In Monday’s article, we suggested that the three technical factors that could get the big boss fired are probably only limited to:
- Repeated and/or catastrophic failure (of network, systems, etc)
- Inability to serve the market (eg offerings, capacity, etc)
- Inability to operate network assets profitably
In that article, we looked closely at a human factor and how current trends of open-source, Agile and microservices might actually exacerbate it.
But let’s look at some of the broader examples under point 1 today. The failure factors we could consider that might result in the big boss getting fired are:
Availability (nodal and E2E)
Performance (nodal and E2E)
Security (security trust model – cloud vs corporate vs active network and related zones)
Remediation times, systems & processes (Assurance), particularly effectiveness of process for handling P1 (Priority 1) incidents
Disaster Recovery Plan (incl Backup and Restore process, what black-swan events the organisation is susceptible to, etc)
Supportability and Maintenance Routines
Change and Release Management approaches
Human resources (incl business continuity risk of losing IP, etc)
Where are the SPoFs (Single Points of Failure)
We should note too that these should be viewed through two lenses:
- The lens of the network our OSS/BSS is managing and
- The lens of the systems (hardware/software/cloud) that make up our OSS/BSS
Not sure whether you have a clear answer to that question – either the thought is enticing (you want the CEO to get fired), unthinkable (you don’t want the CEO fired) or somewhere in between. You’d invariably get different answers from different employees within most organisations (you can’t please all of the people all of the time).
Today’s post also has no singular situation, so it poses a number of hypothetical questions. But let’s follow the thread of the question from a purely technical perspective (ie discounting inappropriate personal decisions, incompetence and the like).
If we look at the technical factors that could get the big boss fired, they’re probably only limited to:
- Repeated and/or catastrophic failure (of network, systems, etc)
- Inability to serve the market (eg offerings, capacity, etc)
- Inability to operate network assets profitably
Let’s start with catastrophic failures, ones where entire networks and/or product lines go down for long periods (as opposed to branches of networks becoming faulty or intermittently failing). We’ve had quite a few catastrophic failures in my region in the last few years.
Interestingly, we’re designing networks and systems that should be more reliable day-by-day. In all likelihood they probably are. But with increased system complexity and programmed automation, I wonder whether we’re actually increasing the likelihood of catastrophic failures. That is, examples of cascading failures that are too complex for operators to contain.
Anecdotal evidence surrounding the failures mentioned above in my area suggest that a skills-gap after many retirements / redundancies has been partly to blame. The replacements haven’t been as well equipped as their predecessors to prevent the runaway train of catastrophic failure.
Do you think a similar risk awaits us with the current trend towards build-it-yourself OSS? We have all these custom-built, one-of-a-kind, complex systems being built currently. What happens in a few years time when their designers / implementers leave? Yes, their replacements might be able to interrogate code repositories, but will they know what changes to rapidly make when patterns of degradation start to appear? Will they have any chance of inherently understanding the logic behind these systems like those who created them? Will they be able to stop the runaway train/s?
This earlier post discussed the build vs buy cycle the market goes through.
There are many pros and cons of the build vs buy argument, but at least there’s a level of repeatability and modularity with off the shelf solutions.
I wonder if the CEOs of today/tomorrow are planning for sophisticated up-skilling of replacements in future when they decide to build in-house today? Or will they just hand the replacements the keys and wish them luck? The latter approach keeps costs down, but it just might get the CEO fired!
We’ll take a closer look at the other two factors (“serve the market” and “profitability”) in the next few days.
“…as technology gets more complicated, it becomes more difficult for buyers to acquire the skills needed to make even a basic assessment of value. Without such an assessment, it’s hard to get a project going, and in particular hard to get one going the right way.”
Have you noticed that over the last few years, OSS choice has proliferated, making project assessment more challenging? Previously, the COTS (Commercial Off-the-Shelf) product solution dominated. That was already a challenge because there are hundreds to choose from (there are around 400 on our vendors page alone). But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
We now also have choices to make across factors such as:
- Building OSS tools with open-source projects
- An increasing amount of in-house development (as opposed to COTS implementations by the product’s vendors)
- Smaller niche products that need additional integration
- An increase in the number of “standards” that are seeking to solve traditional OSS/BSS problems (eg ONAP, ETSI’s ZSM, TM Forum’s ODA, etc, etc)
- Revolutions from the IT world such as cloud, containerisation, virtualisation, etc
As Tom indicates in the quote above, the diversity of skills required to make these decisions is broadening. Broadening to the point where you generally need a large team to have suitable skills coverage to make even a basic assessment of value.
At Passionate About OSS, we’re seeking to address this in the following ways:
- We have two development projects underway (more news to come)
- One to simplify the vendor / product selection process
- One to assist with up-skilling on open-source and IT tools to build modern OSS
- In addition to existing pages / blogs, we’re assembling more content about “standards” evolution, which should appear on this blog in coming days
- Use our “Finding an Expert” tool to match experts to requirements
- And of course there are the variety of consultancy services we offer ranging from strategy, roadmap, project business case and vendor selection through to resource identification and implementation. Leave us a message on our contact page if you’d like to discuss more
Over the years in OSS, I’ve spent a lot of my time helping companies create their OSS / BSS strategies and roadmaps. Sometimes clients come from the buy side (eg carriers, utilities, enterprise), other times clients come from the sell side (eg vendors, integrators). There’s one factor that seems to be most commonly raised by these clients, and it comes from both sides.
What is that one factor? Well, we’ll come back to what that factor is a little later, but let’s cover some background first.
Even if only covering a simplified version of this map, very few suppliers can provide coverage of the entire estate. That infers two things:
- Integrations; and
If you’re from the buy-side, you need to manage both to build a full-function OSS/BSS suite. If you’re from the sell-side, you’re either forced into dealing with both (reactive) or sometimes you can choose to develop those to bring a more complete offering to market (proactive).
You will have noticed that both are double-ended. Integrations bring two applications / functions together. Relationships bring two organisations together.
This two-ended concept means there’s always a “far-side” that’s outside your control. It’s in our nature to worry about what’s outside our control. We tend to want to put controls around what we can’t control. Not only that, but it’s incumbent on us as organisation planners to put mitigation strategies in place.
Which brings us back to the one factor that is raised by clients on most occasions – substitution – how do we minimise our exposure to lock-in with an OSS product / service partner/s if our partnership deteriorates?
Well, here are some thoughts:
- Design your own architecture with product / partner substitution in mind (and regularly review your substitution plan because products are always evolving)
- Develop multiple integrations so that you always have active equivalency. This is easier for sell-side “reactives” because their different customers will have different products to integrate to (eg an OSS vendor that is able to integrate with four different ITSM tools because they have different customers with each of those variants)
- Enhance your own offerings so that you no longer require the partnership, but can do it yourself
- Invest in your partnerships to ensure they don’t deteriorate. This is the OSS marriage analogy where ongoing mutual benefits encourage the relationship to continue.
The last four posts have discussed how our OSS/BSS need to cope with different modes of working to perform effectively. We started off with the thread of “group flow,” where multiple different users of our tools can work cohesively. Then we talked about how flow requires a lack of interruptions, yet many of the roles using our OSS actually need constant availability (ie to be constantly interrupted).
From a user experience (UI/UX) perspective, we need an awareness of the state the operator/s needs to be in to perform each step of an end-to-end process, be it:
- Deep think or flow mode – where the operator needs uninterrupted time to resolve a complex and/or complicated activity (eg a design activity)
- Constant availability mode – where the operator needs to quickly respond to the needs of others and therefore needs a stream of notifications / interruptions (eg network fault resolutions)
- Group flow mode – where a group of operators need to collaborate effectively and cohesively to resolve a complex and/or complicated activity (eg resolve a cross-domain fault situation)
This is a strong argument for every OSS/BSS supplier to have UI/UX experts on their team. Yet most leave their UI/UX with their coders. They tend to take the perspective that if the function can be performed, it’s time to move on to building the next function. That was the same argument used by all MP3 player suppliers before the iPod came along with its beautiful form and function and dominated the market.
Interestingly, modern architectural principles potentially make UI/UX design more challenging. With old, monolithic OSS/BSS, you at least had more control over end-to-end workflows (I’m not suggesting we should go back to the monoliths BTW). These days, you need to accommodate the unique nuances / inconsistencies of third-party modules like APIs / microservices.
As Evan Linwood incisively identified, ” I guess we live in the age of cloud based API providers, theoretically enabling loads of pre-canned integration patterns but these may not be ideal for a large service provider… Definitely if the underlying availability isn’t there, but could also occur through things like schema mismanagement across multiple providers? (Which might actually be an argument for better management / B/OSS, rather than against the use of microservices!”
Am I convincing any of you to hire more UI/UX resources? Or convincing you to register for UI/UX as your next training course instead of learning a ninth programming language?
Put simply, we need your assistance to take our OSS from this…
I’ve recently started reading a book called Stealing Fire: How Silicon Valley, the Navy SEALs, and Maverick Scientists Are Revolutionizing the Way We Live and Work. To completely over-generalise the subject matter, it’s about finding optimal performance states, aka finding flow. Not the normal topic of conversation for here on the PAOSS blog!!
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?
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.
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.
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.
“Years ago, I was so confident, and so naive. I was so sure that I was right and everyone else was wrong.
Unfortunately I was lucky and got successful, so that kept me ignorant of my shortcomings.
I sold my company, felt ready to do something new, and started to learn. But the more I learned, the more I realized how little I knew, and how dumb-lucky I had been. I continued learning until I felt like an absolute idiot…
So I’m glad my old confidence is gone, because it thought I was right, and maybe even great.“
Derek Sivers here.
Confidence is a fascinating thing in OSS. There are so many facets to it. One person can rightfully build the confidence that comes from being the best in the world at one facet, but completely lack confidence in many of the other facets. Or be a virtuoso within their project / environment but be out of their depth in another organisation’s environment.
Yesterday’s post discussed how much of a bottleneck I became on my first OSS project. Most members of that project team had a reliance on the information / data that I knew how to find and interpret. Most members of the project team had problems that “my” information / data would help them to solve.
As they say, knowledge is power and I had the confidence that came with having that knowledge / power. My ego thrived on the importance of having that knowledge / power. That ego was built on helping the team solve many of the huge number of problems we faced. But as with most ego plays, I was being selfish in retrospect.
Having access to all of the problems, and helping to solve them, meant I was learning at a rapid rate (by my limited standards). That was exciting. Realising there were so many problems to solve in this field probably helped spawn my passion for OSS.
With the benefit of hindsight, I was helping, but also hindering in almost equal measures. Like Derek, “the more I learned, the more I realized how little I knew, and how dumb-lucky I had been.” To be honest, I’ve always been aware of just how little I know across the many facets of OSS. But the more I learn, the more I realise just how big the knowledge chasm is. And with the speed of change currently afoot, the chasm is only getting wider. Not just for me, but for all of us I suspect. Do you feel it too?
Also like Derek, my old naive confidence is gone. A humbler confidence now replaces it, one derived from many humbling experiences and failures (ie learning experiences) along the way.
There are superstars on every OSS project team. You’ve worked with many of them no doubt. But let me ask you a question. If you think back on those superstars, how many have also been bottlenecks on your projects? How many have thrived on the importance of being the bottleneck? Conversely, how many have mastered the art of not just being the superstar performer, but also the on-field leader who brings others into the game? The one who can make an otherwise dysfunctional OSS team function more cohesively.
Leave a comment below if you’d like to share a story of your experience dealing with OSS superstars (or being the superstar). What have you learned from that experience?
I became a problematic bottleneck on my first OSS project. It didn’t start that way, but it definitely ended that way. And I’ve been thinking ever since about how I could’ve managed that better.
I started out as a network subject matter expert but wasn’t a bottleneck in that role. However, the next two functions I absorbed were the source of the problem.
The first additional role was in becoming the unofficial document librarian. Most of the documents coming into our organisation came through me. Being inquisitive, I’d review each document and try to apply it to what my colleagues and I were trying to achieve. When the team had an information void, they’d come to me with the problem and I’d not just point them to the relevant document/s but dive into helping to solve the problem.
The next role was assisting to model network data into the OSS database. This morphed into becoming responsible for all of the data in the database. In those days, I didn’t have a Minimum Viable Data (MVD) mindset. Instead it was an ingest-it-all-and-figure-out-how-to-use-it-later mentality. When the team had a data void, they’d come to me with the problem and I’d not just point them to the relevant data and what it meant but dive into helping to solve their problem/s.
You can see how this is leading to being a bottleneck can’t you?
I was effectively asking for all problems to be re-routed through me. Every person on the project (except possibly the project admins) relied on documentation and data. I averaged 85 hour weeks for about 2.5 years on that project, but still didn’t get close to servicing all the requests. Great as a learning exercise. Not great for the project.
Twenty years on, how would I do it better? Well, let me ask first, how would you do it better?
You possibly have many more ideas, but the two I’d like to leave you with are:
- Figure out ways to make teaching more repeatable and self-learnt
- Very closely aligned, and more importantly, is in asking leading questions that help others solve their own problems
It still feels like it’s less helpful to not dive into solving the problem, but it undoubtedly improves overall team efficiency and growth.
Oh, and by the way, if you’re just starting out in OSS and want to speed up your own development into becoming an OSS linchpin – find your way into the document librarian and/or data management roles. After all these years on OSS projects, I still think these are the best places to launch into the learning curve from.
Now I’d like you to have a think about how those posts overlay onto this quote by Karl Popper:
“Non-reproducible single occurrences are of no significance to science.”
Every OSS implementation is different. That means that every one is a non-reproducible single occurrence. But if we bring this mindset into our OSS implementations, it means we’re bringing artisinal rather than scientific method to the project.
I’m all for bringing more art, more creativity, more resilience into our OSS projects.
I’m also advocating more science though too. More repeatability. More precision. Whilst every OSS project may be different at a macro level, there are a lot of similarities in the micro-elements. There tends to be similarities in sequences of activities if you pay close attention to the rhythms of your projects. Perhaps our products can use techniques to spot and leverage similarities too.
In other words, bring your art and your science to your OSS. Please leave a comment below. I’d love to hear the techniques you use to achieve this.
“Resilience is what happens when we’re able to move forward even when things don’t fit together the way we expect.[OSS project anyone???]
And tolerances are an engineer’s measurement of how well the parts meet spec.
One way to ensure that things work out the way you hope is to spend the time and money to ensure that every part, every form, every worker meets spec. Tighten your spec, increase precision and you’ll discover that systems become more reliable.
The other alternative is to embrace the fact that nothing is ever exactly on spec, and to build resilient systems.
You’ll probably find that while precision feels like the way forward, resilience, the ability to thrive when things go wrong, is a much safer bet.”
Seth Godin here.
Yesterday’s post talked about the difference between having a team of artisans versus a team that paints by numbers. Seth’s blog provides a similar comparison. Instead of comparing by talent, Seth compares by attitude.
I’m really conflicted by Seth’s comparison.
From the side of past experience, resilience is a massive factor in overcoming the many obstacles faced on implementation projects. I’ve yet to work on an OSS project where all challenges were known at inception.
From the side of an ideal future, precision and repeatability are essential factors in improving the triple constraint of OSS delivery and increasing reliability for customers. And whilst talking about the future, the concept of network slicing (which holds the key for 5G) is dependent upon OSS repeatability and efficiency.
So which do we focus on? Building a vastly talented, experienced and resilient implementation team? Or building a highly reliable, repeatable implementation system? Both, most likely.
But what if you only get to choose one? Which do you focus on (for you and your team/system)?
Can you remember how you felt during the initial weeks of your first OSS project?
I can vividly recall how out of my depth I felt on my first OSS project. I was in my 20s and had relocated to a foreign country for the first time. I had a million questions (probably more actually). The challenges seemed immense (they were). I was working with talented and seasoned telco veterans who had led as many as 500 people, but had little OSS experience either. None of us had worked together before. We were all struggling. We were all about to embark on an incredibly steep learning curve, by far the steepest of my career to date.
Now through PAOSS I’m looking to create a new series of free e-books to help those starting out on their own OSS journey.
But this isn’t about my experiences. That would be a perspective limited to just one unique journey in OSS. No, this survey is all about you. I’d love to capture your feelings, experiences, insights and opinions to add much greater depth to the material.
Are you up for it? Are you ready to answer just five one-line questions to help the next generation of OSS experts?
We’ve created a survey below that closes on 23 March 2019. The best 5 responses will win a free copy of my physical book, “Mastering your OSS,” (valued at US$49.97+P/H).
Click on the link below to start the 5 question survey:
“We need more teachers and less bosses.”
The quote from Lee could be bordering on condescending to some people. Hmmm…. Sorry about that.
But let me ask you a couple of questions:
- Of all your years in OSS (or in industry in general), who are the 5 people who have been the most valuable to you (and your customers)?
- Of those 5 people, which of the following three tags would you assign to them:- a) teacher, b) boss, c) implementer
From my experiences and list of top five, I would only classify one as a boss. The other four are dual-tagged as teachers and implementers. That makes me wonder whether they go hand-in-glove? ie is the ability to implement vital to being a good teacher as much as being a good communicator / teacher makes for better implementers.
Based on my list (a tiny sample size I admit), it seems we need four times as many OSS teacher/implementers as we need bosses. 🙂
Another question. Do you aspire to be (or already are) a boss, a teacher or an implementer?
“Most people slog through their days in a dark funk. They almost never get to do anything interesting or go to interesting places or meet interesting people. They are ignored by marketers who want them to buy their overpriced junk and be grateful for it. They feel disrespected, unappreciated and taken for granted. Nobody wants to take the time to listen to their fears, dreams, hopes and needs. And that’s your opening.”
Whilst the quote above may relate to marketing, it also has parallels in the build and run phases of an OSS project. We talked about the trauma of OSS yesterday, where the OSS user feels so much trauma with their current OSS that they’re willing to go through the trauma of an OSS transformation. Clearly, a procurement event must be preceded by a significant trauma!
Sometimes that trauma has its roots in the technical, where the existing OSS just can’t do (or be made to do) the things that are most important to the OSS user. Or it can’t do it reliable, at scale, in time, cost effectively, without significant risk / change. That’s a big factor certainly.
However, the churn trigger appears to more often be a human one. The users feel disrespected, unappreciated and taken for granted. But here’s an interesting point that might surprise some users – the suppliers also often feel disrespected, unappreciated and taken for granted.
I have the privilege of working on both sides of the equation, often even as the intermediary between both sides. Where does the blame lie? Where do the fault-lines originate? The reasons are many and varied of course, but like a marriage breakup, it usually comes down to relationships.
Where the communication method is through hand-grenades being thrown over the fence (eg management by email and by contractual clauses), results are clearly going to follow a deteriorating arc. Yet many OSS relationships structurally start from a position of us and them – the fence is erected – from day one.
Coming from a technical background, it took me far too deep into my career to come to this significant realisation – the importance of relationships, not just the quest for technical perfection. The need to listen to both sides’ fears, dreams, hopes and needs.
“There are some jobs that are only done by accredited professionals.
And then there are most jobs, jobs that some people do for fun, now and then, perhaps in front of the bathroom mirror.
It’s difficult to find your footing when you’re a logo designer, a comedian or a project manager. Because these are gigs that many people think they can do, at least a little bit.”
Seth Godin here.
I’d love to plagiarise the entire post from Seth above, but instead suggest you have a look at the other pearls of wisdom he shares in the link above.
So where does OSS fit in Seth’s thought model? Well, you don’t need an accreditation like a dentist does. Most of the best I’ve met haven’t had any OSS certifications to speak of.
Does the layperson think they can do an OSS role? Most people have never heard of OSS, so I doubt they would believe they could do a role as readily as they could see themselves being logo designers. But the best I’ve met have often come from fields other than telco / IT / network-ops.
One of my earliest OSS projects was for a new carrier in a country that had just deregulated. They were the second fixed-line carrier in this country and tried to poach staff from the incumbent. Few people crossed over. To overcome this lack of experience, the carrier built an OSS team that consisted of a mathematician, an architect, an automotive engineer, a really canny project manager and an assortment of other non-telco professionals.
The executives of that company clearly felt they could develop a team of experts (or just had no choice but to try). The strategy didn’t work out very well for them. It didn’t work out very well for us either. We were constantly trying to bring their team up to speed on the fundamentals in order to use the tools we were developing / delivering (remembering that as one of my first OSS projects, I was still desperately trying to bring myself up to speed – still am for that matter).
As Seth also states, “If you’re doing one of these non-dentist jobs, the best approach is to be extraordinarily good at it. So much better than an amateur that there’s really no room for discussion.” That needs hunger (a hungriness to learn without an accredited syllabus).
It also needs humility though. Even the most extraordinarily good OSS proponents barely scratch the surface of all there is to learn about OSS. It’s the breadth of sub-expertise that probably explains why there is no single accreditation that covers all of OSS.
““Am I being an asshole?” In other words, am I pointing out problems or am I finding solutions?”
One of the things I’ve noticed working on large and small OSS teams is that people who excel at finding solutions thrive in both. The ones who thrive on only identifying problems seemingly only function in large organisations.
In a small team, everyone needs to contribute to the many solutions that need resolving. There’s a clear line of sight to what’s being delivered. I’ve tended to find that the pure problem-finders feel uncomfortable to be the only ones not clearly delivering.
But there’s absolutely a role for identifying problems or for asking the question that completely re-frames the problem. One of the best I’ve seen is a CEO of a publicly listed company. He had virtually no knowledge of OSS, but could listen to half an hour of technical, round-in-circles discussions, then interject with a summary or question that re-framed and simplified the solution. The team then had a clear direction to implement. The CEO didn’t find the solution directly, but he was an instrumental component in the team reaching a solution.
The question to pose though is whether the question asker is being an OSShole or an agent provocateur*.
* BTW, I use this term within the context of being a change agent, someone who contributes to finding a solution, as opposed to the literal sense, which is to incite others into performing illegal acts.
Not sure if you noticed, but AWS posted this job advertisement on LinkedIn a couple of days ago – Business Portfolio Leader – Telecom OSS/BSS Solutions.
The advertisement includes the following text:
“Amazon Web Services (AWS) is leading the next paradigm shift in computing and is looking for a world class candidate to manage an elite portfolio of strategic AWS technology partners focused on the Operation support System (OSS) and Business Support System (BSS) applications within telecommunications segment. Your job will be to use these strategic partners to develop OSS and BSS applications on AWS infrastructure and platform.”
How do you read this advertisement? I have a few different perspectives to pose to you:
I can’t predict AWS’ future success with this initiative, but I’m assuming they’re creating the role because they see a big opportunity that they wish to capture. They have plenty of places they could otherwise invest, so they must believe the opportunity is big (eg the industry of OSS suppliers selling to CSPs is worth multi-billions of dollars and is waiting to be disrupted).
OSS/BSS are typically seen by CSPs as a very expensive (and risky) cost of doing business. I’m certain there’s a business model for any organisation (possibly AWS and its tech partners) that can significantly improve the OSS/BSS delivery costs/risks for CSPs.
The ad identifies CSPs (specifically the term, “major telecom infrastructure providers”) as the target customer. You could pose the concept that the CSPs won’t want to support a competitor in AWS. The CSPs I’m dealing with can’t get close to matching AWS cost structures so are partnering with AWS etc. Not just for private cloud, but also public and hybrid cloud too. The clip-the-ticket / partnership selling model appears to be becoming more common for telcos globally, so the fear-of-competition barrier “seems” to be coming down a little.
The other big challenge facing the role is network and data security. What’s surprised me most are core network services like directory services (used for internal authentication/AAA purposes). I never thought I’d see these outsourced to third-party cloud providers, but have seen the beginnings of it recently. If CSPs consume those, then OSS/BSS must be up for grabs at some CSPs too. For example, I’d imagine that OSS/BSS tools were amongst the 1,000 business apps that Verizon is moving to AWS.
The really interesting future consideration could be the advanced innovation that AWS et al could bring to the OSS space, and in ways that the telcos and OSS suppliers simply can’t. This recent post showed Google’s intent to bring AI to network operations. It could revolutionise the OSS/BSS industry. Not just for CSPs, but for their customers as well (eg their enterprise-grade OSS). Could it even represent another small step towards the OSS Doomsday Scenario posed here?
And just who are the “strategic partners” that AWS is referring to? I assume this old link might give at least one clue.
I’m certainly no Nostradamus, so I’d love to get your opinions on what ramifications this strategic hire will have on the OSS/BSS industry we know today.