’ satisfaction with purchase price over the six month period remained close to its 2Q13 score, but was not enough to surpass Dell for the No. 1 position.

• IBM had the highest level of satisfaction in large IT departments, but lagged behind Dell in small and medium IT departments.

Satisfaction scores generally increased or remained the same — Dell surpassed HP and IBM, earning it the No. 1 position

5.07 5.1

4

5.1

8

4.8

9

4.8

8

4.995.0

5

5.1

3

5.12

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. PURCHASE PRICE/ACQUISITION COST SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

5.0

6

5.1

1

5.04 5

.24

5.12

5.0

1

4.9

2

4.8

7

4.8

9 5.1

0

5.1

4

5.0

0

5.0

9

5.17

5.07

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. PURCHASE PRICE/ACQUISITION COST SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR


Appendix A: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Sales and Setup Satisfaction

Customer Comments

For this study, TBR defines IT department size in the following brackets: Small IT, 50 or fewer employees; Medium IT, 51 to 300 employees; Large IT, more than 300 employees.

Small IT Customers Medium IT Customers Large IT Customers

HP: “They have competitive prices, and their servers are very reliable.”

Dell: “Dell has the best total cost of ownership on the market.”

Dell: “Price is great for the value you receive.”

HP: “Prices are competitive.”

IBM: “The price and value is much better than we see from competitors.”

HP: “HP meets our budget.”

Dell: “The price and value are right where we need them to be.”

IBM: “Fair price and a great value.”

Purchase Price: Analysis by IT Department Size

5.21 5.13 5.04

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. PURCHASE PRICE SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.164.96 5.05

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. PURCHASE PRICE SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.024.89

5.21

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. ONE-TIME SERVICES AND SETUP SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Purchase Price: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings

Customer Comments

“We appreciate the value that Dell delivers.” — Dell blade customer

“The cost of ownership is reasonable.” — HP rack customer

“The price beats competitive market prices hands down due to the excellent overall TCO.” — IBM blade customer

“IBM is very competitive and offers good value for features and quality.” — IBM rack customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. PURCHASE PRICE/ACQUISITION COST

SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM

Server Critical Critical Important

Blade Critical Critical Critical

Rack Critical Critical Important

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. PURCHASE PRICE/ACQUISITION COST

IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix A: One-time Services and Setup: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Similar to last quarter, Dell was unable to catch IBM in one-time services and setup satisfaction, falling significantly behind the vendor’s score and earning it the No. 2 position.

• Dell’s top satisfaction score in medium IT departments was able to slightly offset its lower-than-average score among small IT department customers.

• Although HP’s six-month one-time services and setup satisfaction score experienced an increase from 2Q13, HP’s score remained below its competitors’.

• HP’s scores in medium and large IT departments were lower-than-average this quarter, pulling the vendor’s score down.

• IBM remained in the No. 1 position for one time services and setup customer satisfaction, slightly increasing from its 2Q13 score.

• IBM’s high scores in large IT departments aided the vendor in finishing above Dell’s and HP’s scores for the quarter.

HP customers reported marginal increases in one-time services and setup satisfaction compared to Dell and IBM this quarter

4

.82 4.9

5

4.9

2

4.9

8

4.8

9

4.9

7

4.7

9

4.8

2

4.8

4

4.9

6

5.2

9

5.0

3

5.07

5.0

8

5.12

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. ONE-TIME SERVICES AND SETUP SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

4.94

4.9

5

4.94

4.81

4.8

3

4.9

05.0

5

5.0

8

5.1

0

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. ONE-TIME SERVICES AND SETUP SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR


Customer Comments



HP: “The servers were delivered and set up in a very satisfactory manner.”

IBM: “Flawless implementation, in committed time frames.”

DELL: “We had more than one [poorly performing] on-site engineer.”

HP: “Once we cut a PO they give us a date and they are usually on time.”

IBM: “We get on-time delivery and reliable, competent installation services.”

DELL: “Delivery is quick, setup is easy!”

IBM: “The IBM team is always on time and there when we require assistance.”

HP: “On-site support is always available within 24 hours.”

DELL: “Quick delivery and easy setup.”


One-time Services and Setup: Analysis by IT Department Size

4.794.97 5.06

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. ONE-TIME SERVICES AND SETUP SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.014.87 4.95

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. ONE-TIME SERVICES AND SETUP SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.024.89

5.21

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. ONE-TIME SERVICES AND SETUP SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


One-time Services and Setup: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings

Customer Comments

“The product was received on time and Dell services did a quality installation and setup.” — Dell blade customer

“Too much time spent for setup.” — Dell rack customer

“Simple to set up.” — HP blade customer

“They are the best.” — IBM rack customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. ONE-TIME SERVICES AND SETUP SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM

Server Less Less Less

Blade Less Less Less

Rack Less Less Less

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. ONE-TIME SERVICES AND SETUP

IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix A: Delivery Time and Product Availability: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell slightly improved its six-month delivery time and product availability satisfaction score from 2Q13, but was unable to catch IBM for first place.

• While Dell’s blade customers reported higher satisfaction scores than its rack customers, satisfaction across all IT departments were similar in score.

• HP experienced a solid improvement in its six-month delivery time and product availability satisfaction score, tying with Dell for the No. 2 position.

• HP’s satisfaction scores were balanced as a result of higher-than-average scores in small IT departments and lower-than-average scores in large IT departments.

• IBM’s six-month delivery time and product availability score increased in 3Q13, maintaining its No. 1 position.

• IBM’s score in large IT departments was higher than competitors’, aiding the vendor in taking the No. 1 position.

Delivery time satisfaction scores for HP and IBM declined this quarter while Dell’s increased, but not enough to push it into the No. 1 position

5.12

4.99

4.99 5

.16

5.04

5.0

3

4.9

7

4.9

5

5.0

1

5.1

3

5.2

4

5.12

5.1

1

5.1

3

5.1

9

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. DELIVERY TIME AND PRODUCT AVAILABILITY SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

4.99 5.0

8

5.1

0

4.9

6

4.9

8

5.07

5.1

1

5.12

5.1

6

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. DELIVERY TIME AND PRODUCT AVAILABILITY SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR


Customer Comments



IBM: “Exceeded delivery commitments.”

HP: “Very fast and efficient.”

Dell: “Parts usually arrive on schedule.”

HP: “The machines are delivered very quickly and only need software installed.”

IBM: “They have the most reliable delivery and setup schedules in the industry.”

DELL: “The product was delivered as scheduled in our purchase order.”


Delivery Time and Availability: Analysis by IT Department Size

5.09 5.175.07

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. DELIVERY TIME SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.11 5.09 5.03

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. DELIVERY TIME SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.09 5.01

5.27

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. DELIVERY TIME SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

Customer Comments

“On time and no issues.” — Dell blade customer

“Setup is easy. Delivery takes too long.” — Dell rack customer

“Delivery time is almost always good.” — HP rack customer

“Seamless delivery and installation.” — IBM blade customer


Delivery Time and Availability: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. DELIVERY TIME AND PRODUCT AVAILABILITY SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM

Server Important Important Important

Blade Important Important Important

Rack Important Important Important

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. DELIVERY TIME AND PRODUCT

AVAILABILITY IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix A: Sales Responsiveness: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell capitalized on its slight 3Q13 improvement in sales responsiveness satisfaction, barely earning sole possession of the No. 1 spot.

• Dell scored higher with blade customers than any other vendor while collecting the highest satisfaction scores among small and medium IT departments.

• HP improved its six-month sales responsiveness satisfaction score from 2Q13, but was unable to emerge from the No. 3 position.

• HP scored similarly across all IT departments this quarter, tying with IBM for second place in small and medium IT department satisfaction scores.

• IBM’s six-month sales responsiveness satisfaction score slightly declined from the previous quarter, allowing Dell to move up into the No. 1 position.

• IBM’s higher-than-average scores in large IT departments were countered by lower-than-average scores in small and medium IT departments, dragging the vendor to No. 2.

Dell’s and HP’s sales responsiveness satisfaction scores increased from the prior quarter while IBM’s fell slightly

5.0

0

4.9

5

4.9

6

5.0

2

5.0

0

4.8

7

4.8

3

4.7

7

4.7

7 4.9

75.1

9

5.07

5.07

4.9

6

4.9

8

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. SALES RESPONSIVENESS SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

4.9

5

4.99

5.0

1

4.8

0

4.7

7

4.8

75.07

5.0

1

4.9

7

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. SALES RESPONSIVENESS SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR


Customer Comments



Dell: “We receive excellent sales response.”

IBM: “The account team is proactive.”

Dell: “Our technical sales team is the best.”

IBM: “Sales responsiveness is the weakest link.”

HP: “Sales response is good.”

IBM: “An IBM representative stays on top of our issues.”


Sales Responsiveness: Analysis by IT Department Size

5.044.86 4.85

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. SALES RESPONSIVENESS SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

4.974.86 4.84

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. SALES RESPONSIVENESS SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.024.88

5.10

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. SALES RESPONSIVENESS SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Customer Comments

“Sales reps do not contact us or follow up after purchase.” — Dell rack customer

“We have a good relationship with our sales rep.” — Dell blade customer

“We are well taken care of.” — HP blade customer

“Our IBM rep meets with us weekly to make sure any issues or concerns are addressed.” — IBM rack customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

Sales Responsiveness: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. SALES RESPONSIVENESS SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM



Rack Less Less Less

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. SALES RESPONSIVENESS IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix A: Post-purchase Customer Care: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell’s six-month, post-purchase customer care satisfaction score remained relatively flat compared to the prior quarter, helping secure a tie with IBM for the No 1. position.

• Low satisfaction in small IT departments negatively affected Dell’s overall score.

• HP improved its six-month, post-purchase customer care satisfaction score sequentially; however, the firm remains in last place for the third consecutive quarter.

• Customers in large IT departments indicated much lower satisfaction with HP than with Dell and IBM.

• IBM’s six-month, post-purchase customer care satisfaction score fell compared to 2Q13, allowing Dell to gain a share of the No. 1 position.

• Dell received the highest satisfaction scores in small IT departments, but its low score in medium IT departments prevented the vendor from remaining in sole possession of first place.

Dell pushed to the top, tying IBM for the No. 1 position in 6-month, post-purchase customer care satisfaction

4

.96

4.9

3

4.9

7

5.0

5

4.99

4.9

7

4.8

8

4.8

4

4.8

4 5.0

25.2

4

5.1

0

5.1

3

5.0

1

5.04

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. POST-PURCHASE CUSTOMER CARE SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

4.9

5

5.0

1

5.0

2

4.86

4.8

4

4.9

35.1

1

5.07

5.0

3

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. POST-PURCHASE CUSTOMER CARE SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR


Customer Comments



Dell: “I have to beg or threaten to get support on new blades.”

IBM: “[There is] proactive post-implementation follow up and issues resolution.”

Dell: “We can call real people that are knowledgeable about the product.”

HP: “We have a great HP team that we feel we can call anytime we need to.”

HP: “Good product information and immediate support after purchase.”

IBM: “Always available and knowledgeable.”


Post-purchase Customer Care: Analysis by IT Department Size

4.885.03 5.10

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. POST-PURCHASE CUSTOMER CARE SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.034.90 4.87

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. POST-PURCHASE

CUSTOMER CARE SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.20

4.915.09

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. POST-PURCHASE CUSTOMER CARE SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Customer Comments

“They’ve provided high-quality service.” — Dell blade customer

“Customer care agents are very helpful in providing solutions.” — HP rack customer

“Sales and customer service do not seem that knowledgeable.” — IBM blade customer

“The post-purchase care has been outstanding (although we do pay through the nose for it).” — IBM rack customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

Post-purchase Customer Care: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. POST-PURCHASE CUSTOMER CARE SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM



Rack Less Less Less

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. POST-PURCHASE CUSTOMER CARE

IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix A: Online Product Information: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell’s six-month online product information satisfaction score rose sequentially as the vendor tied HP and IBM for the No. 1 spot in 3Q13.

• Customers in medium and large IT departments reported the most satisfaction with Dell.

• HP moved from last place to a three-way tie for first as it increased its six-month online product information satisfaction score sequentially.

• Large IT departments were least satisfied with HP, negatively affecting the vendor’s overall score.

• IBM remains tied for the No. 1 position despite its six-month online product information satisfaction score falling compared to the previous reporting period.

• Satisfaction with IBM was much lower than with the other vendors in medium IT departments.

IBM, Dell and HP reached a 3-way tie for the No.1 spot in 6-month online product information scores

5.0

1

5.0

3

4.9

5 5.1

0

4.995.0

5

4.9

8

4.86

4.8

7 5.1

3

5.1

4

5.0

8

5.0

3

4.99

4.9

0

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. ONLINE PRODUCT INFORMATION SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

4.99

5.0

3

5.04

4.9

2

4.86 5

.00

5.0

6

5.0

1

4.9

5

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. ONLINE PRODUCT INFORMATION SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR


Customer Comments



HP: “I can get most questions answered by reviewing the HP site.”

Dell: “It is easy to find information online.”

HP: “We always have the info we need to manage our servers and/or view other product offerings.”

IBM: “Inadequate online product information.”

DELL: Effective support and online material to answer and setup servers for what we need.

IBM: “IBM’s web information source is complete and up to date.”

HP: “Online product information is good but could have been a bit better.”


Online Product Information: Analysis by IT Department Size

5.04 5.09 5.00

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. ONLINE PRODUCT INFORMATION SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

5.04 5.01

4.75

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. ONLINE PRODUCT INFORMATION SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.05 4.95 5.04

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. ONLINE PRODUCT INFORMATION SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Customer Comments

“Dell’s online site provides the information I need to know about selecting new systems.” — Dell rack customer

“Online product info is always up-to-date and accurate.” — HP rack customer

“The online info is not complete or detailed enough for our needs.” — Dell blade customer

“Technical documentation is difficult to search for.” — IBM rack customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

Online Product Information: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. ONLINE PRODUCT INFORMATION SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM



Rack Less Less Less

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. ONLINE PRODUCT INFORMATION

IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix B x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Server Hardware Satisfaction

TBR


Appendix B: Initial Hardware Quality: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell continued to increase six-month initial hardware quality satisfaction scores, allowing the vendor to remain ahead of the pack and keep the No. 1 position.

• Customers in medium IT departments reported the highest satisfaction with Dell.

• HP charged toward the lead, improving its six-month initial hardware quality satisfaction score sequentially to go from last place in 2Q13 to a second-place tie in 3Q13.

• HP was the only vendor whose blade customers reported higher satisfaction than its rack customers.

• IBM tied with HP for the No. 2 position as a result of its six-month initial hardware quality satisfaction score remaining relatively unchanged sequentially.

• IBM received the lowest satisfaction scores in small and medium IT departments, offsetting its high score in large departments.

1Q13 Initial Hardware Quality satisfaction scores for the 3 and 6 month view are the same due to the attribute only having one quarter of data at that time.

Dell took over sole possession of the top spot while HP’s and IBM’s 6-month initial hardware quality satisfaction scores tied for second place

5.1

8

5.48

5.2

4

5.20

5.1

9 5.43

5.3

2

5.2

8

5.3

4

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. INITIAL HARDWARE QUALITY SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

5.1

8 5.33

5.3

6

5.20

5.1

9

5.3

1

5.3

2

5.30

5.3

1

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. INITIAL HARDWARE QUALITY SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR


Appendix B: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Server Hardware Satisfaction



IBM: “The hardware is well built, uses the best components, rarely needs support and will run for years without issue.”

Dell: “They provided the performance and management features we needed.”

IBM: “Hardware is very reliable and performance features exceed our needs.”

HP: “HP earned a reputation for providing quality products. Technicians in my organization swear by the brand.”

Dell: “Very few issues with our blade servers. Performance is what we expected.”

HP: “HP rack servers perform up to the standards we expect.”

IBM: “Great performance and reliable, consistent service.”

Customer Comments

Initial hardware quality: Analysis by IT department size

5.355.55

5.26

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. INITIAL HARDWARE QUALITY SATISFACTION

TBR

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

5.435.25 5.20

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. INITIAL HARDWARE QUALITY SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

5.27 5.235.39

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. INITIAL HARDWARE QUALITY SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Customer Comments

“Ours have been extremely stable since implementation with very few issues or problems.” — Dell rack customer

“These servers are rock-solid and last forever.” — HP rack customer

“IBM does a good job making the blades to a standard that allows us to rely on them.” — IBM blade customer

“We very rarely, or never, have issues with our Dell blade hardware. It’s very reliable.” — Dell blade customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

Initial hardware quality: Blade vs. Rack server rankings

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. INITIAL HARDWARE QUALITY SATISFACTION

TBR

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

DELL HP IBM

Server Critical Critical Critical


Rack Critical Critical Critical

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. INITIAL HARDWARE QUALITY

IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix B: Ongoing Hardware Quality and Reliability: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell continued to improve its six-month ongoing hardware reliability satisfaction score; however, it was unable to separate itself from the other vendors and finished 3Q13 in a three-way tie for the No. 1 spot.

• Dell was the only vendor whose blade customers reported higher satisfaction than rack customers.

• HP moved into a tie for first place with a sequential improvement to its six-month ongoing hardware reliability satisfaction after finishing last in 2Q13.

• Customers in small IT departments reported high satisfaction with HP, helping to offset lower scores in medium and large departments.

• IBM’s six-month ongoing hardware satisfaction score remained at a similar level to the last two quarters, allowing HP and IBM to tie the vendor for the No. 1 position.

• IBM’s low score in medium IT departments negatively affected its overall score.

All 3 vendors improved their 6-month ongoing hardware reliability satisfaction scores, resulting in a 3-way tie for the No. 1 position

5.

38

5.2

6

5.1

4 5.4

0

5.2

85.4

5

5.1

9

5.2

3

5.2

4 5.3

9

5.5

0

5.3

2

5.35

5.3

1

5.3

6

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. ONGOING HARDWARE RELIABILITY SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

5.20 5.2

7

5.3

4

5.2

1

5.2

3

5.3

1

5.33

5.33

5.3

4

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. ONGOING HARDWARE RELIABILITY SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR





HP: “Reliability is very good, remote management is easy to set up.”

Dell: “The hardware works right out of the box, and comes as specified.”

IBM: “We haven’t had an issue with reliability that wasn’t able to be resolved quickly.”

IBM: “They are becoming more trouble then they are worth.”

HP: “Ongoing hardware reliability has always been good with HP rack servers.”

Dell: “Performance is good, and very reliable hardware.”

Dell: “Servers perform well and don’t seem to require much maintenance.”

HP: “They get the job done efficiently and quickly.”

IBM: “To date, blade servers have been very reliable. Performance has met our expectations.”

Customer Comments

Ongoing hardware quality and reliability: Analysis by IT department size

5.345.52 5.49

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. HARDWARE RELIABILITY SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.375.23 5.16

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. HARDWARE RELIABILITY SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.29 5.275.38

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. HARDWARE RELIABILITY SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Customer Comments

“Performed well with little to no equipment failure.” — Dell blade customer

“We still have HP servers running that we bought in 1996. They run for a long time and are very reliable.” — HP rack customer

“Our operation is global and must be up 24 hours, five to six days per week. These servers are reliable.” — IBM rack customer

“Too many failures on M620 blades.” — IBM blade customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

Ongoing hardware quality and reliability: Blade vs. Rack server rankings

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. ONGOING HARDWARE RELIABILITY SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM




SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. ONGOING HARDWARE RELIABILITY

IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix B: Performance: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell improved its six-month performance satisfaction score compared to the previous quarter as it maintained the No. 1 spot in a tie with HP and IBM.

• Dell’s overall score was bolstered by a high score in medium IT departments.

• HP continued to chip away at its competitors’ leads, improving its six-month performance satisfaction score sequentially and reaching the No. 1 position in a three-way tie.

• Customers in small IT departments reported the highest satisfaction with HP, providing a boost to the vendors overall score.

• Like HP and Dell, IBM improved its six-month performance satisfaction score sequentially to stay tied for the No. 1 spot.

• IBM’s low score in medium IT departments negatively affected the vendor’s overall score, preventing the vendor from distancing itself from competitors.

HP improved its 6-month performance satisfaction score, earning it a tie with Dell and IBM for the top spot in 3Q13

5.

38

5.4

0

5.1

9

5.5

2

5.335.

43

5.2

4

5.1

8 5.3

1

5.435.5

0

5.3

4

5.38

5.3

7

5.4

5

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. PERFORMANCE SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

5.30 5.3

6

5.43

5.2

1

5.25 5

.37

5.3

6

5.3

7

5.4

1

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. PERFORMANCE SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR


Customer Comments



HP: “They are well built. We have P and C class installed and they seldom break.”

IBM: “Servers have a very good up-time, and performance is excellent.”

Dell: “Very few crashes. Less than expected.”

HP: “Very rarely do we have problems, even with very old servers.”

IBM: “These have required the most maintenance.”

HP: “HP blade servers perform very well, they don’t break and are easy to manage.”

IBM: “Great product, and the reliability is awesome.”


Performance: Analysis by IT department size

5.385.57

5.46

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. PERFORMANCE SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.505.30 5.25

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. PERFORMANCE SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.39 5.325.48

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. PERFORMANCE SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Customer Comments

“Very seldom have issues.” — Dell blade customer

“They meet our requirements on performance, scalability and support.” — IBM rack customer

“Reliable servers and fantastic management capabilities make this an obvious choice for running our enterprise.” — HP rack customer

“The machines hold up very well, and have little down time.” — HP blade customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

Performance: Blade vs. Rack server rankings

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. PERFORMANCE SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM




SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. PERFORMANCE IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix B: Virtualization, Efficiency, Scalability: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell’s six-month virtualization satisfaction score remained relatively unchanged compared to the previous quarter, keeping the vendor in the No. 2 position.

• Customers in small and large IT departments reported similar levels of satisfaction with Dell this quarter.

• HP shot from last place to first with a large improvement to its six-month virtualization satisfaction score.

• HP was the only vendor whose rack customers were more satisfied with virtualization than blade customers.

• IBM lost the No. 1 position in 3Q13 as a result of falling six-month virtualization satisfaction combined with HP’s strong quarter.

• Customers in large IT departments reported the highest satisfaction with IBM this quarter.

HP rode its improved 6-month virtualization satisfaction score to the front of the pack after finishing last in 2Q13

5

.31

5.3

4

5.20 5

.40

5.2

3

5.33

5.1

8

5.1

4

5.25 5

.44

5.43

5.2

7 5.4

2

5.35

5.3

1

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. VIRTUALIZATION, EFFICIENCY, SCALABILITY SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

5.2

7

5.30

5.3

1

5.1

6

5.1

9 5.35

5.3

4

5.38

5.33

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. VIRTUALIZATION, EFFICIENCY, SCALABILITY SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR


Customer Comments



Dell: “Easy to add servers into our virtual server network.”

HP: “The value compared to the overall price is outstanding.”

HP: “The scalability allows for longer term cost savings.” IBM: “They are highly scalable in our environment and provide good value for the money.”

IBM: “Great upgrade options with the ability to handle huge volume.”

HP: “Cloud scalability is easier with HP. There is less management, easy setup, and quick replacement of parts.”


Virtualization, efficiency and scalability: Analysis by IT department size

5.29

5.61

5.29

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. VIRTUALIZATION SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.375.25 5.30

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. VIRTUALIZATION SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.27 5.29 5.36

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. VIRTUALIZATION SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Customer Comments

“If configured properly, a Dell rack server can be easily scaled according to need.” — Dell rack customer

“The servers are infinitely upgradable and expandable.“ — HP blade customer

“We primarily use these for our virtualization workloads, and, for the most part, they perform extremely well. Our only issue is with the buggy firmware included with the DL580s.” — HP rack customer

“Servers scale easily in their designed performance envelope. IBM specifications of the servers have in most cases met or exceeded our performance measurements.” — IBM blade customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

Virtualization, efficiency and scalability: Blade vs. Rack server rankings

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. VIRTUALIZATION, EFFICIENCY, SCALABILITY SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM




SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. VIRTUALIZATION, EFFICIENCY,

SCALABILITY IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix B: Total Cost of Ownership (TCO): Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell’s six-month total cost of ownership satisfaction score fell slightly sequentially; however, the vendor was able to take over sole possession of the No. 1 position.

• Dell’s blade customers reported the highest satisfaction of any vendor.

• HP improved its six-month total cost of ownership satisfaction score compared to the previous quarter and moved from last place to a second-place tie with IBM.

• HP’s high score in small IT departments bolstered its overall score this quarter.

• IBM customers reported a large drop in six-month total cost of ownership satisfaction scores compared to 2Q13, resulting in the vendor falling from first to second.

• Customers in small and medium IT departments reported they were least satisfied with IBM, negatively impacting the vendors overall score.

Dell regained sole possession of the No. 1 position, maintaining its 6-month TCO satisfaction score to take advantage of IBM’s decline

5

.13

5.25

5.1

0 5.3

7

5.1

0

5.1

3

4.99

4.91 5.

07 5.205.25

5.0

8

5.1

9

5.17

5.0

0

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

5.1

8

5.2

4

5.2

3

4.9

5

4.99 5

.13

5.1

3

5.1

8

5.0

8

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR


Customer Comments



Dell: “The value enables us to grow and be flexible.”

HP: “Cost of ownership is reasonable, good value.”

HP: “Value comes due to length of time they can remain in service without problems.”

IBM: “We couldn’t find a comparable price anywhere.”

Dell: “We find the total cost of owning these servers to be extremely reasonable.”

IBM: “We saved thousands annually with IBM rack servers.”


Total Cost of Ownership (TCO): Analysis by IT department size

5.28 5.33

5.03

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.235.06

4.96

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.18 5.09 5.18

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Customer Comments

“Dell servers allowed our organization to expand and grow, without worrying about breaking the bank.” — Dell rack customer

“Low maintenance costs equate to low TCO.” — IBM blade customer

“The value compared to the overall price is outstanding.” — HP blade customer

“They’re no cheaper than better products from HP.” — IBM rack customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

Total Cost of Ownership (TCO): Blade vs. Rack server rankings

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM




SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP

IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix B: Management Capabilities: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell improved its six-month management capabilities satisfaction score for the third consecutive quarter as the vendor remained in first place, albeit now in a tie with HP.

• Customers in medium and large IT departments reported the highest satisfaction with Dell.

• HP moved from a second-place tie in 2Q13 to a first-place tie this quarter as a result of a sequential improvement to its six-month management capabilities satisfaction score.

• HP’s rack customers reported higher management capabilities satisfaction than those of Dell and IBM.

• IBM customers reported the same level of six-month satisfaction with the vendor’s management capabilities for the third consecutive quarter as the vendor fell to last place due to Dell and HP making improvements to their scores.

• IBM’s low score in medium IT departments negatively impacted its overall score.

HP fought its way into a first place tie with Dell for the top 6-month management capabilities satisfaction score

5

.18

5.2

1

4.99

5.3

4

5.125.

25

5.0

9

5.0

2

5.1

0 5.2

7

5.2

6

5.17

5.0

6

5.1

6

5.0

5

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

5.1

0

5.1

6

5.2

3

5.0

5

5.0

6

5.1

8

5.1

1

5.1

1

5.1

1

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR


Customer Comments



Dell: “They have provided the performance and management features we needed.”

IBM: “Excellent management and monitoring capabilities.”

Dell: “Our staff is trained to use Dell’s management features and are very proficient at using them.”

IBM: “Management capabilities should be further strengthened.”

HP: “The hardware is reliable and performance and management capabilities meet our needs.”

IBM: “Easy, ongoing management.”

Dell: “Management capabilities are good and accurate.”


Management Capabilities: Analysis by IT Department Size

5.225.42

5.13

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.23 5.144.99

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.225.09 5.16

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Customer Comments

“Dell hardware doesn’t have an abnormally high failure rate, and replacements are easy to get shipped. Performance features and management are relatively easy to integrate into any environment.” — Dell rack customer

“Management features have always been good and are always improving.” — HP rack customer

“We enjoy a great reliability record with HP rack servers. The performance has been very good (based on the configuration of course) and the management capabilities satisfied our needs.” — HP rack customer

“Server management fits well into our overall management platform.” — IBM blade customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

Management Capabilities: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM




SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES

IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix B: Product Design/Features: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell maintained the No.1 position in 3Q13, holding off HP with a slight increase to its six-month product design satisfaction score compared to the previous reporting period.

• Dell’s blade and rack customers reported essentially the same level of satisfaction this quarter.

• HP charged toward the top but fell short, landing in second place after improving its six-month product design satisfaction score sequentially.

• HP’s high score in small IT departments bolstered the vendor’s overall score.

• IBM experienced a slight decline to its six-month product design satisfaction score compared to 2Q13; however, the vendor remained in the No. 2 position in a tie with HP.

• Customers in small and medium IT departments reported the lowest satisfaction with IBM.

HP pushed toward the front but failed to overtake Dell, which finished slightly ahead in 6-month product design satisfaction scores

5.

17 5.2

9

5.1

4 5.35

5.1

9

5.2

9

5.1

4

5.0

9

5.17 5

.32

5.4

4

5.25

5.2

7

5.1

5

5.25

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. PRODUCT DESIGN/FEATURES SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

5.22

5.25

5.2

7

5.1

1

5.1

3

5.2

4

5.2

6

5.2

1

5.20

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. PRODUCT DESIGN/FEATURES SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR


Customer Comments



Dell: “Low failure rates; meets our computing needs.”

IBM: “Very dependable, low failure and service incidents.”

Dell: “After years of working with Dell, it seems like the replacement of parts is becoming more uncommon.”

HP: “The least amount of downtime we have experienced with any servers.”

IBM: “Good reliability for most parts due to consistent high performance.”

HP: “Well built, low failure rate.”


Product Design/Features: Analysis by IT Department Size

5.275.39

5.24

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. PRODUCT DESIGN/FEATURES SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.295.18

5.03

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. PRODUCT DESIGN/FEATURES SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.24 5.22 5.29

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. PRODUCT DESIGN/FEATURES SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Customer Comments

“We use them in our data centers for production and never have issues other than a couple drive failures.” — Dell rack customer

“Well-designed product with great performance.” — IBM blade customer

“Reliable hardware and software.” — HP blade customer

“Servers take forever to boot, have significant issues with hardware and bios Fiber connectivity.” — IBM rack customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

Product Design/Features: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. PRODUCT DESIGN/FEATURES SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM




SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. PRODUCT DESIGN/FEATURES

IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix C x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Service and Support Satisfaction

TBR


Appendix C: Phone Support Availability: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell utilized an improvement to its six-month phone support availability satisfaction score compared to last quarter to distance itself and take sole possession of the No. 1 position.

• Dell’s strong satisfaction scores in medium and large IT departments helped drive the vendor’s overall score upward.

• HP’s six-month phone support availability satisfaction score improved sequentially, helping the firm move into a tie for second place with IBM.

• HP customers in medium and large IT departments reported similar satisfaction with the vendor.

• IBM’s phone support availability score fell sequentially for the third consecutive quarter, pushing the vendor out of first and into second place in 3Q13.

• IBM blade customers were the only respondents to report that phone support availability was less important when making their purchasing decision.

Dell continued to improve its 6-month phone support availability satisfaction score, earning a marginal lead over HP and IBM

5.

07

5.0

5

5.0

3 5.25

5.1

8

5.0

5

4.9

3

4.99 5.0

5

5.0

95.2

6

5.1

9

5.1

8

5.12

5.04

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. PHONE SUPPORT AVAILABILITY SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

5.04 5.1

4

5.2

1

4.9

6

5.0

2

5.075

.19

5.1

5

5.0

8

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. PHONE SUPPORT AVAILABILITY SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR


Appendix C: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Service and Support Satisfaction

Customer Comments



IBM: “Quick routing to highly knowledgeable technicians.”

Dell: “Always available during standard business hours.”

HP: “Available 24/7.”

IBM: “They answer the phone right away and are always knowledgeable.

Dell: “Quick response time and detailed assistance from support folks.”

IBM: “The phone support for assistance is very prompt and highly satisfactory. They have highly skilled professionals assisting us in case of any issues.”

Dell: “Very responsive and quick to answer any questions or fix issues.”

Phone Support Availability: Analysis by IT Department Size

5.13 5.12 5.13

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. PHONE SUPPORT AVAILABILITY SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.265.06 5.11

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. PHONE SUPPORT AVAILABILITY SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.265.06 5.04

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. PHONE SUPPORT AVAILABILITY SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Customer Comments

“Good people are available all the time.” — Dell blade customer

“Can be difficult to communicate via the phone sometimes.” — HP rack customer

“They are always available and consistently able to resolve issues or diagnose the problem.” — IBM rack customer

“Good support with highly knowledgeable team that provides instant solutions to critical issues.” — IBM blade customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

Phone Support Availability: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. PHONE SUPPORT AVAILABILITY SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM


Blade Important Important Less


SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. PHONE SUPPORT AVAILABILITY

IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix C: Phone Support Technical Expertise: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell took sole possession of the No. 1 spot as its six-month phone support technical expertise satisfaction score increased compared to the previous quarter.

• Dell received the lowest satisfaction score in small IT departments; however, customers in medium and large IT departments reported the highest satisfaction with Dell.

• HP’s increase to its six-month phone support technical expertise satisfaction score compared to 2Q13 failed to lift the vendor out of last place.

• HP’s low score in large IT departments negatively impacted the vendor’s overall score.

• IBM’s six-month phone support availability score fell from its 2Q13 level as the vendor fell from first place to the No. 2 position this quarter.

• IBM was the only vendor whose blade customers reported higher satisfaction than its rack customers.

IBM’s declining 6-month phone support technical expertise satisfaction score allowed Dell to take sole ownership of the No. 1 position

5

.06

5.0

1

5.0

5 5.2

1

5.12

4.9

7

4.8

9

4.9

6

4.9

6

5.0

55.20

5.1

6

5.12

5.0

6

5.0

3

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. PHONE SUPPORT TECHNICAL EXPERTISE SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

5.0

3

5.1

3

5.1

6

4.9

3

4.9

6

5.0

15.1

4

5.0

9

5.0

5

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. PHONE SUPPORT TECHNICAL EXPERTISE SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR


Customer Comments



Dell: “They provide excellent and timely service support.”

HP: “Diagnosis of issues is quick and support staff is very knowledgeable.”

IBM: They are knowledgeable and most are experienced support personnel.”

Dell: “I called Dell numerous times and they always got to the bottom of the problem I was experiencing.”

HP: “They know what they are doing and respond quickly.”

IBM: “They are responsive, professional and experienced engineers.”


Phone Support Technical Expertise: Analysis by IT Department Size

5.11 5.12 5.15

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. PHONE EXPERTISE SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.235.01 4.98

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. PHONE EXPERTISE SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.154.95 5.04

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. PHONE EXPERTISE SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBRSOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Customer Comments

“Generally, we have gotten questions answered promptly and without a lot of, ‘hold on, let me check.’” — IBM rack customer

“Very knowledgeable and highly trained.” — Dell blade customer

“They lack knowledge and read off scripts. Scripts are for end users, not IT professionals.” — HP rack customer

“If we have to call and open a PMR, the process seems geared to slow down the process, rather than get us answers.” — IBM blade Customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

Phone Support Technical Expertise: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. PHONE SUPPORT TECHNICAL EXPERTISE SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM


Blade Important Important Less


SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. PHONE SUPPORT TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix C: On-site Response Time: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell’s six-month on-site response time satisfaction remained at a similar level to 2Q13 as the vendor finished in second place again this quarter.

• Customers in small IT departments reported the lowest satisfaction with Dell, negatively affecting the vendors overall score.

• HP experienced the largest sequential increase to its six-month on-site response time satisfaction score; however, it wasn’t enough to move the vendor out of last place.

• HP rack and blade customers reported similar levels of satisfaction with HP’s on-site response time.

• Customers reported slightly higher on-site response time satisfaction for IBM, driving its six-month score up from last quarter as it maintained the No. 1 position.

• Small and large IT departments reported they were more satisfied with IBM than other vendors.

IBM withstood improvements to Dell’s and HP’s 6-month on-site response time satisfaction scores to maintain the No. 1 spot

5.0

9

5.0

5

5.04 5.

22

5.075.12

5.0

1

4.94 5.0

2 5.1

55.3

1

5.1

5

5.20

5.2

1

5.2

8

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

5.0

5

5.1

3

5.1

5

4.9

7

4.9

8

5.0

8

5.17

5.2

1

5.2

4

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR


Customer Comments



IBM: “Our on-site techs have been superb. Prompt and thorough."

HP: “The on-site support staff that I’ve worked with are generally very knowledgeable, friendly and professional.”

IBM: “Met response time requirements.”

HP: “The on-site technicians are very smart and quick to solve problems.”

Dell: “Excellent service.”

IBM: “The few times we’ve needed on-site support, we’ve had no issues with the quality of work done.”

Dell: “Service personnel have the technical expertise to troubleshoot issues.”


On-site Response Time: Analysis by IT Department Size

5.05 5.075.31

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.215.05 5.12

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.19 5.125.29

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Customer Comments

“Dell has always been very accommodating when we've needed technical expertise on-site and has provided someone very knowledgeable very quickly.” — Dell blade customer

“On-site field engineers are knowledgeable and part replacement is quick. Typically we have the same field engineer, which makes access to the data center fast.” — HP rack customer

“Best technical expertise, with the least downtime.” — IBM rack customer

“The IBM team is always on time and there when we require their assistance.” — IBM blade customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

On-site Response Time: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM




SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix C: On-site Technical Expertise: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell customers reported increased six-month on-site technical expertise satisfaction, helping the firm narrow the gap with IBM and remain in second place.

• Dell’s score in small IT departments negatively impacted its overall score, allowing HP to secure a tie this quarter.

• HP moved from last place into a tie with Dell for second place as its six-month on-site technical expertise satisfaction score improved compared to the previous quarter.

• Customers in medium and large IT departments reported the least satisfaction with HP.

• IBM’s six-month on-site technical expertise satisfaction score remained unchanged from 2Q13 as the vendor maintained the No. 1 position with a large lead.

• IBM received much higher satisfaction scores from customers in small IT departments than Dell and HP.

Dell and HP cut into IBM’s 6-month, on-site technical expertise satisfaction score lead; however, the vendor remains ahead of the pack

5.0

2

5.0

5

4.9

7 5.1

5

5.0

9

5.1

0

4.9

2

4.91 5.0

1 5.1

45.2

9

5.22

5.25

5.2

6

5.2

6

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

5.0

1

5.0

6

5.12

4.91 4.9

6

5.075

.24

5.2

6

5.2

6

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR


Customer Comments



Dell: “It’s hard to get staff that knows what they are doing.”

IBM: “Dedicated, highly knowledgeable technicians.”

HP: “Support times have always met SLAs. Techs are generally competent.”

Dell: “Techs have been experienced and efficient.”

IBM: “Have always been able to address any issue we have encountered.”

HP: “They came and provided necessary services with no client down time.”


On-site Technical Expertise: Analysis by IT Department Size

4.955.06

5.26

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.17 5.10 5.15

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.275.06

5.32

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Customer Comments

“The on-site support can independently trouble shoot issues and have the service back online in a reasonable time frame per the initial plan.” — IBM blade customer

“Service personnel are friendly, caring and competent. They provide timely service and follow-up.” — HP rack customer

“Service personnel provide excellent service for the server and are very knowledgeable.” — Dell blade customer

“The technicians are trained and know what they are doing, usually with years of experience.” — IBM rack customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

On-site Technical Expertise: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM




SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix C: Online Technical Support: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell took sole possession of the No. 1 position this quarter as customers continued to report improved six-month online technical support satisfaction.

• Dell’s six-month online technical support satisfaction is marginally higher than IBM’s.

• HP’s online technical support satisfaction score improved compared to 2Q13, helping the vendor move from last place to a second-place tie.

• HP no longer has a significantly lower six-month online technical support satisfaction score compared to Dell and IBM.

• IBM lost the No. 1 spot as its six-month online technical support satisfaction score declined sequentially, resulting in a second-place finish in 3Q13.

• IBM’s overall score was negatively impacted by a low score in medium IT departments.

Dell’s improvements to its 6-month online technical support satisfaction score helped the vendor break away from the pack and finish first

5.0

0

5.07

4.9

8 5.1

9

5.1

3

5.0

5

4.8

7

4.9

8

4.91

5.1

8

5.1

9

5.1

4

5.1

0

5.07

4.9

7

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. ONLINE TECHNICAL SUPPORT SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

5.0

3

5.0

9

5.1

6

4.9

3

4.9

5

5.045.

12

5.0

8

5.0

2

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. ONLINE TECHNICAL SUPPORT SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR


Customer Comments



HP: “Very responsive and capable of fixing issues.”

Dell: “They provide excellent and timely service support.”

IBM: “Very easy to understand and very complete documentation.”

HP: “The online support is very helpful and trusts our diagnosis.”

IBM: “The online support lacks technical expertise.”

IBM: “The online services are top-notch with very versatile resolutions to common issues.”

Dell: “Easy-to-use online site, and easy-to-understand issue resolution.”


Online Technical Support: Analysis by IT Department Size

5.055.16 5.09

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. ONLINE TECHNICAL SUPPORT SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.235.03

4.91

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. ONLINE TECHNICAL SUPPORT SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.215.00 5.05

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. ONLINE TECHNICAL SUPPORT SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Customer Comments

“The support features on the website are great. Lots of documentation or access to assistance.” — IBM rack customer

“HP offers a great deal of online information, as well as an online case management system. HP Systems Insight Manager provides predictive health alerts, which enables us to address problems before they impact system availability.” — HP rack customer

“Usually find answers online quickly and easily.” — Dell blade customer

“Folks are always at the ready, courteous and knowledgeable.” — HP blade customer

Online Technical Support: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. ONLINE TECHNICAL SUPPORT SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM

Server Important Less Less

Blade Important Less Important

Rack Important Less Less

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. ONLINE TECHNICAL SUPPORT

IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix C: Ongoing Services and Maintenance: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell improved its six-month ongoing services satisfaction enough to pull away from HP; however, it still trails IBM.

• Dell received the lowest satisfaction score in small IT departments, negatively impacting its overall score and limiting its ability to chase down IBM.

• HP customers reported higher six-month ongoing service satisfaction but the vendor failed to keep up with the improvements of its competitors and fell to last place.

• HP trailed IBM and Dell in satisfaction in medium and large IT departments.

• IBM remains in the lead, improving six-month ongoing services satisfaction slightly compared to 2Q13 as Dell narrows the gap between first and second.

• Customers in small and large IT departments reported they were most satisfied with IBM, propelling the vendor to the top spot.

IBM lost its significant advantage over Dell in the 6-month view but maintained the top-spot in ongoing services satisfaction

5.0

9

5.04

5.0

3 5.1

9

5.2

1

5.12

5.0

3

5.0

5

5.1

4

5.1

35.2

9

5.1

8

5.2

3

5.30

5.2

6

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. ONGOING SERVICES AND MAINTENANCE SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

5.04 5.1

1

5.20

5.04 5.1

0

5.1

3

5.20 5.2

6

5.2

8

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. ONGOING SERVICES AND MAINTENANCE SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR


Customer Comments



Dell: “Parts are readily available, and support options provide good value for replacements.”

HP: “Their self-support features are simple and pretty easy to use.”

IBM: “I have not had the delays associated with other vendors. IBM is superior in keeping our servers running.”

Dell: “Satisfactory outcome with these services; important services to provide for business continuity.”

IBM: “Unquestionably the best in the industry.”

HP: “Replacement parts are always available even for older server models. Required maintenance has been minimal, which has been very good.”


Ongoing Services: Analysis by IT Department Size

5.13 5.205.37

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. ONGOING SERVICES SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.255.13 5.19

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. ONGOING SERVICES SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.205.10

5.30

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. ONGOING SERVICES SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Customer Comments

“Parts seem to always be available; no issues with maintenance.” — Dell blade customer

“Because it is a global brand, we have confidence that HP will have parts available to ship within a few hours.” — HP rack customer

“We tend to go through quite a few parts. If we do not have it available, sometimes there can be a delay in getting us critical parts.” — HP blade customer

“We have had little need for replacement parts but when we have needed them, we never fear that we will not be able to get the part or the support required to install them.” — IBM rack customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

Ongoing Services: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. ONGOING SERVICES AND MAINTENANCE SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM




SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. ONGOING SERVICES AND MAINTENANCE

IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix C: Replacement Parts Availability: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell maintained a tie for the No. 1 position as it improved its six-month replacement parts availability satisfaction score compared to 2Q13.

• Dell’s blade customers were the only ones who reported that replacement parts availability was not critically important to their purchasing decision.

• HP customers reported increased replacement parts availability satisfaction, increasing the vendors six-month score and keeping it tied with Dell for the top spot.

• HP’s high scores in small and large IT departments helped bolster the vendor’s overall score.

• IBM’s six-month replacement parts satisfaction score fell slightly from the previous quarter ,resulting in the vendor dropping from a first-place tie to last place.

• Customers in medium IT departments reported they were least satisfied with IBM, negatively affecting the firm’s overall score.

IBM failed to keep up with Dell and HP for 6-month replacement parts availability satisfaction scores as the vendor fell to last place

5.2

1

5.22

5.12

5.3

4

5.25

5.25

5.0

6

5.1

4

5.2

1 5.3

6

5.2

7

5.2

9

5.2

8

5.1

9

5.2

8

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

5.17 5.2

3

5.2

9

5.1

0

5.17 5.2

8

5.2

9

5.2

4

5.2

3

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY SATISFACTION TRENDS


TBR

TBR


Customer Comments



HP: “Replacement parts arrive on time without delay. The ongoing maintenance support for rack servers meets requirements for up time on our hardware platforms.”

Dell: “No issues with maintenance and replacement parts; timely and reliable.”

Dell: “Parts always seem to be available, no issues with maintenance.”

HP: “We’ve always been able to get replacement parts shipped quickly.”

IBM: “Maintenance and replacement parts have been readily available on a one-day basis.”

IBM: “Parts for the servers are always available.”

HP: “HP went above and beyond to quickly get parts on-site and do work after hours.”

Dell: “I’ve been able to receive replacement parts next day when necessary and the items have been in stock.”


Replacement Parts Availability: Analysis by IT Department Size

5.245.39

5.26

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.385.19 5.14

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.25 5.29 5.28

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Customer Comments

“Virtually no downtime with ongoing maintenance and parts availability.” — Dell blade customer

“We have never had issues getting replacement parts in a timely manner.” — HP rack customer

“Replacement parts are almost always overnighted to us and solve our problems.” —HP blade customer

“The IBM Parts Team always ships on time and expedites the orders in a timely manner, usually next-day air.” — IBM rack customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

Replacement Parts Availability: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM


Blade Important Critical Critical


SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY

IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix C: Self-support/Automated Support: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Customers reported a similar level to 2Q13 of six-month, self-support satisfaction with Dell, resulting in a three way tie for the No. 1 spot.

• Dell received similar satisfaction scores across all size IT departments.

• HP improved its six-month, self-support satisfaction compared to the previous reporting period, helping the vendor move from last into a tie for first place.

• HP’s blade customers were the only ones that named self-support as an important factor in their purchasing decision.

• IBM remains tied for the No. 1 position as its score remained relatively unchanged since 1Q13.

• IBM’s high score in large IT departments was offset by its low score in small departments.

1Q13 Self-support/Automated Support satisfaction scores for the 3 and 6 month view are the same due to the attribute only having one quarter of data at that time.

After falling behind Dell and IBM in 2Q13, HP rebounded to force a 3-way tie for the No. 1 position in self-support satisfaction scores

5.0

2

4.9

8

5.0

1

4.9

5

4.86

5.1

1

5.0

0

5.0

2

4.9

7

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. SELF-SUPPORT/AUTOMATED SUPPORT SATISFACTION TRENDS

Dell HP IBM

TBR

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

5.0

2

5.0

0

5.0

0

4.9

5

4.9

0

4.99

5.0

0

5.0

1

4.99

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. SELF-SUPPORT/AUTOMATED SUPPORT SATISFACTION TRENDS

Dell HP IBM

TBR

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR


Customer Comments



HP: “Self-support features are top notch.”

IBM: “They do a good job of keeping documents up to date, as well as availability of software updates.”

IBM: “Self-support is unsatisfactory.”

Dell: “Dell has a mature premier support website that enables our staff to find information such as drivers and firmware in a timely fashion.”

HP: “HP self support features work for us helping us achieve full-support in-house.”

Dell: “Dell is very efficient in fixing and maintaining the servers.”


Self-support/Automated Support: Analysis by IT Department Size

4.965.07

4.97

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. SELF-SUPPORT SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.02 4.974.82

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. SELF-SUPPORT SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

5.02 4.965.11

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. SELF-SUPPORT SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Customer Comments

“We have had very good past experiences with Dell self-support.” — Dell blade customer

“HP blade servers’ self-support feature allows us to support our servers directly.” — HP blade customer

“They’ve been running for a long time and the support we have that keeps them running is good. No complaints.” — HP rack customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

Self-support/Automated Support: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. SELF-SUPPORT/AUTOMATED SUPPORT SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM

Server Less Important Less

Blade Less Important Less

Rack Less Less Less

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. SELF-SUPPORT/AUTOMATED SUPPORT

IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix C: Social Media Support: Trends

Dell HP IBM

• Dell’s six-month social media support satisfaction fell slightly compared to 2Q13; however, the vendor maintained a first place tie with IBM.

• Customers in medium and large IT departments reported that they were most satisfied with Dell.

• HP was the only vendor to improve its six-month social media support satisfaction score from the previous quarter but remains far behind IBM and Dell, in last place.

• HP’s blade and rack customers were less satisfied than those of Dell and IBM.

• IBM’s six-month social media support satisfaction score remained relatively flat sequentially as the vendor remains tied with Dell for the No. 1 position.

• IBMs blade customers reported the highest level of satisfaction among the three vendors.

Self-support/Automated Support satisfaction scores for the 3 and 6 month view are the same due to this 1Q13 being the first quarter of data collection.

IBM and Dell remained tied for the top spot, with significant advantages in 6-month social media support satisfaction over HP

4.6

4

4.5

7

4.4

0

4.5

0

4.6

2

4.6

1

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

3 Mo. SOCIAL MEDIA SUPPORT SATISFACTION TRENDS

Dell HP IBM

TBR

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

4.6

4

4.6

1

4.4

0

4.4

54.6

2

4.6

1

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

6 Mo. SOCIAL MEDIA SUPPORT SATISFACTION TRENDS

Dell HP IBM

TBR

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR


Customer Comments



Dell: “I do not use social media support, nor do I care much about it.”

HP: “Online support is good, social media I could not care less about.”

IBM: “Online support is easy to use, I have not used social media support.”

Dell: “I don’t use social media support, but their online services have always been able to provide me the information I need.”

HP: “We’ve never used any social media support.”

IBM: “IBM has a good online presence, but I am not much of a social media person.”

Dell: “We don’t use social media support often but have had good luck when we do.”


Social Media Support: Analysis by IT Department Size

4.59 4.38 4.65

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. SOCIAL MEDIA SUPPORT SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

4.54 4.46 4.45

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. SOCIAL MEDIA SUPPORT SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

4.724.47

4.70

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. SOCIAL MEDIA SUPPORT SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Customer Comments

“We don’t use social media support.” — Dell blade customer

“Online is our first stop for support, we do not use social media for support.” — HP rack customer

“We don’t use social media support, it is of dubious quality.” — IBM blade customer

“Online/social media support is not always reliable.” — HP rack customer


DELL HP IBM

Blade Rack

Social Media Support: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

DELL HP IBM

6 Mo. SOCIAL MEDIA SUPPORT SATISFACTION

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

DELL HP IBM



Rack Less Less Less

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

6 Mo. SOCIAL MEDIA SUPPORT IMPORTANCE

TBR


Appendix D Firmographics

TBR


Firmographics

Surveys collected between April 15, 2013, and Sept. 19, 2013

3Q13 Sample Overview

Dell HP IBM Total

Blade Servers 155 155 153 463

Rack Servers 155 155 154 464

Total 310 310 307 927

6 Mo. QUARTER SAMPLE: SERVER RESPONDENTS BY PRICE BAND

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR

TBR


Firmographics

Servers Installed and Purchased

Servers Installed Currently 763,078

Servers Purchased

in the Past 12 Months83,654

Average Percent of Installed Servers

Purchased in the Past 12 Months17%

Server Purchases Planned

in the Next 12 Months87,460

Average Percent of Installed Servers

Planned for Purchase in the Next 12 Months17%

6 Mo. QUARTER SAMPLE: SERVER INSTALLS AND PURCHASES TBR

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR


Firmographics

Note: 3Q13 firmographic data based on information provided by x86-based server sample only.

Company Size by Annual Revenue

Dell HP IBM Total

I don’t know 1% 8% 1% 3%

Less than $100 million 9% 10% 7% 9%

$100 million – $249 million 15% 5% 12% 10%

$250 million – $499 million 6% 11% 7% 8%

$500 million – $999 million 13% 5% 14% 10%

$1 billion – $4.9 billion 29% 22% 19% 23%

$5 billion – $9.9 billion 9% 13% 15% 13%

$10 billion or more 17% 28% 25% 24%

6 Mo. QUARTER SAMPLE: COMPANY SIZE BY ANNUAL REVENUE TBR

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR


Firmographics


Company and IT Department Size by Number of Employees

Dell HP IBM Total

500 - 999 employees 10% 5% 7% 7%

1,000 - 4,999 employees 31% 23% 21% 24%

5,000 - 9,999 employees 16% 15% 18% 17%

10,000 or more employees 42% 58% 55% 52%

6 Mo. QUARTER SAMPLE: COMPANY SIZE TBR

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

Dell HP IBM Total

Small 50 or fewer IT employees 27% 18% 21% 21%

Medium 51 - 300 IT employees 40% 32% 24% 31%

Large Over 300 IT employees 34% 51% 55% 48%

6 Mo. QUARTER SAMPLE: IT DEPARTMENT SIZE TBR

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR


Firmographics


Respondents’ Titles

Dell HP IBM Total

CIO/CTO 8% 9% 16% 11%

IT EVP/SVP/VP 3% 7% 11% 7%

IT Director 30% 27% 29% 28%

IT Manager 35% 36% 32% 34%

IT Analyst/Specialist 22% 18% 11% 17%

Other 1% 3% 2% 2%

6 Mo. QUARTER SAMPLE: RESPONDENT TITLE TBR

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR


Firmographics


Industry

Dell HP IBM Total

Aerospace/Defense 3% 3% 3% 3%

Banking/Financia l Services 7% 8% 18% 11%

Bus iness and Legal Services 5% 3% 7% 5%

Computer Services/IT Consulting 15% 9% 14% 13%

Computer Software 7% 2% 3% 4%

Construction/Engineering/Env Services 0% 1% 0% 0%

Consumer Packaged Goods 0% 4% 1% 2%

Education ─ Private/Tra ining 6% 3% 2% 3%

Education ─ Publ ic 5% 1% 2% 2%

Electronics Manufacturing 2% 2% 2% 2%

Energy/Uti l i ties 5% 6% 5% 5%

Government ─ Federa l 6% 3% 0% 2%

Government ─ State/Local 1% 6% 5% 4%

Hospita l/Healthcare ─ Private 3% 8% 5% 6%

Hospita l/Healthcare ─ Publ ic 1% 5% 3% 3%

Insurance 5% 10% 7% 7%

Industria l Manufacturing 5% 8% 2% 5%

Manufacturing ─ Other 8% 3% 6% 6%

Media/Publ ishing 1% 1% 1% 1%

Pharmaceutica ls/Li fe Sciences 1% 2% 1% 1%

Retai l /Wholesa le 6% 6% 1% 4%

Telecommunications 2% 3% 7% 4%

Transportation/Logis tics 3% 1% 2% 2%

Other 2% 4% 3% 3%

6 Mo. QUARTER SAMPLE: INDUSTRY TBR

SOURCE: TBR 3Q13

TBR


Appendix E Analytical Procedures and Survey Instrument

TBR


Analytical Procedures and Survey Instrument

• At the beginning of the survey, respondents select which brand of servers they purchased most in the past 12 months. This brand is their “primary brand” for the remainder of the server questions.

• Respondents rate their satisfaction with servers from their primary brand on 22 attributes using a seven-point Likert scale. Respondents rate satisfaction separately for blade and rack x86-based servers.

o Question: How satisfied are you with each of the following attributes of {Primary Brand} {Blade/Rack} servers?

• The mean satisfaction scores (S) for each attribute by vendor are calculated for both server types, and for blade and rack servers separately.

• TBR uses an independent sample t-test assuming unequal variances or the standard student’s t-test. Three levels are used in the analysis: 0.1 (90%), 0.05 (95%) and 0.01 (99%).

Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Scale Extremely

Dissatisfied Very

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied Extremely

Satisfied

Satisfaction

TBR


• Respondents rate the importance of the 22 attributes when making their purchase decision for blade and rack x86-based servers separately.

o Question: When making your last {blade/rack} server purchase, how important were the following attributes to your organization? Please move each attribute on the left into one of the categories on the right by dragging and dropping them. You can move as few or as many attributes into one particular category as you like.

o Categories:

• Importance ratings are used for three key analyses in understanding customer perceptions and are applied to each

vendor’s combined server responses as well as the blade and rack respondents separately. 1. Importance Multiplier by Brand — Average importance across all attributes for that specific brand (I) is divided by the average

importance across all attributes of all brands to determine an Importance Multiplier (M). The Importance Multipliers are used to help determine the TBR Weighted Satisfaction Index.

2. Attribute Importance Weight by Brand — Each attribute mean importance score by brand (I) is divided by the sum of that brand’s mean

importance scores to determine a relative Importance Weight (W). The Importance Weights are used in the TBR Satisfaction Indices.

3. Attribute Importance Level by Brand — To determine which attributes are “Critical,” “Important” and “Less Important” for each brand,

the following methodology is applied. o Important Cut-off: Average WBrand y — ½ the standard deviation of the 21 WBrand y o Critical Cut-off: Average WBrand y + ½ the standard deviation of the 21 WBrand y o Less Important Attribute: An attribute with an importance weight that is less than the Important Cut-off o Important Attribute: An attribute with an importance weight that is greater than the Important Cut-off and less than the Critical

Cut-off o Critical Attribute: An attribute with an importance weight that is greater than the Critical Cut-off


Value 1 2 3 Scale Less

Important Important Critical

Importance

TBR



• The TBR Weighted Satisfaction Index is comprised of four indices:

((0.3*Product Sat. Index + 0.3*Sales Sat. Index + 0.3*Service Sat. Index)*Importance Multiplier) + 0.1*Loyalty Index

• Attribute Scores: TBR uses the mean satisfaction score of all respondents by vendor to compare vendor

performance by attribute.

• Attribute scores are aggregated into three distinct indices (Note: If a vendor receives a perfect seven mean

satisfaction score for all attributes within an index, the index score would equal 100):

1. Sales Satisfaction Index — The sum of the sales attribute scores by vendor (6 satisfaction attributes)

2. Product Satisfaction Index — The sum of the product attribute scores by vendor (7 satisfaction attributes)

3. Service Satisfaction Index — The sum of the service attribute scores by vendor (9 satisfaction attributes)

• The fourth element of the TBR Weighted Satisfaction Index is a measure of loyalty:

4. Loyalty Index — The average percent of respondents who indicated they would buy servers from that vendor again and percent of respondents who indicated they would recommend it to a professional peer, all times 100.

100 ∗ % 𝐵𝑢𝑦 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 + % 𝑊𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑑

2

TBR Satisfaction Index

TBR



Key Survey Questions

TBR




TBR




TBR



IF “VERY SATISFIED” OR “EXTREMELY SATISFIED” WITH PHONE SUPPORT RESPONSIVENESS OR EXPERTISE Please explain why you are highly satisfied with {Brand’s} {segment} {servers} phone support. IF “VERY SATISFIED” OR “EXTREMELY SATISFIED” WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME OR EXPERTISE Please explain why you are highly satisfied with {Brand’s} {segment} {servers} on-site support. IF “VERY SATISFIED” OR “EXTREMELY SATISFIED” WITH ONLINE SUPPORT Please explain why you are highly satisfied with {Brand’s} {segment} {servers} online services and/or social media support. IF “VERY SATISFIED” OR “EXTREMELY SATISFIED” WITH REPLACEMENT PARTS, SELF-SUPPORT/AUTOMATED SUPPORT OR ONGOING SERVICES Please explain why you are highly satisfied with {Brand’s} {segment} {servers} ongoing maintenance, self-support features, or replacement parts availability. IF “EXTREMELY DISSATISFIED,” “VERY DISSATISFIED,” OR “DISSATISFIED” WITH PHONE SUPPORT RESPONSIVENESS OR EXPERTISE Please explain why you are dissatisfied with {Brand’s} {segment} {servers} phone support. IF “EXTREMELY DISSATISFIED,” “VERY DISSATISFIED,” OR “DISSATISFIED” WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME OR EXPERTISE Please explain why you are dissatisfied with {Brand’s} {segment} {servers} on-site support. IF “EXTREMELY DISSATISFIED,” “VERY DISSATISFIED,” OR “DISSATISFIED WITH ONLINE SUPPORT OR REMOTE MANAGED SERVICES Please explain why you are dissatisfied with {Brand’s} {segment} {servers} online services. IF “EXTREMELY DISSATISFIED,” “VERY DISSATISFIED,” OR “DISSATISFIED” WITH, REPLACEMENT PARTS, SELF-SUPPORT/AUTOMATED SUPPORT, OR ONGOING SERVICES Please explain why you are dissatisfied with {Brand’s} {segment} {servers} ongoing maintenance, self-support features, or replacement parts availability.


TBR




IF “VERY SATISFIED” OR “EXTREMELY SATISFIED” WITH INITIAL HARDWARE QUALITY, ONGOING HARDWARE QUALITY & RELIABILITY, PERFORMANCE, , MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES OR PRODUCT DESIGN/FEATURES Please explain why you are highly satisfied with {Brand’s} {segment} {servers} hardware reliability, performance, features or management capabilities. IF “VERY SATISFIED” OR “EXTREMELY SATISFIED” WITH PURCHASE VIRTUALIZATION, EFFICIENCY, SCALABILITY OR TCO Please explain why you are highly satisfied with {Brand’s} {segment} {servers} scalability or value. IF “EXTREMELY DISSATISFIED,” “VERY DISSATISFIED,” OR “DISSATISFIED” WITH INITIAL HARDWARE QUALITY, ONGOING HARDWARE QUALITY & RELIABILITY, PERFORMANCE, MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES OR PRODUCT DESIGN/FEATURES Please explain why you are dissatisfied with {Brand’s} {segment} {servers} hardware reliability, performance, features or management capabilities. IF “EXTREMELY DISSATISFIED,” “VERY DISSATISFIED,” OR “DISSATISFIED” WITH PURCHASE PRICE OR TCO Please explain why you are dissatisfied with {Brand’s} {segment} {servers} scalability or value. IF “VERY SATISFIED” OR “EXTREMELY SATISFIED” WITH DELIVERY TIME OR ONE-TIME SERVICES AND SETUP Please explain why you are highly satisfied with {Brand’s} {segment} {servers} delivery or setup. IF “VERY SATISFIED” OR “EXTREMELY SATISFIED” WITH SALES RESPONSIVENESS, ONLINE PRODUCT INFORMATION OR POST-PURCHASE CUSTOMER CARE Please explain why you are highly satisfied with {Brand’s} {segment} {servers} online product information, sales responsiveness or post-purchase customer care. IF “VERY SATISFIED” OR “EXTREMELY SATISFIED” WITH PURCHASE PRICE Please explain why you are highly satisfied with {Brand’s} {segment} {servers} purchase price. IF “EXTREMELY DISSATISFIED,” “VERY DISSATISFIED,” OR “DISSATISFIED” WITH SALES RESPONSIVENESS, DELIVERY TIME OR ONE-TIME SERVICES AND SETUP Please explain why you are dissatisfied with {Brand’s} {segment} {servers} ease of doing business, delivery or setup. IF “EXTREMELY DISSATISFIED,” “VERY DISSATISFIED,” OR “DISSATISFIED” WITH SALES RESPONSIVENESS, ONLINE PRODUCT INFORMATION OR POST-PURCHASE CUSTOMER CARE Please explain why you are dissatisfied with {Brand’s} {segment} {servers} online product information, sales responsiveness or post-purchase customer care. IF “EXTREMELY DISSATISFIED,” “VERY DISSATISFIED,” OR “DISSATISFIED” WITH PURCHASE PRICE Please explain why you are dissatisfied with {Brand’s} {segment} {servers} purchase price.

TBR Quarterly and Semiannual Industry Coverage Computing, Storage & Devices

Software IT Services, Outsourcing & Consulting

Networking & Mobility

16 Vendors Covered

11 Vendors Covered

CA Technologies

Dell Software*

HP

IBM

Microsoft

Oracle

Red Hat

SAP AG

SAS Institute*

Symantec

VMware

Accenture

Atos

Bain & Co.*

Booz & Co.*

Boston Consulting Group*

Capgemini

CGI*

Cisco Services

Cognizant

CSC

Dell Services

Deloitte Consulting*

Fujitsu

Genpact*

HCL Technologies

HP Services

IBM Global Services

Infosys

KPN IT Solutions*

McKinsey & Co.*

SAIC

T-Systems

Tata Consultancy Services

Unisys

Wipro IT Services

Xerox

Public Sector IT Services 8 Vendors Covered

Booz Allen Hamilton*

CACI International*

General Dynamics IS&T*

L-3 Communications*

Lockheed Martin IS&GS*

ManTech*

Northrop Grumman IS&TS*

Raytheon IT Services*

Healthcare IT Services 5 Vendors Covered

Accenture HITS*

CSC HITS*

Dell HITS*

HP HITS*

IBM HITS*

14 Vendors Covered

Accenture Telecom & Mobility*

Alcatel-Lucent

Cisco Systems

Ericsson

Google

Hewlett-Packard Telecom & Mobility*

Huawei*

IBM Telecom & Mobility*

Juniper Networks

Microsoft Telecom & Internet*

Motorola Solutions*

Nokia Solutions and Networks

Samsung Telecom. Systems

ZTE*

5 Enterprise Operators Covered

AT&T Business Solutions*

BT Global Services*

Orange Business Services*

Verizon Enterprise Solutions*

Vodafone Enterprise Services*

9 Operators Covered

AT&T Time Warner

Cablevision Cable

Comcast Verizon

Sprint Nextel Vodafone

T-Mobile USA

Acer*

Apple

Asus*

Dell

EMC

Fujitsu

HP

IBM

Intel

Lenovo

Motorola Mobility*

NetApp

Nokia*

Samsung

Devices*

Sony

Toshiba

Accenture Cloud*

Amazon Web Services*

Atos Cloud*

Capgemini Cloud*

Cognizant Cloud

CSC Cloud*

Dell Cloud*

Deloitte Cloud*

Fujitsu Cloud*

Google Cloud*

HP Cloud*

IBM Cloud*

Infosys Cloud*

Microsoft Cloud*

Oracle Cloud*

Rackspace*

Salesforce.com

SAP Cloud*

ServiceNow*

TCS Cloud*

Verizon Cloud*

Wipro Cloud*

Workday

Cloud 23 Vendors Covered

*Semiannual publication; **Annual publication www.tbri.com ©2013 Technology Business Research, Inc.

26 Vendors Covered

TBR

TBR Benchmark Industry Coverage

TBR

www.tbri.com ©2013 Technology Business Research, Inc.

Cloud

Computing Devices Benchmark

— Benchmark XLS Data 18 Vendors Covered Data Center Benchmark

— Benchmark XLS Data 16 Vendors Covered

Software Vendor Benchmark — Benchmark XLS Data

29 Vendors Covered Business Intelligence Software Vendor Benchmark


IT Services Vendor Benchmark — Benchmark XLS Data

30 Vendors Covered Public Sector IT Services Benchmark

— Benchmark XLS Data 20 Vendors Covered Healthcare IT Services Benchmark

— Benchmark XLS Data 18 Vendors Covered Management Consulting Benchmark* — Benchmark XLS Data 16 Vendors Covered Global Delivery Market Landscape* — Benchmark XLS Data 14 Vendors Covered

Telecom Vendor Telecom Vendor Benchmark


Telecom Infrastructure Services Benchmark — Benchmark XLS Data

39 Vendors Covered

Expanded Telecom Infrastructure Services Benchmark — Benchmark XLS Data

39 Vendors Covered

Telecom Infrastructure Services Margin Benchmark** — Benchmark XLS Data

5 Vendors Covered

Telecom Infrastructure Services Global Addressable Market Forecast**

— Benchmark XLS Data

Telecom Infrastructure Services North America Addressable Market Forecast**

— Benchmark XLS Data

Enterprise Networking Enterprise Network Vendor Benchmark*


Network Infrastructure Services Benchmark — Benchmark XLS Data

13 Vendors Covered

Operator U.S. & Canada Mobile Operator Benchmark


Public Cloud Benchmark — Benchmark XLS Data

50 Vendors Covered Managed Private & Professional Services Cloud Benchmark*

— Benchmark XLS Data 29 Vendors Covered Cloud Components Benchmark*


Software

Networking & Mobility IT Services, Outsourcing & Consulting Computing, Storage & Devices

*Semiannual publication; **Annual publication

About Us Technology Business Research, Inc. is a leading independent technology market research and consulting firm specializing in the business and financial analyses of hardware, software, professional services, telecom and enterprise network vendors, and operators. Serving a global clientele, TBR provides timely and actionable market research and business intelligence in formats that are tailored to clients’ needs. Our analysts are available to further address client-specific issues or information needs on an inquiry or proprietary consulting basis. TBR has been empowering corporate decision makers since 1996. To learn how our analysts can address your unique business needs, please visit our website or contact us today.

Contact Us

1.603.929.1166 [email protected] www.tbri.com 11 Merrill Drive Hampton, NH 03842 USA

This report is based on information made available to the public by the vendor and other public sources. No representation is made that this information is accurate or complete. Technology Business Research will not be held liable or responsible for any decisions that are made based on this information. The information contained in this report and all other TBR products is not and should not be construed to be investment advice. TBR does not make any recommendations or provide any advice regarding the value, purchase, sale or retention of securities. This report is copyright-protected and supplied for the sole use of the recipient. Contact Technology Business Research, Inc. for permission to reproduce.

All reports are available in PowerPoint and PDF. If you are viewing a PDF and require access to data, tables, etc. for use in internal documents, please visit www.tbri.com

and download the PowerPoint version.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.tbri.com/

http://www.tbri.com/

Documents

Corporate IT Buying Behavior & Customer Satisfaction Study ...bladesmadesimple.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/... · T B R 4 ©3Q13 | TBR — x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction