What's better, a hosted notification solution subscription or an on-site solution purchase? We've heard this debate hundreds of times over the yearsâ¦although, we're clearly hearing it less often. Public safety organizations are increasingly open to allowing a vendor to host their notification solution. Some vendors have done a good job offering hosted functionality, capacity, support, value and, last but not least, tight security.
The buy-in is not universal, though. Some organizations still insist on owning the equipment, and maintaining 100% control within their walls. We were in a public safety client meeting the other day where, despite our repeated suggestion that the organization at least consider hosted, the answer was no, no, no. (We finally got the message.) They weren't wrong, although their firm position makes our job of developing a short list of vendors who can meet their needs more difficult; there are far fewer on-site solutions available than hosted. The client simply has a firm policy against using any hosted solution that houses sensitive data, such as staff personal telephone numbers and email addresses.
They are not alone. Take federal and military users, for example. Hosted solutions are very rare in these situations. The security and accreditation certifications required make it very difficult, if not impossible, for hosted solutions to pass muster.
Security is not the only thing that keeps on-site solutions alive. There's funding (um, minor detail). Some of the grant programs that pay for notification solutions require purchases rather than, in effect, rentals. (There's change brewing for some of the grant programs.)
So, what's better, hosted or on-site? We could argue either way in good conscience (and have). The answer really depends on the individual organization's needs. In this recent meeting, we spent more time trying to understand the client's needs rather than talking about whether the solution would be hosted or on-site (although we couldn't resist whining about their unwillingness to consider hosted).
All the best,
Rick
Top
The buy-in is not universal, though. Some organizations still insist on owning the equipment, and maintaining 100% control within their walls. We were in a public safety client meeting the other day where, despite our repeated suggestion that the organization at least consider hosted, the answer was no, no, no. (We finally got the message.) They weren't wrong, although their firm position makes our job of developing a short list of vendors who can meet their needs more difficult; there are far fewer on-site solutions available than hosted. The client simply has a firm policy against using any hosted solution that houses sensitive data, such as staff personal telephone numbers and email addresses.
They are not alone. Take federal and military users, for example. Hosted solutions are very rare in these situations. The security and accreditation certifications required make it very difficult, if not impossible, for hosted solutions to pass muster.
Security is not the only thing that keeps on-site solutions alive. There's funding (um, minor detail). Some of the grant programs that pay for notification solutions require purchases rather than, in effect, rentals. (There's change brewing for some of the grant programs.)
So, what's better, hosted or on-site? We could argue either way in good conscience (and have). The answer really depends on the individual organization's needs. In this recent meeting, we spent more time trying to understand the client's needs rather than talking about whether the solution would be hosted or on-site (although we couldn't resist whining about their unwillingness to consider hosted).
All the best,
Rick
