Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
White Paper
February 2008
Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 3
Case Study 1: Fast ............................................................................................................................. 5
Migration Phases ............................................................................................................................................................. 5
Detailed Tasks and Roles ............................................................................................................................................. 8
Costs ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Summary.......................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Case Study 2: Steady....................................................................................................................... 12
Migration Phases .......................................................................................................................................................... 12
Detailed Tasks and Roles .......................................................................................................................................... 14
Costs .................................................................................................................................................................................. 16
Summary.......................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 20
Binary Tree ....................................................................................................................................... 21
Appendix A: Methodologies Reference ....................................................................................... 22
Transition Cost Estimator .......................................................................................................................................... 22
Application Analysis Envisioning Process ........................................................................................................... 22
Executive Summary
This white paper is intended primarily for current IBM Lotus Notes and Domino customers who
want to know the process steps and associated costs involved in transitioning their current
communication and collaboration infrastructure to the Microsoft platform. In this white paper,
we have outlined two disparate case studies from customers who have made this transition in the
past two years. These organizations present very different transition approaches that showcase
how the steps and costs involved in a Lotus Notes migration project can vary based on correlated
criteria.
The first case study presents the experiences of a services company, Company A, which had
technologically-savvy users and a well-managed IT environment that provided for a very rapid
transition. After several weeks of planning, Company A migrated their 5,000 users e-mail
accounts and data during a single weekend. On Friday afternoon, users were sending e-mail with
Lotus Notes; by Monday morning, they were using Microsoft Office Outlook and Microsoft
Exchange Server.
In the second case study, Company B, a retail and wholesale company, had 10,000 users and a
more complex IT environment. Due to corporate acquisition, they had a heterogeneous
infrastructure that included Lotus Notes and Domino as well as Exchange seats, and they had
multiple Active Directory services with overlapping domain names. Additionally, their users skills
were very diverse. To ease the transition, Company B decided to include a year of coexistence
while gradually migrating users in work groups and training them to maintain productivity. Table
1 shows the time and cost for both migrations.
Table 1 Overview of Timeline and Costs for Company A and Company B Migrations
Total Cost*
$228,171
Number of Users
5,000
Total Cost*
$1,458,088
Number of Users
10,000
*Note: Both customers outlined in this document had previously purchased Microsoft Office, so the software pricing above
includes only Exchange Server licenses and Binary Tree migration and coexistence products.
Both customers experienced very positive transitions to the Microsoft platform. However, the
duration of their migration projects and the level of effort needed by their teams were extremely
different based on their transition criteria. This white paper describes the different approaches in
detail to assist current IBM Lotus Notes and Domino customers in planning for migration.
For confidentiality, we have used fictitious company names. However, the timelines, costs, and
results presented in this white paper are from real transitions from IBM Lotus Notes and Domino
to the Microsoft platform. When calculating software costs, we included only Binary Tree products
and Exchange Server licenses, as both companies had already purchased Microsoft Office 2003
licenses. Rather than reiterate existing methodologies, this paper focuses on actual decisions,
tasks, timing, and results. For applicable transition methodologies, see Appendix A: Methodology
References.
Migration Phases
Company As migration was completed in the following phases:
Analysis
Planning
Pilot
Execution
Analysis (3 weeks)
Company As IT department started the transition process by analyzing their migration approach.
To create a complete team that would manage the migration, they enlisted outside resources,
including a migration architect, a migration engineer, and a migration project manager from
Binary Tree. The migration architect had an in-depth understanding of the migration process,
alternatives, and source and target environments. The migration engineer had a good
understanding of these as well, plus the migration technology and tools that would be needed for
a successful project. The project manager pulled all parties and documentation together, while
Company A managed all purchasing, facilities, and end-user communication.
First, the migration team examined Company As users, messaging, and application usage. They
decided that they wanted to migrate the user community very quickly for the following reasons:
Avoid coexistence1
Use Microsoft Office Outlook that was already licensed and installed on desktops or
could be easily pre-installed
Accommodate the majority of power users who could handle a rapid migration
Company A and the migration team elected to transition all 5,000 e-mail users during a single
weekend and wait to rebuild or migrate applications. Eventually, they would migrate applications
to the Microsoft platform using Microsoft Office SharePoint and Microsoft .NET.
A key component to Company As migration approach was selecting the right tool to facilitate the
actual migration. Their key considerations were achieving the highest degree of data fidelity,
migration throughput, and migration workstation management. Since the migration would
require a large migration environment (30 machines) and take place over a single weekend,
Company A needed to select a tool that would migrate messaging and calendaring data quickly
while providing the highest level of data fidelity to ensure positive experiences for end users.
The migration process also needed to be easy to manage. Managing 30 independent
workstations processing user data would require multiple migration administrators, while having a
central migration console would allow greater control and oversight of the environment and
would require only two administrators. Customer A evaluated the free tools available from
Microsoft as well as the three leading vendor migration solutions. Company A selected Binary
Tree's CMT Universal (now named CMT for Exchange) because the workload distribution
facilitated by CMT Universal outperformed the multi-threading capabilities of other tools, and
CMT Universal achieved better fidelity and overall throughput.
Coexistence solutions at the time were not as good as they are today.
Planning (3 weeks)
The migration team started planning the transition by determining the migration lab
requirements. Migration throughput can vary from 1.5GB/hour to 10GB/hour depending on
numerous variables, including the following:
Contents of source mail files (number of messages tends to have a greater impact
than message size, and calendar entries tend to take longer to migrate than mail)
The team decided to use 30 workstations: 25 for true data migration, two to manage the process,
and three hot spares. For workstations, the team chose mid-range laptops less than five years old.
Although higher-end workstations can increase throughput and lower-end PCs would be cheaper,
Company A needed to balance costs and logistics, particularly physical space to house
workstations. The team used two management workstations due to availability of staff.
Designing and building the Exchange environment normally requires two to three weeks. To
facilitate Company As rapid transition, the Exchange environment was fully created and hardened
before the migration.
Pilot (1 week)
During the pilot, the team analyzed specific throughput. In the pilot phase, the team used actual
data, unlike a proof of concept (POC), which tests feasibility (including data fidelity) and can
include data copies and VPCs. In the pilot, the team migrated 20 representative users. Migrating
only the IT users is not representative of the actual transition; therefore, Company A selected a
range of users, including business, mobile, management, and executive users from different
offices.
The team conducted the pilot during one week and completed it six weeks before the actual
migration weekend. They used Binary Trees CMT Universal (also known as CMT for Exchange) to
migrate messaging and calendaring data. The team discovered that they could not migrate all
data with their 30 workstations in one pass, and they could not use additional workstations due to
logistics constraints. To provide the most seamless transition possible for users, Company A and
the migration team decided to schedule two stages for the actual migration. In the first stage, the
team would migrate data older than one month; in the second stage, they would migrate all
remaining data.
Company As users are primarily power users, so extensive training materials were not necessary.
Instead, the team used the communications module of Enterprise Migration Manager, a
component of CMT Universal, to create documentation during the pilot and distribute quick
reference cards and links to Web-based training modules weeks before the actual migration.
To prepare for the execution phase, the migration team tested pre-configured, user-triggered
scripts available in CMT Universal to prepare user mail files. They also tested existing mail-enabled
applications.
Execution (1 month)
During the first two weeks of the migration execution phase, the migration team prepared for and
migrated data older than one month. In the third week, the team prepared users by asking them
to initiate scripts that would do the following:
Merge Personal Address Book into a mail file, which allows the migration engine to
access and migrate this data centrally and eliminates the need to distribute an enduser migration tool to access local data
For the final stage of the transition, two migration engineers and the project manager performed
the remaining e-mail migration over a weekend with no serious data fidelity issues. On Monday,
users were accessing their migrated e-mail, calendar, contacts, tasks, folders, and attachments
within Outlook. The project team resolved all migration issues over the next week, so the
transition was considered successfully completed one week after the second stage of the
migration execution phase.
For a month after migration, approximately 3% of users required additional support from
Company As help desk. Company As applications were migrated separately. Most of these
applications were rudimentary discussion databases, which were easily migrated to Microsoft
Office SharePoint.
Exchange administrator
350
333
300
250
267
250
200
Execution
133
150
Pilot
Planning
83
100
50
Analysis
17
0
Internal Project Mid-level IT
Manager
Managers
Exchange
Administrator
External
Project
Manager
Senior
Technical
Architect
Migration
Engineers
Costs
The total cost of Company As migration was $228,171. That amount includes costs for internal
and external support, training, software, and hardware, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Migration Costs by Category for Company A Migration
Internal IT
External Professional Services
End User Training
Hardware/Infrastructure Costs
Software Costs
Internal IT Costs
Analysis
Project Manager
Mid-level IT
Planning
Pilot
Execution
Total Hours
Total Cost
$6,250
$6,250
$6,250
$6,250
333
$25,000
$10,000
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
500
$30,000
$416
$417
$0
$0
17
$833
Total
$55,833
Managers (2)
Exchange Admin
External IT Costs
Analysis
Planning
Pilot
Execution
Total Hours
Total Cost
Project Manager
$0
$0
$7291
$7291
83
$14,582
Senior Technical
$0
$0
$26,666
$26,667
267
$53,333
$0
$0
$10,000
$10,000
133
$20,000
Total
$87,917
Architect
Migration Engineers
(2)
Total Cost
3 days
$3,000
93 hours
$11,625
2 hours
$3,000
Total
$17,625
Software Costs*
Cost per License
Microsoft Exchange Server 2003
$3,974
Total Cost
$15,896
$40,000
Total
$55,896
Hardware Costs
Quantity
Total Cost
Mail Servers
$4,000
$4,000
SMTP Gateway
$2,000
Disk Space
2TB
$900
Total
$10,900
*Note: Both customers outlined in this document had previously purchased Microsoft Office programs, so the software
pricing includes only Exchange Server licenses and Binary Tree transition tool products.
Summary
Company As transition from Lotus Notes and Domino is a great example of a very rapid
transition. Although this approach is not usually recommended, Company A wanted to avoid
coexistence, and their unique environment and the high percentage of power users enabled a fast
transition. By preparing well for their migration, Company A demonstrated that a large transition
can be done quickly and smoothly.
Migration Phases
Company Bs migration was completed in the following phases:
Production deployment
To mitigate user reaction to the transition, Company B created a strong, layered communication
plan. They knew that many users would not read every document they received, so Company B
provided information about the migration through e-mail, portals, newsletters, and physical signs
at building sites.
Company B associated ancillary servers, such as BlackBerry Enterprise Servers and Audio and
Video/Content servers, with Exchange. Additionally, Company B needed to plan for long-term
coexistence between all Domino and Exchange environments for e-mail and calendaring. To
ensure seamless interoperability between Lotus Notes/Domino users and Exchange users,
Company B implemented CMT for Coexistence from Binary Tree.
To minimize user impact, Company B selected several pilot groups to represent different user
types and prepared for questions and issues from each group. Company B also prepared pilot
users to provide feedback on the process, documentation, and data integrity and to test the
coexistence functionality.
When Company B was choosing migration tools, they considered two factors: migration process
management capabilities and customer support throughout the project. Because Company B
estimated that their migration would last longer than a year, they needed to ensure that they
could access support immediately if they needed it. Company B chose Binary Tree's CMT
Universal (now named CMT for Exchange) because it exceeded their requirements for features
and functions. Additionally, Company Bs previous experiences with Binary Trees support assured
them that any issues would be resolved without disrupting the migration schedule.
Testing and Pilot (2 months)
Using multiple pilot groups for the migration was critical to streamlining the migration process
and mitigating end-user issues. For two months, Company B conducted twelve pilots. They tested
their processes and documentation, and they discovered that 50% of their users did not read their
notifications about preparing for the migration. Company B sent e-mail messages to users that
contained buttons to initiate automated tasks; however, many users did not click the buttons, so
Company B modified the scripts to launch automatically when users opened the e-mail message.
Even then, Company B had to send the e-mail message three times to launch all migration scripts.
During the pilots, Company B tested their High Availability and Disaster Recovery plans when they
would have little to no impact on users. Then, Company B worked with their pilot users to identify
questions and issues and address them proactively.
While a seamless integration was critical for Company B, their environment was extremely
complex and would require several layers of coexistence. As a result, they consulted coexistence
experts to explain their coexistence options and help set user expectations.
To fully understand the impact of migration, Company B started slowly and gradually ramped up
migrations every night. They expected the help desk to be overwhelmed during the migration
process, so Company B hired temporary workers who understood e-mail systems and migrations
to take help desk calls and help users in the offices.
Production Deployment (1 year)
Company B employed five full-time people for the production deployment phase, and a
migration expert from Binary Tree performed the migrations overnight. According to a Company
B employee, we could not have done it without Binary Tree.
Follow up and Support (ongoing)
Company Bs users required follow up and support throughout the migration process. For
example, several users did not process local data and called the help desk to ask why their e-mail
contacts were not migrated. To handle these cases, Company B established a process for remigrating contacts. They also provided additional support to executives and their assistants, as
accessing and processing other peoples e-mail and calendar entries in Outlook is very different
than Lotus Notes.
Training facilitator
Domino administrator
Exchange IT administrator
7000
6250
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
2000
2333
817
1000
0
250
200
1333
350
Migration engineer
Production Deployment
Testing and Pilot
Planning and Design
1400
1333
1200
1000
1000
800
Production Deployment
600
400
200
167
100
0
Senior Technical Migration Engineer Senior Technical
Migration Architect
Infrastructure
Architect
Senior Migration
Analyst and
Planner
Costs
The total cost for Company Bs migration was $1,458,088. That amount included costs for internal
and external IT and professional services, training, software, and hardware, as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5 Migration Costs by Category for Company B Migration
Internal IT
External Professional Services
End User Training
Hardware/Infrastructure Costs
Software Costs
Internal IT Costs
Project Manager
Technical Team Lead
Planning and
Design
$12,500
Testing and
Deployment
$12,500
Production
Deployment
$75,000
Total Hours
Total Cost
2,000
$100,000
$38,889
$38,889
$38,889
2,333
$116,667
for Domino
Administration
Training Facilitator
Domino
$12,500
$0
$0
250
$12,500
$3,333
$3,333
$3,333
200
$10,000
$13,611
$13,611
$13,611
817
$40,833
$8,750
$5,833
$2,917
350
$17,500
$6,666
$13,333
$46,668
1,333
$66,667
$0
$80,000
$232,500
6,250
$312,500
Total
$676,667
Administrator
Exchange
Administrator
Active Directory Team
Lead
Exchange Technical
Administrators (8)
Help Desk Support
(10)
External IT Costs
Senior Technical
Planning and
Design
$72,917
Testing and
Deployment
$29,166
Production
Deployment
$131,250
$43,750
$29,167
$9,250
$33,333
Total Hours
Total Cost
1,333
$233,333
$102,083
1,000
$175,000
$6,167
$3,083
100
$18,500
$0
$0
167
$33,333
Total
$460,167
Migration Architect
Migration
Processing and
Troubleshooting
Senior Technical
Infrastructure
Analyst
Senior Migration
Analyst and Planner
Total Cost
Administrators
5 days
$5,000
0 hours
$0
100 hours
$12,500
300 hours
$37,500
2 hours
$3,000
Total
$58,000
Software Costs*
Cost per License
Exchange Server 2003
$3,974
Total Cost
$83,454
$103,965
$187,419
Hardware Costs
Quantity
Total Cost
17
$68,800
$5,000
$6,000
$4,000
F5 Data Switches
$66,000
4.9TBs
$30,000
Disk space
Total
$179,800
*Note: Both customers outlined in this document had previously purchased Microsoft Office programs, so the software
pricing includes only Exchange Server licenses and Binary Tree transition tool products.
Summary
Company B estimated that the migration would last between one and two years. However, their
estimate was not based on appropriate planning; to stay on schedule, they incurred additional,
unexpected costs.
Migration of Company Bs applications was outside the scope of this project. However, during
Company Bs migration, many of their Domino applications broke. SMTP is the protocol used to
transfer outbound messages from Notes to Exchange. When applications or users sent embedded
buttons, embedded forms, or any other Notes elements, those elements were stripped out when
they were received by Outlook users. To prevent broken applications, Binary Tree now offers a
component to CMT for Coexistence called Zero Touch Application Remediation (ZApp). This
Conclusion
This white paper outlined two different migration approaches. Company A had the
heterogeneous environment and savvy user base required to pursue a fast transition. With
adequate planning and preparation, Company A was able to literally complete their transition
over a single weekend.
In contrast, Company B had a more complex environment and diverse user base. As a result,
Company B chose a more conservative approach to migration with a period of coexistence.
Company Bs experience with broken applications demonstrates that organizations should always
consider applicationseven when transitioning the messaging platform.
As demonstrated by these case studies, successful migrations require organizations to plan for
the transition appropriately. Additionally, they should analyze and understand their environment,
user capabilities, resource constraints, messaging infrastructure, and application inventory.
Binary Tree
Binary Tree is an industry leader in messaging and collaboration analysis, coexistence, and
migration. Founded in 1993 and headquartered in the New York metropolitan area, Binary Tree
has employees and offices across the United States and business partner representation on every
continent. Binary Tree is a Microsoft Gold Partner, an IBM Premier Partner, and a Google
Enterprise Professional Partner with deep skills in Lotus Notes, Microsoft Exchange Server,
Microsoft Office SharePoint, and Google Apps.
Binary Tree's extensive experience with IBM and Microsoft technologies has made us the go-to
partner for all things Lotus, Exchange, and SharePoint related. From messaging and application
assessments, to complex integration and coexistence, to seamless migration, we have serviced
over 4,000 customers and 10,000,000 users over the last 15 years establishing a stellar track
record for customer satisfaction and solution innovation. Our staff of highly trained, certified, and
knowledgeable field consultants deliver projects on time and on budget continuously exceeding
customer expectations while minimized the business risk and pain associated with large-scale
changes to a corporate messaging and collaboration environment.
Website: www.binarytree.com