HP Desktop Justification & History
Prior to 2004, the District purchased white-box desktop PC systems built to specifications established and updated by the District. These specifications were originally established by the Ad-Hoc Technology Taskforce (ATT committee), which later became the IT Standards Committee. The committee maintains the standards and publishes them on the IT webpage. This committee is made up of representatives from Management, Classified, Faculty, and Student Body.
In 2004 we were approached by the computer vendor, GST, to consider changing from the white-box system they were building for us to one of the “name brand” desktop systems. The cost of these systems had dropped down significantly to where they had become competitive with our white-box system standard. GST was an authorized reseller for Hewlett-Packard (HP), IBM (now Lenovo) and Dell computers. Their recommendation was to go with HP.
By this time, IT had run into a manageability problem with the white-box systems. Technology was changing so fast that the systems purchased at any given time were different from those purchased just three months previously. IT had been attempting to create standard “images” of operating software and applications for all office and computer lab systems. There was a base image that all systems would have, and lab-specific images for all of the various computer labs. Each image required that all hardware within that system to be identical. There could be no systems with different components or the image would not work. Unfortunately, due to systems being purchased at different times, there were labs that required multiple versions of the same image because of different hardware within the systems. This became time consuming in creating multiple images, and then identifying and loading the correct image to the correct system.
IT was also interested in purchasing five-year maintenance contracts on the computers, since surplusing a system after three years was too costly for the district. The Gartner Group had modified their recommendation from a three-year to a five-year replacement cycle, and this was basis for our maintenance agreement extension. Years four and five had been the most costly for computer repairs.
GST, as an HP authorized service provider, could continue to be our sole contact for all computer repairs since they could perform all HP warranty repairs as well as our white-box systems. They could also provide year four and five maintenance for any HP system we chose for an additional fee. GST had provided prompt and reliable servicing of the white-box systems for several years. There was no reason to believe that this would change by selecting a different system. This arraignment met all of our needs.
HP and Dell were the two largest pc makers. IBM had a bad reputation on campus after the IBM lease several years ago, especially when it came to service. Gateway, it seemed, continued to be on the verge of bankruptcy. The college had dealt with this situation previously with another white-box system vendor, and it was expensive.
After discussion by the IT standards committee about HP, IBM, Dell and Gateway computers, HP was selected for further review. When we met with the HP representatives at their local assembly plant in Ontario, two of ITs' concerns were hardware stability (for imaging) and reliable service. IT was informed that hardware stability was a major issue for business customers, and that HP had addressed this with their business line of desktop computers. These systems had a more stable platform than their other lines of computers in that they would guarantee a product life of at least one year after it was introduced. A system purchased today would still be available in a year. The white-box systems could not achieve this.
As far as service, GST was highly regarded by HP as a service provider for their products. Several references to their history and abilities servicing HP products in business and educational environments were given.
After a tour of the facility, HP was asked to provide evaluation systems configured to our specifications. They were to include monitors of different sizes. The systems were tested using benchmark performance test software. Results were compared to the white-box systems. The hardware components were inspected. Assembly quality was evaluated. A basic image was created, saved to a server, erased from the system, and then downloaded to the system. Monitors were compared side-by-side for brightness, contrast and clarity.
In recent years computer pricing has become more competitive and volatile than ever. With many contracts that can be "piggy backed", our options became more attractive because HP would adjust their pricing on a continuous basis. When Cerritos College did their own RFP process for the white-box systems, it became challenging to keep the pricing competitive with the current market trends. This was another positive aspect of selecting standardized products.
After evaluation and further discussion, the decision was made to recommend that HP become the new standard desktop PC system. It provided the stable platform necessary for consistent imaging and for planning of future purchases. Servicing would be done by an established company with a proven track record. Even if for some reason GST could not provide service, HP had other service providers available. There would be no additional cost to the district if this were to happen. Over the past several years of standardizing on HP desktop computers we have proven this decision to be a solid one.