The mobile services space has evolved in so many ways over the past few years it would be hard to pinpoint exactly where the greatest benefits of enhancing mobility for a company lays. But it is for certain that mobile services are becoming an integral part of productivity enhancement forcing organizations of all sizes are embracing them for their employees.

 

With device usage hitting record numbers, the complexity involved in maintaining them and their cost continue to expand. These organizations have to weigh numerous issues including grappling with the issue of what is the right structure to manage their mobile services network, have different models to consider.

 

According to a survey conducted late last year, the use of mobile business applications in top enterprises is set to skyrocket through 2009. The survey, sponsored by Mformation (News - Alert) claims that almost 60 percent of managers in top U.S. enterprises already use smartphones as strategic devices.

 

Although it seems clear usage will to continue to grow, picking a model right for your business may not be so obvious.

 

According to Pankaj Gupta, founder of Amtel which specializes in cost management of mobile resources and improving productivity at enterprises, there are three basic models to consider: Individual Liable or Stipend Model; Individual Liable with Corporate Discount; and the Corporate liable Centralized model.

 

Many organizations are offering a flat stipend to their employees towards reimbursement of their mobile service charges. The advantages of this first example have to do mostly with costs as it has the lowest accounting and IT overhead. Individuals buy their own services; decide which feature to put on their phone and when to use the mobile phone.

 

The company would add a fixed amount to the employees pay check as a reimbursement towards mobile spend.

 

However, says Gupta, there are drawbacks to this plan.

“It might seem simple to let individual employees decide what they want, but it is far from that,” Gupta wrote in a recent paper.

 

Among the drawbacks are:

Gupta says the second option – the individual liable with corporate discount – allows organization to negotiate discounts with carriers. Employees then buy the equipment and plans and invoices are then reimbursed via T&E expenses or fixed stipend.

 

This has obvious benefits including the same ones as the Stipend model plus individuals get corporate discount on the phone devices and calling plans.

 

The model inherits some of the same drawbacks as Stipend model, according to Gupta.

The final option is the Corporate Liable Centralized model in which the organization provides the device and the calling plans. The devices and calling plan have a corporate discount and all the phones are owned by the organization. The consolidated billing is managed centrally and the company is able to take a full deduction of mobile expenses for tax purposes. Organization can also implement security and usage policies.

 

Gupta says this model is considered as the best way to manage mobile services.

Among the many benefits are:

The drawbacks, says Gupta, are limited and revolve around the perception that this is an expensive proposition.

“With advancement in technology, now there are solutions which can substantially reduce the cost to manage mobile services in an organization as well as make it easy to handle,” said Gupta.

He lists the following functions the platform can handle:

An extensive array of reports are available and which can be configured to the needs of an enterprise. The CFO/CIO would need the overall financial details where as the location manager may want to see his department spend- all leading to enhanced operational efficiencies. Reporting can be done for chargeback accounting, location breakup charges, employee cellular equipment types, plan types, pooling optimization services and more.

 

“Organizations can streamline their mobile services environment and reduce operational expenses when they chose the Corporate Liable Centralized model,” said Gupta.