We sometimes attack OSS/BSS planning at a quite transactional level. For example, think about the process of gathering detailed requirements at the start of a project. They tend to be detailed and transactional don’t they? This type of requirement gathering is more like the WHAT and HOW rings in Simon Sinek’s Golden Circle.
Just curious, do you have a persona map that shows all of the different user groups that interact with your OSS/BSS?
More importantly, do you deeply understand WHY they interact with your OSS/BSS? Not just on a transaction-by-transaction level, but in the deeper context of how the organisation functions? Perhaps even on a psychological level?
If you do, you’re in a great position to apply the 10:10:10 mapping rule. That is, to describe how you’re adding value to each user group 10 minutes from now, 10 days from now and 10 months from now…
The mapping table could describe current tense (ie how your OSS/BSS is currently adding value), or as a planning mechanism for a future tense (ie how your OSS/BSS can add value in the future).
This mapping table can act as a guide for the evolution of your solution.
I should also point out that the diagram above only shows a sample of the internal personas that directly interact with your OSS/BSS. But I’d encourage you to look further. There are other personas that have direct and indirect engagement with your OSS/BSS. These include internal stakeholders like project sponsors, executives, data consumers, etc. They also include external stakeholders such as end-customers, regulatory bodies, etc.
If you need assistance to unlock your current state through persona mapping, real process mapping, etc and then planning out your target-state, Passionate About OSS would be delighted to help.
For most end-customers, the OSS/BSS we create are merely back-office systems that they never see. The closest they get are the customer portals that they interact with to drive workflows through our OSS/BSS. And yet, our OSS/BSS still have a big part to play in customer experience. In times where customers can readily substitute one carrier for another, customer service has become a key differentiator for many carriers. It therefore also becomes a priority for our OSS/BSS.
Customers now have multiple engagement options (aka omni-channel) and form factors (eg in-person, phone, tablet, mobile phone, kiosk, etc). The only options we used to have were a call to a contact centre / IVR (Interactive Voice Response), a visit to a store, or a visit from an account manager for business customers. Now there are websites, applications, text messages, multiple social media channels, chatbots, portals, blogs, etc. They all represent different challenges as far as offering a seamless customer experience across all channels.
I’ve just noticed TM Forum’s “Omni-channel Guidebook” (GB994), which does a great job at describing the challenges and opportunities. For example, it explains the importance of identity. End-users can only get a truly seamless experience if they can be uniquely identified across all channels. Unfortunately, some channels (eg IVR, website) don’t force end-users to self-identify.
The Ovum report, “Optimizing Customer Service in a Multi Channel World, March 2011” indicates that around 74% of customers use 3 channels or more for engaging customer service. In most cases, it’s our OSS/BSS that provide the data that supports a seamless experience across channels. But what if we have no unique key? What if the unique key we have (eg phone number) doesn’t uniquely identify the different people who use that contact point (eg different family members who use the same fixed-line phone)?
We could use personality profiling across these channels, but we’ve already seen how that has worked out for Cambridge Analytica and Facebook in terms of customer privacy and security.
I’d love to hear how you’ve done cross-channel identity management in your OSS/BSS. Have you solved the omni-channel identity conundrum?
PS. One thing I find really interesting. The whole omni-channel thing is about giving customers (or potential customers) the ability to connect via the channel they’re most comfortable with. But there’s one glaring exception. When an end-user decides a phone conversation is the only way to resolve their issue (often after already trying the self-service options), they call the contact centre number. But many big telcos insist on trying to deflect as many calls as possible to self-service options (they call it CVR – call volume reduction), because contact centre staff are much more expensive per transaction than the automated channels. That seems to be an anti-customer-experience technique if you ask me. What are your thoughts?
However, the book’s content has helped to make the link between flow and OSS more palpable than you might think.
In the early days of working on OSS delivery projects, I found myself getting into a flow state on a daily basis – achieving more than I thought capable, learning more effectively than I thought capable and completely losing track of time. In those days of project delivery, I was lucky enough to get hours at a time without interruptions, to focus on what was an almost overwhelming list of tasks to be done. Over the first 5-ish years in OSS, I averaged an 85 hour week because I was just so absorbed by it. It was the source from where my passion for OSS originated. Or was it??
The book now has me pondering a chicken or egg conundrum – did I become so passionate about OSS that I could get into a state of flow or did I only become passionate about OSS because I was able to readily get into a state of flow with it? That’s where the book provides the link between getting in the zone and the brain chemicals that leave us with a feeling of ecstasis or happiness (not to mention the addictive nature of it). The authors describe this state of consciousness as Selflessness, Timelessness, Effortlessness, and Richness, or STER for short. OSS definitely triggered STER for me,, but chicken or egg??
Having spent much of the last few years embedded in big corporate environments, I’ve found a decreased ability to get into the same flow state. Meetings, emails, messenger pop-ups, distractions from surrounding areas in open-plan offices, etc. They all interrupt. It’s left me with a diminishing opportunity to get in the zone. With that has come a growing unease and sense of sub-optimal productivity during “office hours.” It was increasingly disheartening that I could generally only get into the zone outside office hours. For example, whilst writing blogs on the train-trip or in the hours after the rest of my family was asleep.
Since making the concerted effort to leave that “office state,” I’ve been both surprised and delighted at the increased productivity. Not just that, but the ability to make better lateral connections of ideas and to learn more effectively again.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this in the comments section below. Some big questions for you:
Have you experienced a similar productivity gap between “flow state” and “office state” on your OSS projects?
Have you had the same experience as me, where modern ways of working seem to be lessening the long chunks of time required to get into flow state?
If yes, how can our sponsor organisations and our OSS products continue to progress if we’re increasingly working only in office state?
“The hotel group Marriott International has been told by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office that it will be fined a little over £99 million (A$178 million) over a data breach that occurred in December last year…
This is the second fine for data breaches announced by the ICO on successive days. On Monday, it said British Airways would be fined £183.39 million (A$329.1 million) for a data breach that occurred in September 2018.”
Sam Varghese of ITwire.
The scale of the fines issued to Marriott and BA is mind-boggling.
Determination is based on the following questions:
Nature of infringement: number of people affected, damaged they suffered, duration of infringement, and purpose of processing
Intention: whether the infringement is intentional or negligent
Mitigation: actions taken to mitigate damage to data subjects
Preventative measures: how much technical and organizational preparation the firm had previously implemented to prevent non-compliance
History: (83.2e) past relevant infringements, which may be interpreted to include infringements under the Data Protection Directive and not just the GDPR, and (83.2i) past administrative corrective actions under the GDPR, from warnings to bans on processing and fines
Cooperation: how cooperative the firm has been with the supervisory authority to remedy the infringement
Notification: whether the infringement was proactively reported to the supervisory authority by the firm itself or a third party
Certification: whether the firm had qualified under approved certifications or adhered to approved codes of conduct
Other: other aggravating or mitigating factors may include financial impact on the firm from the infringement
The two examples listed above provide 282 million reasons for governments to police data protection more stringently than they do today. The regulatory pressure is only going to increase right? As I understand it, these processes are only enforced in reactive mode currently. What if the regulators become move to proactive mode?
Question for you – Looking at #7 above, do you think the customer information stored in your OSS/BSS is more or less “impactful” than that of Marriott or British Airways?
Think about this question in terms of the number of daily interactions you have with hotels and airlines versus telcos / ISPs. I’ve stayed in Marriott hotels for over a year in accumulated days. I’ve boarded hundreds of flights. But I can’t begin to imagine how many of my data points the telcos / ISP could potentially collect every day. It’s in our OSS/BSS data stores where those data points are most likely to end up.
Do you think our OSS/BSS are going to come under increasing GDPR-like scrutiny in coming years? Put it this way, I suspect we’re going to become more familiar with risk management around the 10 dot points above than we have been in the past.
TM Forum’s Open Digital Architecture (ODA) White Paper begins with the following statement:
Telecoms is at a crucial turning point. The last decade has dealt a series of punishing blows to an industry that had previously enjoyed enviable growth for more than 20 years. Services that once returned high margins are being reduced to commodities in the digital world, and our insatiable appetite for data demands continuous investment in infrastructure. On the other hand, communications service providers (CSPs) and their partners are in an excellent position to guide and capitalize on the next wave of digital revolution.
Clearly, a reduction in profitability leads to a reduction in cash available for projects – including OSS transformation projects. And reduced profitability almost inevitably leads executives to start thinking about head-count reduction too.
As Luke Clifton of Macquarie Telecom observed here, “Telstra is reportedly planning to shed 1,200 people from its enterprise business with many of these people directly involved in managing small-to-medium sized business customers. More than 10,000 customers in this segment will no longer have access to dedicated Account Managers, instead relegated to being managed by Telstra’s “Digital Hub”… Telstra, like the big banks once did, is seemingly betting that customers won’t leave them nor will they notice the downgrade in their service. It will be interesting to see how 10,000 additional organisations will be managed through a Digital Hub.
Simply put, you cannot cut quality people without cutting the quality of service. Those two ideals are intrinsically linked…”
As a fairly broad trend across the telco sector, projects and jobs are being cut, whilst technology change is forcing transformation. And as suggested in Luke’s “Digital Hub” quote above, it all leads to increased expectations on our OSS/BSS.
Pressure is coming at our OSS from all angles, and with no signs of abating.
To quote Queen, “Pressure. Pushing down on me.Pressing down on you.”
So it seems to me there are only three broad options when planning our OSS roadmaps:
We learn to cope with increased pressure (although this doesn’t seem like a viable long-term option)
We reduce the size (eg functionality, transaction volumes, etc) of our OSS footprint [But have you noticed that all of our roadmaps seem expansionary in terms of functionality, volumes, technologies incorporated, etc??]
We look beyond the realms of traditional OSS/BSS functionality (eg just servicing operations) and into areas of opportunity
TM Forum’s ODA White Paper goes on to state, “The growth opportunities attached to new 5G ecosystems are estimated to be worth over $580 billion in the next decade. Servicing these opportunities requires transformation of the entire industry. Early digital transformation efforts focused on improving customer experience and embracing new technologies such as virtualization, with promises of wide-scale automation and greater agility. It has become clear that these ‘projects’ alone are not enough. CSPs’ business and operating models, choice of technology partners, mindset, decision-making and time to market must also change. True digital business transformation is not an easy or quick path, but it is essential to surviving and thriving in the future digital market.”
BTW. I’m not suggesting 5G is the panacea or single opportunity here. My use of the quote above is drawing more heavily on the opportunities relating to digital transformation. Not of the telcos themselves, but digital transformation of their customers. If data is the oil of the 21st century, then our OSS/BSS and telco assets have the potential to be the miners and pipelines of that oil.
If / when our OSS go from being cost centres to revenue generators (directly attributable to revenue, not the indirect attribution by most OSS today), then we might feel some of the pressure easing off us.
Note that this mapping is just my demarc interpretation, but isn’t the definitive guide. It’s definitely open to differing opinions (ie religious wars).
Many of you will be familiar with the framework that the mapping is overlaid onto – TM Forum’s TAM (The Application Map). Version R17.5.1 in this case. It is as close as we get to a standard mapping of OSS/BSS functionality modules. I find it to be a really useful guide, so today’s article is going to call on the TAM again.
As you would’ve noticed in the diagram above, there are many, many modules that make up the complete OSS/BSS estate. And you should note that the diagram above only includes Level 2 mapping. The TAM recommendation gets a lot more granular than this. This level of granularity can be really important for large, complex telcos.
For the OSS/BSS that support smaller telcos, network providers or utilities, this might be overkill. Similarly, there are OSS/BSS vendors that want to cover all or large parts of the entire estate for these types of customers. But as you’d expect, they don’t want to provide the same depth of functionality coverage that the big telcos might need.
As such, I thought I’d provide the cut-down TAM mapping below for those who want a less complex OSS/BSS suite.
It’s a really subjective mapping because each telco, provider or vendor will have their own perspective on mandatory features or modules. Hopefully it provides a useful starting point for planning a low complexity OSS/BSS.
Then what high-level functionality goes into these building blocks? That’s possibly even more subjective, but here are some hints:
Let me start today with a question: Does your future OSS/BSS need to be drastically different to what it is today?
Please leave me a comment below, answering yes or no.
I’m going to take a guess that most OSS/BSS experts will answer yes to this question, that our future OSS/BSS will change significantly. It’s the reason I wrote the OSS Call for Innovation manifesto some time back. As great as our OSS/BSS are, there’s still so much need for improvement.
But big improvement needs big change. And big change is scary, as Tom Nolle points out:
“IT vendors, like most vendors, recognize that too much revolution doesn’t sell. You have to creep up on change, get buyers disconnected from the comfortable past and then get them to face not the ultimate future but a future that’s not too frightening.”
Do you feel like we’re already in the midst of a revolution? Cloud computing, web-scaling and virtualisation (of IT and networks) have been partly responsible for it. Agile and continuous integration/delivery models too.
The following diagram shows a “from the moon” level view of how I approach (almost) any new project.
The key to Tom’s quote above is in step 2. Just how far, or how ambitious, into the future are you projecting your required change? Do you even know what that future will look like? After all, the environment we’re operating within is changing so fast. That’s why Tom is suggesting that for many of us, step 2 is just a “creep up on it change.” The gap is essentially small.
The “creep up on it change” means just adding a few new relatively meaningless features at the end of the long tail of functionality. That’s because we’ve already had the most meaningful functionality in our OSS/BSS for decades (eg customer management, product / catalog management, service management, service activation, network / service health management, inventory / resource management, partner management, workforce management, etc). We’ve had the functionality, but that doesn’t mean we’ve perfected the cost or process efficiency of using it.
So let’s say we look at step 2 with a slightly different mindset. Let’s say we don’t try to add any new functionality. We lock that down to what we already have. Instead we do re-factoring and try to pull the efficiency levers, which means changes to:
Platforms (eg cloud computing, web-scaling and virtualisation as well as associated management applications)
Methodologies (eg Agile, DevOps, CI/CD, noting of course that they’re more than just methodologies, but also come with tools, etc)
Process (eg User Experience / User Interfaces [UX/UI], supply chain, business process re-invention, machine-led automations, etc)
It’s harder for most people to visualise what the Step 2 Future State looks like. And if it’s harder to envisage Step 2, how do we then move onto Steps 3 and 4 with confidence?
This is the challenge for OSS/BSS vendors, supplier, integrators and implementers. How do we, “get buyers disconnected from the comfortable past and then get them to face not the ultimate future but a future that’s not too frightening?” And I should point out, that it’s not just buyers we need to get disconnected from the comfortable past, but ourselves, myself definitely included.
Network slicing allows operators to segment their network and configure each different slice to the specific needs of that customer (or group of customers). So rather than the network infrastructure being configured for the best compromise that suits all use-cases, instead each slice can be configured optimally for each use-case. That’s an exciting concept.
The big potential roadblock however, falls almost entirely on our OSS/BSS. If our operational tools require significant manual intervention on just one network now, then what chance do operators have of efficiently looking after many networks (ie all the slices).
But something just dawned on me today. I was assuming that the onus for managing each slice would fall on the network operator. What if we take the approach that telcos use with security on network pipes instead? That is, the telco shifts the onus of security onto their customer (in most cases). They provide a dumb pipe and ask the customer to manage their own security mechanisms (eg firewalls) on the end.
In the case of network slicing, operators just provide “dumb slices.” The operator assumes responsibility for providing the network resource pool (VNFs – Virtual Network Functions) and the automation of slice management including fulfilment (ie adds, modifies, deletes, holds, etc) and assurance. But the customers take responsibility for actually managing their network (slice) with their own OSS/BSS (which they probably already have a suite of anyway).
This approach doesn’t seem to require the same level of sophistication. The main impacts I see (and I’m probably overlooking plenty of others) are:
There’s a new class of OSS/BSS required by the operators, that of automated slice management
The customers already have their own OSS/BSS, but they currently tend to focus on monitoring, ticketing, escalations, etc. Their new customer OSS/BSS would need to take more responsibility for provisioning, including traffic engineering
And I’d expect that to support customer-driven provisioning, the operators would probably need to provide ways for customers to programmatically interface with the network resources that make up their slice. That is, operators would need to offer network APIs or NaaS to their customers externally, not just for internal purposes
Determining the optimal slice model. For example, does the carrier offer:
A small number of slice types (eg video, IoT low latency, IoT low chat, etc), where each slice caters for a category of customers, but with many slice instances (one for each customer)
A small number of slice instances, where all customers in that category share the single slice
Customised slices for premium customers
A mix of the above
.In the meantime, changes could be made as they have in the past, via customer portals, etc.
As the title suggests above, NaaS has the potential to be as big a paradigm shift for networks (and OSS/BSS) as Agile has been for software development.
There are many facets to the Agile story, but for me one of the most important aspects is that it has taken end-to-end (E2E), monolithic thinking and has modularised it. Agile has broken software down into pieces that can be worked on by smaller, more autonomous teams than the methods used prior to it.
The same monolithic, E2E approach pervades the network space currently. If a network operator wants to add a new network type or a new product type/bundle, large project teams must be stood up. And these project teams must tackle E2E complexity, especially across an IT stack that is already a spaghetti of interactions.
But before I dive into the merits of NaaS, let me take you back a few steps, back into the past. Actually, for many operators, it’s not the past, but the current-day model.
As per the orange arrow, customers of all types (Retail, Enterprise and Wholesale) interact with their network operator through BSS (and possibly OSS) tools. [As an aside, see this recent post for a “religious war” discussion on where BSS ends and OSS begins]. The customer engagement occurs (sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly) via BSS tools such as:
Order Entry, Order Management
Product Catalog (Product / Offer Management)
SLA (Service Level Agreement) Management
If the customer wants a new instance of an existing service, then all’s good with the current paradigm. Where things become more challenging is when significant changes occur (as reflected by the yellow arrows in the diagram above).
For example, if any of the following are introduced, there are end-to-end impacts. They necessitate E2E changes to the IT spaghetti and require formation of a project team that includes multiple business units (eg products, marketing, IT, networks, change management to support all the workers impacted by system/process change, etc)
A new product or product bundle is to be taken to market
An end-customer needs a custom offering (especially in the case of managed service offerings for large corporate / government customers)
A new network type is added into the network
System and / or process transformations occur in the IT stack
If we just narrow in on point 3 above, fundamental changes are happening in network technology stacks already. Network virtualisation (SDN/NFV) and 5G are currently generating large investments of time and money. They’re fundamental changes because they also change the shape of our traditional OSS/BSS/IT stacks, as follows.
We now not only have Physical Network Functions (PNF) to manage, but Virtual Network Functions (VNF) as well. In fact it now becomes even more difficult because our IT stacks need to handle PNF and VNF concurrently. Each has their own nuances in terms of over-arching management.
The virtualisation of networks and application infrastructure means that our OSS see greater southbound abstraction. Greater southbound abstraction means we potentially lose E2E visibility of physical infrastructure. Yet we still need to manage E2E change to IT stacks for new products, network types, etc.
The diagram below shows how NaaS changes the paradigm. It de-couples the network service offerings from the network itself. Customer Facing Services (CFS) [as presented by BSS/OSS/NaaS] are de-coupled from Resource Facing Services (RFS) [as presented by the network / domains].
NaaS becomes a “meet-in-the-middle” tool. It effectively de-couples
The products / marketing teams (who generate customer offerings / bundles) from
The networks / operations teams (who design, build and maintain the network).and
The IT teams (who design, build and maintain the IT stack)
It allows product teams to be highly creative with their CFS offerings from the available RFS building blocks. Consider it like Lego. The network / ops teams create the building blocks and the products / marketing teams have huge scope for innovation. The products / marketing teams rarely need to ask for custom building blocks to be made.
You’ll notice that the entire stack shown in the diagram below is far more modular than the diagram above. Being modular makes the network stack more suited to being worked on by smaller autonomous teams. The yellow arrows indicate that modularity, both in terms of the IT stack and in terms of the teams that need to be stood up to make changes. Hence my claim that NaaS is to networks what Agile has been to software.
You will have also noted that NaaS allows the Network / Resource part of this stack to be broken into entirely separate network domains. Separation in terms of IT stacks, management and autonomy. It also allows new domains to be stood up independently, which accommodates the newer virtualised network domains (and their VNFs) as well as platforms such as ONAP.
The NaaS layer comprises:
A TMF standards-based API Gateway
A Master Services Catalog
A common / consistent framework of presentation of all domains
The ramifications of this excites me even more that what’s shown in the diagram above. By offering access to the network via APIs and as a catalog of services, it allows a large developer pool to provide innovative offerings to end customers (as shown in the green box below). It opens up the long tail of innovation that we discussed last week.
Some telcos will open up their NaaS to internal or partner developers. Others are drooling at the prospect of offering network APIs for consumption by the market.
You’ve probably already identified this, but the awesome thing for the developer community is that they can combine services/APIs not just from the telcos but any other third-party providers (eg Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, etc, etc, etc). I could’ve shown these as East-West services in the diagram but decided to keep it simpler.
Developers are not constrained to offering communications services. They can now create / offer higher-order services that also happen to have communications requirements.
If you weren’t already on board with the concept, hopefully this article has convinced you that NaaS will be to networks what Agile has been to software.
Agree or disagree? Leave me a comment below.
PS1. I’ve used the old TMN pyramid as the basis of the diagram to tie the discussion to legacy solutions, not to imply size or emphasis of any of the layers.
PS3. Similarly, the size of the NaaS layer is to bring attention to it rather than to imply it is a monolithic stack in it’s own right. In reality, it is actually a much thinner shim layer architecturally
PS4. The analogy between NaaS and Agile is to show similarities, not to imply that NaaS replaces Agile. They can definitely be used together
PS5. I’ve used the term IT quite generically (operationally and technically) just to keep the diagram and discussion as simple as possible. In reality, there are many sub-functions like data centre operations, application monitoring, application control, applications development, product owner, etc. These are split differently at each operator.
Back in the earliest days of OSS (and networks for that matter), it was the telcos that generated almost all of the innovation. That effectively limited innovation to being developed by the privileged few, those who worked for the government-owned, monopoly telcos.
But over time, the financial leaders at those telcos felt the costs of their amazing research and development labs outweighed the benefits and shut them down (or starved them at best). OSS (and network) vendors stepped into the void to assume responsibility for most of the innovation. But there was a dilemma for the vendors (and for telcos and consumers too) – they needed to innovate fast enough to win work against their competitors, but slow enough to accrue revenues from the investment in their earlier innovations. And innovation was still being constrained to the privileged few, those who worked for vendors and integrators.
Now, the telcos are increasingly pushing to innovate wider and faster than the current vendor collective can accommodate. It means we have to reach further out to the long-tail of innovators. To open the floor beyond the privileged few. Excitingly, this opportunity appears to be looming.
“How?” you may ask.
Network as a Service (NaaS) and API platform offerings.
If every telco offers consumption of their infrastructure via API, it provides the opportunity for any developer to bundle their own unique offering of products, services, applications, hosting, etc and take it to market. If you’re heading to TM Forum’s Digital Transformation World (DTW) in Nice next week, there are a number of Catalyst projects on display in this space, including:
The challenge for the telcos is in how to support the growth of this model. To foster the vendor market, it was easy enough for the telcos to identify the big suppliers and funnel projects (and funding) through them. But now they have to figure out a funnel that’s segmented at a much smaller scale – to facilitate take-up by the millions of developers globally who might consume their products (network APIs in this case) rather than the hundreds/thousands of large suppliers.
This brings us back to smart contracts and micro-procurement as well as the technologies such as blockchain that support these models. This ties in with another TM Forum initiative to revolutionise the procurement event:
But an additional benefit for the telcos, if and when the NaaS platform model takes hold, is that the developers also become a unpaid salesforce for the telcos. The developers will be responsible for marketing and selling their own bundles, which will drive consumption and revenues on the telcos’ assets.
Exciting new business models and supply chains are bound to evolve out of this long tail of innovation.
Network operators spend huge amounts on building and maintaining their OSS/BSS every year. There are many reasons they invest so heavily, but in most cases it can be distilled back to one thing – improving operational efficiency.
And our OSS/BSS definitely do improve operational efficiency, but there are still so many sources of friction. They’re squeaking like un-oiled bearings. Here are just a few of the common sources:
Identifying best-fit tools
Procurement of new tools
Update / release processes
Continuous data quality / consistency improvement
Navigating to all features through the user interface
Non-intuitive functionality / processes
So many variants / complexity that end-users take years to attain expert-level capability
Integration / interconnect
Getting new starters up to speed
Getting proficient operators to expertise
Unlocking actionable insights from huge data piles
Resolving the root-cause of complex faults
Onboarding new customers
Productionising new functionality
Exception and fallout handling
Access to supplier expertise to resolve challenges
The list goes on far deeper than that list too. The challenge for many OSS product teams, for any number of reasons, is that their focus is on adding new features rather than reducing friction in what already exists.
The challenge for product teams is diagnosing where the friction and risks are for their customers / stakeholders. How do you get that feedback?
Every vendor has a product support team, so that’s a useful place to start, both in terms of what’s generating the most support calls and in terms of first-hand feedback from customers
Do you hold user forums on a regular basis, where you get many of your customers together to discuss their challenges, your future roadmap, new improvements / features
Does your process “flow” data show where the sticking points are for operators
Do you conduct gemba walks with your customers
Do you have a program of ensuring all developers spend at least a few days a year interacting directly with customers on their site/s
Do you observe areas of difficulty when delivering training
Do you go out of your way to ask your customers / stakeholders questions that are framed around their pain-points, not just framed within the context of your existing OSS
Do you conduct customer surveys? More importantly, do you conduct surveys through an independent third-party?
On the last dot-point, I’ve been surprised at some of the profound insights end-users have shared with me when I’ve been conducting these reviews as the independent interviewer. I’ve tended to find answers are more open / honest when being delivered to an independent third-party than if the supplier asks directly. If you’d like assistance running a third-party review, leave us a note on the contact page. We’d be delighted to assist.
Well, would you hire a furniture maker as CEO of an OSS vendor?
At face value, it would seem to be an odd selection right? There doesn’t seem to be much commonality between furniture and OSS does there? It seems as likely as hiring a furniture maker to be CEO of a car maker?
Oh wait. That did happen.
Ford Motor Company made just such a decision last year when appointing Jim Hackett, a furniture industry veteran, as its CEO. Whether the appointment proves successful or not, it’s interesting that Ford made the decision. But why? To focus on user experience and design as it’s next big differentiator. Clever line of thinking Bill Ford!!
I’ve prepared a slightly light-hearted table for comparison purposes between cars and OSS. Both are worth comparing as they’re both complex feats of human engineering:
Transport passengers between destinations
Operationalise and monetise a comms network
Claimed “Business” justification
Reducing the cost of operations
Operation of common functionality without conscious thought (developed through years of operator practice)
Hmmm??? Depends on which sales person or operator you speak with
Error detection and current-state monitoring
Warning lights and instrument cluster/s
Alarm lists, performance graphs
Key differentiator for customers (1970’s)
Database / CPU size
Key differentiator for customers (2000’s)
Gadgets / functions / cup-holders
Key differentiator for customers (2020+)
Connected car (car as an “experience platform”)
Connected OSS (ie OSS as an experience platform)???
I’d like to focus on three key areas next:
Item 4 and
The transition between items 6 and 7
Item 3 – operating on auto-pilot
If we reference against item 1, the primary objective, experienced operators of cars can navigate from point A to point B with little conscious thought. Key activities such as steering, changing gears and Indicating can be done almost as a background task by our brains whilst doing other mental processing (talking, thinking, listening to podcasts, etc).
Experienced operators of OSS can do primary objectives quickly, but probably not on auto-pilot. There are too many “levers” to pull, too many decisions to make, too many options to choose from, for operators to background-process key OSS activities. The question is, could we re-architect to achieve key objectives more as background processing tasks?
Item 4 – error detection and monitoring
In a car, error detection is also a background task, where operators are rarely notified, only for critical alerts (eg engine light, fuel tank empty, etc). In an OSS, error detection is not a background task. We need full-time staff monitoring all the alarms and alerts popping up on our consoles! Sometimes they scroll off the page too fast for us to even contemplate.
In a car, monitoring is kept to the bare essentials (speedo, tacho, fuel guage, etc). In an OSS, we tend to be great at information overload – we have a billion graphs and are never sure which ones, or which thresholds, actually allow us to operate our “vehicle” effectively. So we show them all.
Transitioning from current to future-state differentiators
In cars, we’ve finally reached peak-cup-holders. Manufacturers know they can no longer differentiate from competitors just by having more cup-holders (at least, I think this claim is true). They’ve also realised that even entry-level cars have an astounding list of features that are only supplementary to the primary objective (see item 1). They now know it’s not the amount of functionality, but how seamlessly and intuitively the users interact with the vehicle on end-to-end tasks. The car is now seen as an extension of the user’s phone rather than vice versa, unlike the recent past.
In OSS, I’ve yet to see a single cup holder (apart from the old gag about CD trays). Vendors mark that down – cup holders could be a good differentiator. But seriously, I’m not sure if we realise the OSS arms race of features is no longer the differentiator. Intuitive end-to-end user experience can be a huge differentiator amongst the sea of complex designs, user interfaces and processes available currently. But nobody seems to be talking about this. Go to any OSS event and we only hear from engineers talking about features. Where are the UX experts talking about innovative new ways for users to interact with machines to achieve primary objectives (see item 1)?
But a functionality arms race isn’t a completely dead differentiator. In cars, there is a horizon of next-level features that can be true differentiators like self-driving or hover-cars. Likewise in OSS, incremental functionality increases aren’t differentiators. However, any vendor that can not just discuss, but can produce next-level capabilities like zero touch assurance (ZTA) and automated O2A (Order to Activate) will definitely hold a competitive advantage.
Unfortunately for OSS vendors / integrators, their business models have a dependency (and major risk) on accounts receivable.
Investopedia states, “Accounts receivable are amounts of money owed by customers to another entity for goods or services delivered or used on credit but not yet paid for by clients.”
One of the earliest OSS projects I worked on was worth in excess of $30m for the vendor. It was a multi-year implementation. Two years in, they’d only received the initial mobilisation payment. With implementation costs blowing out, it was proving to be a major challenge for the company to continue operating.
The team had delivered a majority of the functionality written into the contract, as well as many other features negotiated in-flight. It was successfully being used in production, helping to deliver revenues to the customer. Unfortunately for the vendor, there was some key functionality that was still a way off being delivered. That meant contractual objectives hadn’t all lined up for payments to occur.
The balance of financial power was definitely in the hands of the customer.
Whether it’s in a large, complex implementation or ongoing license fees, accounts receivable can be the bane of OSS vendors.
That’s why I try to establish a no accounts receivable model for OSS vendors. That means up-front payment, but as shown below, means up-front value also needs to be delivered. It’s one of the attractive aspects of cloud-delivery business models.
The project I mentioned above had a product suite that worked out of the box, but only delivered value after features, data, integrations and automations were custom built… over a period of years.
So a couple of questions for the OSS vendors out there:
How to deliver value, not just functionality, early in a project and then ongoing through the product lifecycle?
How to give the customer enough confidence that they’ll receive up-front (and recurring) value that they’re prepared to pay up-front (and recurring)?
Leave me a comment below if accounts receivable is a bane of your organisation’s existence or whether you’ve found a way to have less reliance on AR.
A friend of mine has a great saying, “only do what only you can do.”
Do you think that this holds true for the companies undergoing digital transformation? Banks are now IT companies. Insurers are IT companies. Car manufacturers are now IT companies. Telcos are, well, some are IT companies.
We’ve spoken before about the skill transformations that need to happen within telcos if they’re to become IT companies. Some are actively helping their workforce to become more developer-centric. Some of the big telcos that I’ve been assisting in the last few years are embarking on bold Agile-led IT transformations. They’re cutting more of their own code and managing their own IT developments.
That’s exciting news for all of us in OSS. Even if it loses the name OSS in future, telcos will still need software that efficiently operationalises their networks. We have the overlapping skills in software, networks, business and operations.
But I wonder about the longevity of the in-house approach unless we come focus clearly on the first quote above. If all development is brought in-house, we end up with a lot of duplication across the industry. I’m not really sure that it makes sense doing all the heavy-lifting of all custom OSS tools when the heavy-lifting has already been done elsewhere.
In my very humble opinion, it’s not just a choice between in-house and outsourced that matters. The more important decisions are around choosing to only develop the tools in-house that only you can do (ie the strategic differentiators).
Is your OSS a single pane of glass, or a single glass of pain?
You can tell I’m being a little flippant here. People often (perhaps idealistically) talk about OSS as being the single pane of glass (SPOG) to manage a network.
I say “idealistically” for a couple of reasons:
There are usually many personas who interact with an OSS, each with vastly different user interface (UI) needs
There is usually more than one OSS product in a client’s OSS suite, often from different vendors, with varying levels of integration
Where a single pane of glass can be a true ambition is as a consolidated health-status dashboard / portal, Invariably, this portal is used by executive / leader / manager personas who want to quickly see a single-screen health status that covers all networks and/or parts of the OSS suite. When things go wrong, this portal becomes the single glass of pain.
These single panes tend to be heavily customised for each organisation as every one has a unique set of metrics-that-matter. For those designing these panes, the key is to not just include vanity metrics, but to show information that the leader can action.
But the interesting perspective here is whether the single glass of pain is even relevant within your organisation’s culture. It’s just my opinion, but I prefer for coal-face workers to be empowered to make rapid recovery actions rather than requiring direction from up high in the org-chart. Coal-face workers generally have different tools with UIs that *should* help them monitor, manage and repair super-efficiently.
To get back to the “idealistic” comment above, each OSS UI needs to be fit-for-purpose for each unique persona (eg designers, product owners, network operations, etc). To me this implies that there is no single pane of glass…
I should caveat that by citing the example of an OSS search interface, something I’ve yet to see in OSS… although that’s just a front end to dozens of persona-specific panes of glass.
Both of these posts talk about the speed of getting things done outside the bureaucracy of big operators, big networks and big OSS. Today, as the post title suggests, we’re going to look at orgitecture – how re-designing the structure and culture of an organisation can help streamline digital transformations.
Do you agree with the premise that smaller entities (eg Agile autonomous groups, partners, consultants, etc) can get OSS tasks done more efficiently when operating at arms-length of the larger entity (eg the carrier)? I believe that this is a first principle of physics at play.
If you’ve worked under this arms-length arrangement in the past, you’ll also know that at some point those delivery outcomes need to get integrated back into the big entity. It’s what we referred to yesterday as absorption, where the level of integration effort falls on a continuum between minimally absorbed to fully absorbed.
OSS orgitecture is the re-architecture of the people, processes, culture and org structure to better allow for the absorption process. In the past, all the safety-checks (eg security, approvals, ops handover, etc) were designed on the assumption that internal teams were doing the work. They’re not always a great fit, especially when it comes to documentation review and approval.
For example, I have a belief that the effectiveness of documentation review and approval is inversely proportional to the number of reviewers (in most, but not all cases). Unfortunately, when an external entity is delivering, there tends to be inherently less trust than if an internal entity was delivering. As such, the safety-checks increase.
Another example is when the large organisation uses Agile delivery models, but use supply partners to deliver scope of works. The partners are able to assign effort in a sequential / waterfall manner, but can be delayed by only getting timeslices of attention from client’s staff (ie resources are available according to Agile sprint planning).
Security and cutover planning mechanisms such as Change Review Boards (CRB) have also been designed around old internal delivery models. They also need to be reconsidered to facilitate a pipeline of externally-implemented change.
Perhaps the biggest orgitecture factor is in getting multiple internal business units to work together effectively. In the old world we needed all the business units to reach consensus for a new product to come to market. Sales/Marketing/Products had to work with OSS/IT and Networks. Each of these units tend to have vastly different cultures and different cadences for getting their tasks done. Delivering a new product was as much an organisational challenge as it was a technical challenge and often took months. Those times-to-market are not feasible in a world of software where competitive advantages are fleeting. External entities can potentially help or hinder these timeframes. Careful design of small autonomous teams have the potential to improve abstraction at the interlocks, but culture remains the potential roadblock.
I’m excited by the opportunity for OSS delivery improvement coming from leveraging the gig economy. But if big OSS transformations are to make use of these efficiency gains, then we may also need to consider culture and process refinement as part of the change management.
Do you work in a large organisation? Have you also worked in smaller organisations?
Where have you felt more efficient?
I’ve been lucky enough to work on some massive OSS transformations for large T1 telcos. But I’ve always noticed the inefficiency of working on these projects when embedded inside the bureaucracy of the beast. With all of the documentation, sign-offs, meetings, politics, gaining consensus, budget allocations, etc it can sometimes feel so inefficient. On some past projects, I’ve felt I can accomplish more in a day outside than a week or more inside the beast.
It’s one of the reasons I love working within a small entity (Passionate About OSS), but into big entities (the big telcos and utilities). It’s also why I strongly believe that the big entities need to better leverage smaller working groups to facilitate big OSS change. Not just OSS transformation, but any project where the size of the culture and technology stack are prohibitive.
Here are a few ways you can use to bring a start-up’s efficiency to a big OSS transformation:
Agile methodologies – If done well, Agile can be great at breaking transformations down into smaller, more manageable pieces. The art is in designing small autonomous teams / responsibilities and breakdown of work to minimise dependencies
Partnerships – Using smaller, external partners to deliver outcomes (eg product builds or service offerings) that can be absorbed into the big organisation. There are varying levels of absorption here – from an external, “clip-the-ticket” offering to offerings that are fully absorbed into the large entity’s OSS/BSS stack
Consultancies – Similar to partnerships, but using smaller teams to implement professional services
Spin-out / spin-in teams – Separating small teams of experts out from the bureaucracy of the large organisation so that they can achieve rapid progress
Smart contracts / RFPs – I love the potential for smart contracts to automate the offer of small chunks of work to trusted partners to bid upon and then deliver upon
Externalised Proofs of Concept (PoC) – One of the big challenges in implementing for large organisations is all of the safety checks that slow progress. Many, such as security and privacy mechanisms, are completely justified for a production network. But when a concept needs to be proved, such as user journeys, product integrations, sand-pit environments, etc, then cloud-based PoCs can be brilliant
Alternate brands – Have you also noticed that some of the tier-1 telcos have been spinning out low-cost and/or niche brands with much leaner OSS/BSS stacks, offerings and related culture lately? It’s a clever business model on many levels. Combined with the strangler fig transformation approach, this might just represent a pathway for the big brand to shed many of their OSS/BSS legacy constraints
Can you think of other models that I’ve missed?
The key to these strategies is not so much the carve-out, the process of getting small teams to do tasks efficiently, but the absorb-in process. For example, how to absorb a cloud-based PoC back into the PROD network, where all safety checks (eg security, privacy, operations acceptance, etc) still need to be performed. More on that in tomorrow’s post.
This quote had nothing to do with OSS specifically, but consider for a moment how it relates to OSS.
Consider also in relation to the diagram below.
Let’s say the x-axis on this graph shows a list of features within any given OSS product. And the y-axis shows a KPI that measures the importance of each feature (eg number of uses, value added by using that feature, etc).
As Professor McDonald indicates, all OSS products are excellent these days. And all product vendors know what the most important features are. As a result, they all know they must offer the features that appear on the left-side of the image. Since all vendors do the left-side, it seems logical to differentiate by adding features to the far-right of the image, right?
Well actually, there’s almost no differential advantage at the far-right of the image.
Now what if we consider the second part of Prof McDonald’s statement on differential advantage, “…it’s from the way you speak to and relate to your customers.”
To me it implies that the differential advantage in OSS is not in the products, but in the service wrapper that is placed around it. You might be saying, “but we’re an OSS product company. We don’t want to get into services.” As described in this earlier post, there are two layers of OSS services.
One of the layers mentioned is product-related services (eg product installation, product configuration, product release management, license management, product training, data migration, product efficiency / optimisation, etc). None of these items would appear as features on the long-tail diagram above. Perhaps as a result, it’s these items that are often less than excellent in vendor offerings. It’s often in these items where complexity, time, cost and risk are added to an OSS project, increasing stress for clients.
If Prof McDonald is correct and all OSS products are excellent, then perhaps it’s in the services wrapper where the true differential advantage is waiting to be unlocked. This will come from spending more time relating to customers than cutting more code.
What if we take it a step further? What if we seek to better understand our clients’ differential advantages in their markets? Perhaps this is where we will unlock an entirely different set of features that will introduce new bands on the left-side of the image. I still feel that amazing OSS/BSS can give carriers significant competitive advantage in their marketplace. And the converse can give significant competitive disadvantage!
Are you desperately seeking to increase your OSS‘s differential advantage? Contact us at Passionate About OSS to help map out a way.
I often cite an example where it took 7 truck rolls to connect a service to my house a few years ago. This provider was unable to provide an estimate of when their field staff would arrive each day, so it meant I needed to take a full day off work on each of those 7 occasions.
The primary cost factors are fairly obvious, for me, for the provider and for my employer at the time. On the direct costs alone, it would’ve taken many months, if not years, for the provider to recoup their install costs. Most of it attributable to the OSS/BSS and associated processes.
Many of those 7 truck rolls were a direct result of having bad or incomplete data:
They didn’t record that it was a two storey house (and therefore needed a crew with “working at heights” certification and gear)
They didn’t record that the install was at a back room at the house (and therefore needed a higher-skilled crew to perform the work)
The existing service was installed underground, but they had no records of the route (they went back to the designs and installed a completely different access technology because replicating the existing service was just too complex)
Customer Experience (CX), aka brand damage, is the greatest of all cost of quality factors when you consider studies such as those mentioned below.
“A dissatisfied customer will tell 9-15 people about their experience. Around 13% of dissatisfied customers tell more than 20 people.”
White House Office of Consumer Affairs (according to customerthink.com).
Through this page alone, I’ve told a lot more than 20 (although I haven’t mentioned the provider’s name, so perhaps it doesn’t count! 🙂 ).
But the point is that my 7 truck-roll example above could’ve been avoided if the provider’s OSS/BSS gave better information to their field workers (or perhaps enforced that the field workers populated useful data).
We’ll talk a little more tomorrow about modern Field Services tools and how our OSS/BSS can impact CX in a much more positive way.
Have you noticed an increasing presence of open-source tools in your OSS recently? Have you also noticed that open-source is helping to trigger transformation? Have you thought about why that might be?
Some might rightly argue that it is the cost factor. You could also claim that they tend to help resolve specific, but common, problems. They’re smaller and modular.
If you’re designing an OSS can you introduce the same concepts? Your OSS might be for internal purposes or to sell to market. Either way, if you make it fast to build and easy to use, you have a greater chance of triggering transformation.
If you have a behemoth OSS to “sell,” transformation persuasion is harder. The customer needs to rally more resources (funds, people, time) just to compare with what they already have. If you have a behemoth on your hands, you need to try even harder to be faster, easier and more modular.