Item: Cisco Unified Communications Manager (Call Manager)
Rating: 9
Author: Verified User

Use Cases and Deployment Scope

Our organization is using CUCM primarily for PBX functionality but also incorporating the end user management for Cisco Jabber and some auto attendant functionality in conjunction with UCCX. We are late in the process of transitioning from Avaya to Cisco and a separate contact center platform. We are adopting CUCM throughout our entire organization, even working to replace remote key systems with the primary goal of having centralized support, less reliance on expensive small vendors and having a homogenized environment, simplifying support.

Pros and Cons

The web GUI for management may feel a bit clunky at first for being a modern application, but the navigation features (back, dependency views) quickly differentiate it from other environments.
Good API documentation on DEVNET and a fairly strong supporting community.
It plays fairly well in its own ecosystem (UCCX, IM and Presence, Unity) so the breadth of the ecosystem makes for a lot of functionality being available to you with adjuncts.

The AXL API for Call Manager feels particularly dated. The fact that it hasn't been deprecated for a more modern REST/JSON supporting API is a little lackluster.
CUCM's solution to elements missing API coverage is to open SQL queries via the API. This seems lazy of them rather than just increasing API coverage.
I know I'm hammering on the API's here, but the disparity between all of their applications' API seems like a terrible design decision. AXL is very different from Unity which is very different from Finesse. This creates a barrier to learning the ecosystem that just doesn't feel necessary.
The dial plan feels dated, clunky and almost indecipherable compared to some more streamlined applications.

Return on Investment

The Cisco TAC is fairly efficient at identifying bugs and Cisco is quick to develop fixes for said bugs, leaving minimal impact to SLAs.
The ease of deployment and configuring new users reduced on-boarding time in comparison to our legacy Avaya solution.
The ease of maintenance has reduced labor hours required for things like upgrades and routine reboots of equipment.

Alternatives Considered

Genesys PureConnect

Cisco CUCM hands-down beats Genesys for phone provisioning just because of the supported devices. Cisco handsets are leaps and bounds more consistent to provision and easier to troubleshoot than any phone model currently offered by Genesys directly.

The configuration of phones in Cisco feels more robust and thought-out than it does in Genesys, as well.

User administration between PureConnect and CUCM feels like a bit of a wash, maybe with an edge to Genesys with the ability to add custom attributes to users to make it easier to develop unique customizations.

The actual configuration of routing and the dial plan, though, Genesys wins hands-down. Navigating the dial plan in CUCM is a bit of a headache compared to the almost IP-routing-table-like setup that PureConnect employs.

Other Software Used

Genesys PureConnect, Genesys PureCloud, Microsoft Visual Studio Code

Likelihood to Recommend

CUCM is a solid enterprise PBX that does what it sets out to do very well. If you are a large enterprise or a collection of entities looking for a central and consistent deployment, it is hard to argue against CUCM. If you are a small entity setting up office phones, the cost could be an obvious barrier to entry, especially with smaller companies offering services that don't require physical phones or have an onsite data center presence.

That said, if you are in that situation it is worth looking at Cisco's broadsoft solution, as it is aimed at smaller and less complex customers.

Opinions on CUCM from a Genesys PureConnect Developer

Overall Satisfaction with Cisco Unified Communications Manager (Call Manager)