Sprint Launches Mobility-as-a-Service Solution
CIOREVIEW >> Business Process Management >> NEWS

Sprint Launches Mobility-as-a-Service Solution

CIO Review

 FREMONT,CA: As businesses struggle with BYOD, managing employee issued smart phones and tablets and experience  continuing pressure to simplify and manage operational expenses, choosing the right plan for corporate issued devices and  managing those devices is critical.  As such, business decision-makers and IT managers continue to rely on their wireless  carrier and other vendors to support with a number of value-added services to reduce complexity and better manage workplace  technology.Compass Intelligence’s CEO, Stephanie Atkinson met  John Tudhope, Director of Product Marketing ,Sprint  Business to discuss the newly launched MaaS solutions.Below are the details of the Q&A session :

 Could you please tell me about your role in the Sprint Business Organization? How long have you been with Sprint, and  your primary responsibilities?

 I’m responsible for product marketing of our services and devices across both business and consumer postpaid segments.  In my role I work to define customer needs for products and then work closely with product development, marketing and sales to ultimately launch new products and services into the market.  I’ve been with Sprint since February, 2000, when I started with Nextel Communications.  I came over to Sprint’s headquarters at the time of the merger in 2005.

Stay ahead of the industry with exclusive feature stories on the top companies, expert insights and the latest news delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe today.

When did Sprint officially launch the OfficeFuel brand and begin its rollout of business “as a service” solutions?

Sprint launched its new business branding in Q3 last year (2014).  It was not a major overhaul, but a refinement of our core strengths around service support and an extenuation of buying technology in an 'as a service' fashion.  We already had built an early 'as a service' portfolio with our capabilities in UCaaS and in our SaaS offerings with Microsoft and Google.  Workplace as a Service was on the horizon and is a major proof point of our Office Fuel portfolio as it is converged and fully managed as a service offering.

In March 2015, as part of  OfficeFuel solutions, you made a formal launch for Workplace as a Service (WaaS) even though these services were available prior, and this week (4 months later) you are officially launching Mobility as a Service (MaaS) plans for business customers. Could you please describe the correlation and background around the OfficeFuel solutions ?

It’s fair to say that components of Workplace as a Service were available prior to the launch.  However, what was different with WPaaS was the fully integrated and managed aspect of the services into one defined offer with one bill and at one single per-seat price point.  It also was a unique combination of wireline and wireless capabilities that all come fully managed by Sprint.  This is the real differentiation of WPaaS and it provides great value to the customer allowing site connectivity and voice applications all in one package vs managing multiple vendors at a higher cost.

Mobility as a Service (MaaS) was a fast follow to this concept as we wanted to change the buying behavior for customers with our core business; wireless activation.  Much like the premise of providing businesses connectivity in a fully managed as a service fashion, MaaS is complementary to provide the same types of bundled entitlements for ‘as a service’ for customers to procure and deploy wireless devices for their employees.

MaaS is simply how customers can now obtain devices with an avoidance of capital and deploy them with support and management by Sprint.  WPaaS provides per seat connectivity and collaboration for the company and the customer can choose any type of model for their end point devices.  We, however, feel that MaaS is the best way for them to do that as they get so much more value and support than any other traditional device buying model.

Now for your Mobility as a Service plans, could you please give me a general overview of these solutions and why Sprint believes businesses need these services?

Pricing: We designed MaaS to be predictable in cost for customers and to have the best value in the market.  We didn’t raise our price points, but we didn’t necessarily lower them.  We have already maintained our strong competitive price positioning, and have also added a whole bunch of valuable services and management to make us stand out.

Options/Terms: We think it’s important that customers have the flexibility to get the technology they need, when they need it.  We have established two and one year terms so that customers could choose newer refresh cycles if they wanted to always have the latest devices.

Device Selection: This is a huge differentiator for us with MaaS.  In other non-ownership models, such as leasing, there are limited device choices based on residual models.  We have eliminated that restriction with MaaS and have made the model work with almost our entire business device portfolio.  Therefore, customers are not restricted from deploying all types of devices that they need and they can take advantage of the MaaS value.

Upgrading: One of the core values of MaaS is always being able to get the next new device at the end of the term and not having additional cash outlay.

Data/Share Options: Flexibility is a theme for MaaS and allowing customers to choose a particular type of data access is critical to helping them keep costs down and only deploy as much data as they need.  We also help in providing usage reports so that customers can constantly evaluate their usage and, potentiallyadjust their allotments.

Compass Intelligence believes the value-added services are big drivers for this type of service including reducing complexities and simplifying management of these devices. Could you describe the value-added services that are included with Mobility as a Service?

VIP: This a service that we will be provided for one end-user per  block of 50 lines that customer has on account.  The intent is to go above-and-beyond expectations with these designated individuals to make sure they have everything they need from training, to content transfer, to full replacement of devices  so that  disruption of  productivity is avoided.

White Glove: White glove care is  an assigned care team that will coordinate all aspects of support for a customer.   The basic  is an end-user support center for 365/24/7 technical support.  It also means project management of the customer’s requirement around deployment and coordination of onsite training.

App Loading (Device Customization): Based on the customer’s unique deployment needs, our care team will define a statement of work with the customer to identify which applicationsor services need to be run on the device.  We will pre-configure and load the applications so that  the customer receives   devices  that are activated and ready to be used.

Repair: We really won’t repair devices other than part of the normal extended warranty commitment.  If there are issues with the devices covered under  warranty then most likely we would swap out devices and repair on the back end so that the customer has limited disruptions.  Again, we own the devices and need to make sure that customers have an up and running device as part of the ‘as a service’ promise.  If there’s an issue that was caused by the customer’s use (lost, stolen, or catastrophic damage) then repair costs would apply.

What types of businesses is Sprint targeting with MaaS?

We are targeting businesses of all sizes, but feel that the real sweet spot for us and for our customers is in the employee segment size of 500-5000 employees.  There are not specific verticals that we are targeting with this model.  We feel that it’s a perfect horizontal solution that can meet the needs to all business types.  However, it is intended for businesses that still want to provide devices for their employees.  Therefore, verticals that still have a higher share of corporate liable deployments are more favorable than certain verticals that have a high percentage of companies that have gone to a BYOD model.

Where do you believe MaaS sits from a competitive business pricing and services standpoint?

 We think MaaS sits very favorably.  We anchored MaaS around our existing Fusion business plan price points, but added all of the value services.  We think we’re competitive  but when you consider that the device is also built-in along with upwards of $20-$30 worth of services value we feel we blow the other carriers away in total cost of ownership value.

What are the plans for additional services and partners?

We want to maintain a level of universal appeal.  So one of the things we need to be considerate of is including too much into the value proposition of MaaS that you start to narrow the market or give customers the motivation t to unbundle some of the services because they either already have them or what you’re offering is either more than they need or not sophisticated enough around a particular element.

With that said, we are planning a phased approach to MaaS and have already indicated that we will be adding a cloud storage and anti-virus capability to the overall MaaS model.  These are already built into our current pricing model and will be added at no additional cost to the customer.  We’re also looking at a technology that would protect the devices and offer some variation of water resistance for customers.

We will constantly be working on our portfolio and other things would come in the form of a buy-up attachables.Insurance for customers is one of the concepts that we’re working on and hope to have something out very soon that is designed specifically for businesses.

It is a recent launch, but have you received any early feedback from existing business customers about MaaS?

The feedback has been very strong all along the development stage.  We designed MaaS with the voice of our customers.  Very early  in the process we visited several of our enterprise customers and their feedback helped us prioritize what we eventually required  into MaaS.Additionally, the primary research we did came out resoundingly favorable to the concept and was something that most respondents (over 70-80per cent) said they would like to pursue .Since the launch, we have spent a great amount of time training and presenting  our sales channels. The feedback and early funnel activity has been very encouraging.

It appears competition has ramped up around businesses, and especially SMB businesses.  How do you believe your SMB base of customers and prospects will react to this offering?

We think this is a great offer for the SMB segment.  It’s a low cost, high support model that can really help them with their mobile strategies and go bigger and faster into a 'work anywhere' environment to drive productivity of their workforce.We want SMBs to know that Sprint is the carrier of choice for sound and transparent partnership to help them reach their goals.  We want to be highly consultative and then deliver the actual execution and deployment that enable smaller businesses to act bigger.

How do you believe these services protect your Corporate Liable base of customers or bring some of those that moved off the Corporate Liable accounts back to a 12 or 24 month term?

We believe that MaaS can help companies to decide  whether to stay corporate liable or move to the BYOD model.   The simplicity and cost value can be very enticing to a traditional CL oriented company and become a better means for delivering  the model that they are used to.  They can avoid the unknown and potential complexity and higher costs of moving to BYOD.We’re not against BYOD.  There are very valid reasons for companies to consider it.  However, if the need  is to  really control the devices then we think MaaS makes perfect sense and removes a lot of burden from internal resources.

What do you find the most unique about this offer and how does it differentiate Sprint in the  market?

The most unique aspect is the device lineup availability.  It’s completely unmatched in the non-ownership model for businesses.  Any other “leasing” type models for our competitors will only be on a very limited set of devices (smartphones).The other really big differentiators are around the extended warranty, cloud storage, anti-virus, and the sum of the white glove care components. 

 What is on the horizon for OfficeFuel that you can share today?Could you throw light on any additional services and options that are in plans for the coming quarters?

OfficeFuel will continue to evolve and we’ll bring  additional applications and services that help businesses  be more productive,  specifically in a mobile environment.  We have a planned SMB UCaaS offering coming in the next 30-60 days that will be  integrated with other  softwares such as Google and Microsoft.  We’ll also continue to look at additional SaaS services that make sense to be rendered on mobile devices and  cosolidate those as our channels become more familiar and accustomed to working with customers around all areas of their business.Customization is another area that we continue to explore so that we have the ability to help customers with their mobile application development and integration needs.

More in News

AI agents are exposing a problem that conventional workflow software has rarely solved. Many enterprises run essential work across SaaS platforms, integration tools, local scripts and shared spreadsheets. Agents are then expected to work across all of them, gather enough context and make safe decisions. The difficulty lies in the gap between what an agent can infer and what the business can actually control. Point-to-point integrations move data but do not preserve the history of a process. iPaaS platforms connect systems, yet long-running work can still end up scattered across queues, callbacks, approvals and exceptions. For buyers, introducing agents is only part of the challenge. They also need a process that can show exactly what happened. Workflow orchestration can provide that structure when it carries context along with the work instead of simply routing it from one system to another. Agents still need room to exercise judgment, but that judgment needs boundaries. A model might classify an email, interpret intent, retrieve missing context and recommend what should happen next. It should not have to work out the refund procedure or customer verification process from scratch every time a request comes in. Repeatable steps are less expensive to execute through deterministic logic and easier to audit. The agent can then handle the parts that require interpretation while established actions remain within versioned process logic. “Agents can make decisions where judgment is required while the workflow handles repeatable actions.” That separation is useful only if the business can see what happened in each workflow. Executives need a way to inspect the process template, runtime history, agent decision and failure path in one place. Once APIs, agents, human reviewers and external events are involved, ordinary system logs do not provide the whole picture. Buyers need to know which action ran, what data moved, what decision was made and what happened when a step timed out or had to be retried. Keeping that information with the process also makes automation easier to improve because performance data remains connected to the work that produced it. The amount of engineering required to get there matters too. An orchestration platform has limited practical value if a company needs to build a large specialist team before it can put a useful process into production. Existing services and SaaS APIs should be composable into business logic that people can understand and change without rebuilding the entire integration map. A code-first approach is useful when software teams get version control, business reviewers can see the workflow as a visual graph, auditors can trace what happened and agents have a stable process map to work within. The larger issue is ownership of the process, not simply how many tasks can be automated. Long-running workflows need to retain state, and agent decisions need to remain visible without requiring a model call at every step. Once the process is running, event-driven feedback can show where it needs improvement. The platform also has to work for organizations with different levels of software maturity. One team may be coordinating a large collection of microservices, while another needs custom workflow logic around ERP, CRM, field-service and workforce systems without having to wait for a vendor to add the functionality to its roadmap. LittleHorse takes this approach with Saddle Command Center and its Business-as-Code model for building workflows across microservices, SaaS platforms, agents and human-in-the-loop steps. Agents can make decisions where judgment is required while the workflow handles repeatable actions. Individual instances remain traceable, and workflow event data can be published to Apache Kafka for analysis. Support for Java, Python, Go and C# also allows engineering teams to maintain the business logic without having to adopt a specialist workflow language. For enterprises working across disconnected SaaS environments or complex microservice estates, LittleHorse provides a practical way to give AI agents room to make decisions while keeping the surrounding process visible and controlled. ...Read more
Sage migration decisions often begin with a contradiction. Finance and IT teams want the subscription feel of SaaS, yet the applications they rely on still carry custom workflows, connected databases, reporting routines and partner-managed changes. A generic cloud host can move the server, but it may leave the business managing every handoff when access breaks or latency appears during a critical task. Month-end close, warehouse workflows, payroll access and reporting cycles leave little room for cloud experiments that behave well only under ideal conditions. The weak point is usually not migration itself. It is the support chain that follows. Servers sit somewhere, a hosting provider manages the platform, the software publisher owns the application, a Sage consultant handles business logic and the internal team is left to coordinate the room. A single interruption then becomes a routing problem. Executives should favor a hosting model that reduces escalation layers without stripping away control over the ERP. Control matters because Sage environments rarely behave like standard SaaS tenants. Updates, integrations, VPN links, reporting tools and adjacent applications may need business-specific treatment. Shared resources can look efficient until they limit troubleshooting or change windows. Dedicated virtual environments, network isolation, clear backup design and documented availability standards give leadership a firmer basis for risk decisions. The point is not more infrastructure for its own sake. It is a service model that keeps customization possible while making ownership clearer. Ransomware risk and phishing exposure have changed the due diligence standard for hosted ERP. Sage access cannot be separated from identity controls, recovery routines, monitoring practices and response authority. A provider that only hosts the application may still leave security teams stitching together evidence after an incident. Before renewal terms are signed, buyers should test how backup frequency, network segmentation, disaster recovery design and incident escalation work in practice. Cloud economics create a second trap. Public cloud flexibility can turn into variable outlay when workloads are poorly matched to the platform. Licensing shifts and Microsoft choices make architecture a finance issue as much as an IT issue. Lowest monthly price can be misleading when internal staff must manage exceptions or pull multiple suppliers into every problem. A stronger decision weighs contract predictability, application performance, recovery posture and the cost of internal coordination. Sage projects also require a provider that can work alongside ERP partners rather than displace them. Against that buying logic, Cloud at Work is a premier choice for Sage cloud hosting. It model is built around Sage end users and fewer support handoffs, then extended that base into Azure and managed technology services where the customer environment demands it. Its portfolio spans Virtual Private Cloud, Infrastructure as a Service, Desktop as a Service, Managed Services and Managed Cybersecurity, giving buyers a path from hosted Sage to broader cloud management without changing accountability every time the environment expands. Dedicated resources, virtual firewalls, backup design and Sage-aware support match the pressures that matter most. For leaders who want Sage to feel closer to a managed service while preserving customization, Cloud at Work warrants serious consideration. ...Read more
Mid-sized companies often reach a point where data volume has outgrown the reporting habits built around it. Sales systems, finance platforms, customer records and workforce tools accumulate information, yet decision-makers still wait for manually assembled reports or rely on partial views. The buying problem is rarely a shortage of software. It is the cost and coordination burden of connecting systems, preparing reliable data and turning it into useful action without building a large specialist team. Platform selection should begin with the data foundation. Dashboards and AI models cannot compensate for inconsistent definitions, missing records or poorly governed pipelines. Executives need to know how a platform profiles and cleans data while preserving traceability from source to output. Integration also matters beyond the initial connection. A workable platform must support existing databases and business applications while reducing the amount of custom code required to keep those links current. Migration demands, refresh frequency and access controls deserve scrutiny before implementation begins. The next pressure is time to proof. Many firms cannot justify a large upfront investment in engineers and data scientists before a use case has shown credible returns. A platform should let a business test a narrow problem and measure model accuracy before committing to broader deployment. Low-code workflow design can shorten that cycle, but ease of configuration must not remove oversight. Buyers should examine how knowledge bases and semantic layers are managed when model outputs affect staff decisions or customer-facing processes. Access to insight presents a separate test. Static reports remain useful for recurring review, yet business leaders increasingly need answers that were not anticipated when a dashboard was built. Natural-language querying can reduce dependence on report backlogs, provided the platform grounds responses in governed company data and shows enough context for users to judge the result. Predictive functions should be assessed in the same manner. Forecasts are valuable only when teams can understand the inputs and monitor performance before connecting a prediction to a defined next step. The final buying concern is service depth. Mid-sized firms may adopt a capable platform and still lack the people to design data models or maintain AI workflows. A provider should be able to supply targeted support without turning every change into a consulting project. Subscription or usage-based pricing can lower the entry barrier, though buyers should compare consumption controls and support terms carefully. The strongest fit will combine self-service tools with practical help around implementation and model tuning, backed by ongoing maintenance when internal capacity is limited. Aidas Technologies  is a premier choice for firms that need this combination without assembling separate platforms and specialist teams. Its AI-powered data and analytics platform brings data preparation, reporting, predictive modeling and workflow automation into one environment through low-code tools. The company also offers professional services for setup and custom development, plus model support and continued maintenance, allowing buyers to test focused use cases before scaling. A usage-based subscription model further suits mid-sized organizations that need tighter control over upfront cost. For executives prioritizing faster proof and guided adoption, Aidas Technologies merits serious consideration. ...Read more
AI projects often reach production with more model capability than data discipline. The problem becomes visible after deployment, when a customer-facing agent returns plausible but weak answers or a decision model relies on context that is incomplete or poorly curated. For executives funding AI-powered strategic data work, model selection matters less than whether the information feeding that model is fit for the task. Better inputs can determine whether an application produces dependable results or merely polished responses. Data quality is rarely a one-time cleanup exercise. Useful input needs to be collected and refreshed in ways that preserve subject matter judgment without turning every update into a manual project. That makes the underlying data process an important buying issue. A capable partner should be able to combine automation with human review, and then design ingestion and curation workflows that can be maintained after the initial build. Ownership also matters. Internal experts often understand the material better than technical teams, so the process should make their knowledge usable without requiring them to become engineers. “Numantic Solutions combines data engineering with product planning, while supporting ingestion pipelines and curated datasets for AI and machine learning applications.” More data does not automatically improve an AI application. Irrelevant context can crowd out the material a model actually needs. The harder question is what information belongs in the dataset and how it should be enriched for the task at hand. External sources may add useful context, while metadata can make unstructured material easier to retrieve. Buyers should look closely at whether a provider can make those decisions deliberately rather than treating data volume as a proxy for quality. Testing creates another dividing line. Generative systems do not always produce answers that can be marked simply right or wrong, which makes evaluation harder than conventional software testing. Production use therefore requires test data that reflects the questions and content the application is expected to handle. Repeatable test suites are especially useful because they let teams measure performance as usage changes and new information enters the pipeline. A provider that can connect curated input data to ongoing evaluation gives buyers a clearer way to judge whether an AI application is improving. The strongest engagements begin before engineering. Product goals should be translated into a practical roadmap that identifies what should be built now and what can wait, while leaving room to change direction after early use. That discipline helps prevent technical work from outrunning the business problem it is meant to address. Numantic Solutions emerges as a premier choice for organizations that need AI-powered strategic data work centered on input quality rather than model novelty. It combines data engineering with product planning, while supporting ingestion pipelines and curated datasets for AI and machine learning applications. Its approach supports human-in-the-loop curation and the use of relevant external data where that improves the dataset. Numantic Solutions connects curated input data with repeatable testing, enabling clients to measure whether production AI is meeting its intended performance goals. That fit is especially practical for teams building differentiated AI applications from proprietary knowledge. ...Read more