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. In yesterday’s article we looked at market-serving factors for us to investigate and monitor.
But let’s look at point 3 today. The profitability factors we could consider that reduce the chances of the big boss getting fired are:
Ability to see revenues in near-real-time (revenues are relatively easy to collect, so we use these numbers a lot. Much harder are profitability measures because of the shared allocation of fixed costs)
Ability to see cost breakdown (particularly which parts of the technical solution are most costly, such as what device types / topologies are failing most often)
Ability to measure profitability by product type, customer, etc
Are there more profitable or cost-effective solutions available
Is there greater profitability that could be unlocked by simplification
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. In yesterday’s article we looked at the broader set of catastrophic failure factors for us to investigate and monitor.
But let’s look at some of the broader examples under point 2 today. The market-serving factors we could consider that reduce the chances of the big boss getting fired are:
Immediate visibility of key metrics by boss and execs (what are the metrics that matter, eg customer numbers, ARPU, churn, regulatory, media hot-buttons, network health, etc)
Response to “voice of customer” (including customer feedback, public perception, etc)
Human resources (incl up-skill for new tech, etc)
Ability to implement quickly / efficiently
Ability to handle change (to network topology, devices/vendors, business products, systems, etc)
Measuring end-to-end user experience, not just “nodal” monitoring
Scalability / Capacity (ability to serve customer demand now and into a foreseeable future)
When I first started the Passionate About OSS site / blog many years ago, I was lucky to get a handful of views per day. It’s grown by many multiples since then, fortunately.
The launch of The Blue Book OSS/BSS Vendor Directory generated some exciting metrics yesterday. The directory alone came within 5 pageviews of the highest count we’ve ever seen on PassionateAboutOSS.com (and PAOSS is up to nearly 2,500 posts now). That total appeared in only a 14-hour window because we didn’t go live with The Directory or metric collection until ~10am local time! The graphs are indicating that we should easily exceed PAOSS’s best ever count today.
If you were one of the many viewers who popped in from all around the world to look at The Directory, thank you! If you have any suggested improvements, we’d love to hear from you as we’re sure to be making many further tweaks in coming days/months.
But the most interesting fact about the launch yesterday was that a job posting appeared on UpWork to scrape all the data we’ve presented. On our very first day!! In fact a gentleman in the US reviewed bids and awarded the UpWork job all within about 14 hours of go-live.
That’s positive news because it means that at least one person must’ve thought the data was useful. 🙂
We’re going to look into assurance models of the past versus the changing assurance demands that are appearing these days. The diagrams below are highly stylised for discussion purposes so they’re unlikely to reflect actual implementations, but we’ll get to that.
Under the old model, the heart of the OSS/BSS was the database (almost exclusively a relational database). It would gather data, via probes/MDDs/collectors, from the network under management (Note: I’ve shown the sources as devices, but they could equally be EMS/NMS). The mediation device drivers (MDDs) would take feeds from the network and homogenise them to be suitable for very precise loading into tables in the relational databases.
This data came in the form of alarms/events, performance counters, syslogs and not much else. It could come in all sorts of common (eg SNMP) or obscure forms / protocols. Some would come via near-real-time notifications, but a lot was polled at cycles such as 5 or 15 mins.
Then the OSS/BSS applications (eg Assurance, Inventory, etc) would consume data from the database and write other data back to the database. There were some automations, such as hard-coded suppression rules, etc.
The automations were rarely closed-loop (ie to actually resolve the assurance challenge). There were also software assistants such as trendlines and threshold alerts to help capacity planners.
There was little overlap into security assurance – occasionally there might have even been a notification of device configuration varying from a golden config or indirect indicators through performance graphs / thresholds.
But so many aspects of the old world have been changing within our networks and IT systems. The active network, the resilience mechanisms, the level of virtualisation, the release management methods, containerisation, microservices, etc. The list goes on and the demands have become more complex, but also far more dynamic.
Let’s start with the data sources this time, because this impacts our choice of data storage mechanism. We still receive data from the active network devices (and EMS/NMS), but we also now source data from other sources. They might be internal sources from IT, security, etc, but could also be external sources like social indicators. The 4 Vs of data between old and new models have fundamentally changed:
Volume – we’re seeing far more data
Variety – the sources are increasing and the structure of data is no longer as homogenised as it once was (in fact unstructured data is now commonplace)
Velocity – we’re receiving incoming data at any number of different velocities, often at far higher frequency than the 15 minute poll cycles of the past
Veracity (or trustworthiness) – our systems of old relied on highly dependable data due to its relational nature and could easily become a data death spiral if data quality deteriorated. Now we accept data with questionable integrity and need to work around it
Again the data storage mechanism is at the heart of the solution. In this case it’s a (probably) unstructured data lake rather than a relational database because of the 4 Vs above. The data that it stores must still be stored in a way that allows cross-referencing to happen with other data sets (ie the role of the indexer), but not as homogenised as a relational database.
The 4 Vs also fundamentally change the way we have to make use of the data. It surpasses our ability to process in a manual or semi-manual way (where semi-manual implies the traditional rules-based automations like suppression, root-cause analysis, etc). We have no choice but to increase dependency on machine-driven tools as automations need to become:
More closed-loop in nature – that is, to not just consolidate and create a ticket, but also to automate the resolution and ticket closure
More abundant – doing even more of the mundane, recurring tasks like auto-sizing resources (particularly virtual environments), restarting services, scheduling services, log clean-up, etc
To be honest, we probably passed the manual/semi-manual tipping point many years ago. In the meantime we’ve done as best we could, eagerly waiting until the machine tools like ML (Machine Learning) and AI (Artificial Intelligence) could catch up and help out. This is still fairly nascent, but AIOps tools are becoming increasingly prevalent.
The exciting thing is that once we start harnessing the potential of these machine tools, our AIOps should allow us to ask far more than just network health questions like past models. They could allow us to ask marketing / cost / capacity / profitability / security questions like:
Where do I urgently need to increase capacity in the network (and can you automatically just make this happen – a more “just in time” provisioning of resources rather than planning months ahead)
Where could I re-position capacity around the network to reduce costs, improve performance, improve customer experience, meet unmet demand
Where should sales/marketing teams focus their efforts to best service unmet demand (could be based on current network or in sequence with network build-out that’s due to become ready-for-service)
Where are the areas of un-met demand compared with our current network footprint
With an available budget of $x, is it best spent on which ratio of maintenance, replacement, expansion and where
How do we better understand profitability vectors in the network compared to just the more crude revenue metrics (note that profitability vectors could include service density, amount of maintenance on the supporting infrastructure, customer interactions, churn, etc on a geographic or similar basis)
Where (and how) can we progressively automate a more intent or policy-driven auto-remediation of the network (if we don’t already have a consistent approach to config management)
What policies can we tweak to get better performance from the network on a more real-time basis (eg tweaking QoS policies based on current traffic in various parts of the network)
Can we look at past maintenance trends to automatically set routine maintenance schedules that are customised by device, region, device type, loads, etc rather than using a one-size-fits-all maintenance schedule
Can I determine, on a real-time basis, what services are using which resources to get a true service impact estimate in a dynamic, packet-switched network environment
What configurations (or misconfigurations) in the network pose security vulnerability threats
If a configuration change is identified, can it be automatically audited and reported on (and perhaps even quarantined) before then being authorised (manually or automatically?)
What anomalies are we seeing that could represent security events
Can we utilise end-to-end constructs such as network services, customer services, product lifecycle, device lifecycle, application performance (as well as the traditional network performance) to enhance context and correlation
And so many more that can’t be as easily accommodated by traditional assurance tools
Seems this post from last week has triggered some really interesting debate – Is your service assurance really service assurance?? (Part 5). It was a post that looked into collecting end-to-end service metrics rather than our traditional method of collecting network device events/metrics and trying to reverse-engineer to form a service-level perspective.
Thought I’d give you an update. I’m thinking along the following lines, but admit that I don’t have it all worked out by any means yet:
We need to concept of span like OpenTelemetry does between microservices (in a way, it’s like nearest-neighbour of where each packet is getting pushed).
Note that for us a span is on a service-by-service basis between nodes, not just a network link-by-link basis between nodes
We need to be able to measure the real-time metrics of the performance of each span as well as any events/faults impacting them
One challenge (one of probably many) is how to avoid flooding the data/management planes. Possibly a telemetry beacon at each node that’s aggregating performance/events of each packet passed for each service?? But what aggregation-window / cache-size to use? Still too impossibly huge to process except with ridiculously low sampling rates??
By chaining the spans we get a real-time, end-to-end trace of services and the performance (and real-time snapshot of service-by-service resource usage in a packet-switched network)
How to efficiently get the beacon data to a centralised logging/management point? Send beacons via management plane? Send via data plane? Take an approach similar to Netflow / IPFIX-style protocols?
How to store data for a short period (ie for real-time analysis/reporting) as well as for long periods. Due to volumes, we’d have to apply aging policies to the data, but it would still be valuable for the purpose of mid and long-term SLA, network health, optimisation, capacity management, etc
As you can see, there are still so many wide-open questions about the feasibility of the concept. But getting feedback from multiple very clever people who read this blog is definitely helping! Thank you!!
I also just stumbled upon OpenTelemetry, an open source project designed to capture traces / metrics / logs from apps / microservices. It intrigued me because just as you have the concept of traces / metrics / logs for apps, you similarly have traces / metrics / logs for networks.
In the network world, we’re good at getting metrics / logs / events, but not very good at getting trace data (ie end-to-end service chains) as described earlier in this blog series. And if we can’t monitor traces, we can’t easily interpret a customer’s experience whilst they’re using their network service. We currently do “service assurance” by reverse-engineering logs / events, which seems a bit backward to me.
Take a closer look at the OpenTelemetry link above, which provides an overview of how their team is going to gather application telemetry. With increasing software-ification of our networks (eg SDN / NFV) and the use of microservices / NaaS / APIs in our management stacks, could this actually be our path to the holy grail of service assurance (ie capturing trace data – network service telemetry)?? Is it data plane? Is it control / management plane? Is it something in between?
Note: The “active measurements” approach described in part 3 is slightly compromised in current form, which is why I’m so intrigued by the potential of extending the concepts of OpenTelemetry into our software / virtual networks.
I’d really love your take on this one because I’m sure there are many elements to this that I haven’t thought through yet. Please leave your thoughts on the viability of the approach.
Interestingly, I also just stumbled upon OpenTelemetry, an open source project designed to capture traces / metrics / logs from apps / microservices. It intrigued me because it introduces the concept of telemetry on spans (not just application nodes). Tomorrow’s article will explore how the concept of spans / traces / metrics / logs for apps might provide insight into the challenge we face getting true end-to-end metrics from our networks (as opposed to the easy to come by nodal metrics).
In the network world, we’re good at getting nodal metrics / logs / events, but not very good at getting trace data (ie end-to-end service chains, or an aggregation of spans in OpenTelemetry nomenclature). And if we can’t monitor traces, we can’t easily interpret a customer’s experience whilst they’re using their network service. We currently do “service assurance” by reverse-engineering nodal logs / events, which seems a bit backward to me.
Table 4 (from the Netrounds white paper link above) provides a view of the most common AI/ML techniques used. Classification and Clustering are useful techniques for alarm / event “optimisation,” (filter, group, correlate and prioritize alarms). That is, to effectively minimise the number of alarms / events a NOC operator needs to look at. In effect, traditional data collection allows AI / ML to remove the noise, but still leaves the problem to be solved manually (ie network assurance, not service assurance)
They’re helping optimise network / resource problems, but not solving the more important service-related problems, as articulated in Table 5 below (again from Netrounds).
If we can directly collect trace data (ie the “active measurements” described in yesterday’s post), we have the data to answer specific questions (which better aligns with our narrow AI technologies of today). To paraphrase questions in the Netrounds white paper, we can ask:
Has the digital service been properly activated.
What service level is currently being experienced by customers (and are SLAs being met)
Is there an outage or degradation of end to end service chains (established over multi-domain, hybrid and multi-layered networks)
Does feedback need to be applied (eg via an orchestration solution) to heal the network
Today we’ll discuss the approach/es to overcome the constraints described in yesterday’s post.
As shown via the inserted blue row in Table 6 below (source: Netrounds), a proposed solution is to use active measurements that reflect the end-to-end user experience.
The blue row only talks about the real-time monitoring of “synthetic user traffic,” in the table below. However, there are at least two other active measurement techniques that I can think of:
We can monitor real user traffic if we use port-mirroring techniques
We can also apply techniques such as TR-069 to collect real-time customer service meta data
Note: There are strengths and weaknesses of each of the three approaches, but we won’t dive into that here. Maybe another time.
You may recall in yesterday’s post that we couldn’t readily ask service-related questions of our traditional systems or data. Excitingly though, active measurement solutions do allow us to ask more customer-centric questions, like those shown in the orange box below. We can start to collect metrics that do relate directly to what the customer is paying for (eg real data throughput rates on a storage backup service). We can start to monitor real SLA metrics, not just proxy / vanity metrics (like device up-time).
Interestingly, I’ve only had the opportunity to use one vendor’s active measurement solutions so far (one synthetic transaction tool and one port-mirror tool). [The vendor is not Netrounds’ I should add. I haven’t seen Netround’s solution yet, just their insightful white paper]. Figure 3 actually does a great job of articulating why the other vendor’s UI (user interface) and APIs are currently lacking.
Whilst they do collect active metrics, the UI doesn’t allow the user to easily ask important service health questions of the data like in the orange box. Instead, the user has to dig around in all the metrics and make their own inferences. Similarly the APIs don’t allow for the identification of events (eg threshold crossing) or automatic push of notifications to external systems.
This leaves a gap in our ability to apply self-healing (automated resolution) and resolution prior to failure (prediction) algorithms like discussed in yesterday’s post. Excitingly, it can collect service-centric data. It just can’t close the loop with it yet!
Below are three insightful tables from the Netrounds white paper:
Table 1 looks at the typical components (systems) that service assurance is comprised of. But more interestingly, it looks at the types of questions / challenges each traditional system is designed to resolve. You’ll have noticed that none of them directly answer any service quality questions (except perhaps inventory systems, which can be prone to having sketchy associations between services and the resources they utilise).
Table 2 takes a more data-centric approach. This becomes important when we look at the big picture here – ensuring reliable and effective delivery of customer services. Infrastructure failures are a fact of life, so improved service assurance models of the future will depend on automated and predictive methods… which rely on algorithms that need data. Again, we notice an absence of service-related data sets here (apart from Inventory again). You can see the constraints of the traditional data collection approach can’t you?
Table 3 instead looks at the goals of an ideal service-centric assurance solution. The traditional systems / data are convenient but clearly don’t align well to those goals. They’re constrained by what has been presented in tables 1 and 2. Even the highly touted panaceas of AI and ML are likely to struggle against those constraints.
What if we instead start with Table 3’s assurance of customer services in mind and work our way back? Or even more precisely, what if we start with an objective of perfect availability and performance of every customer service?
That might imply self-healing (automated resolution) and resolution prior to failure (prediction) as well as resilience. But let’s first give our algorithms (and dare I say it, AI/ML techniques) a better chance of success.
Working back – What must the data look like? What should the systems look like? What questions should these new systems be answering?
I just came across an interesting white paper from the Netrounds team titled, “Reimagining Service Assurance in the Digital Service Provider Era.” You can find a copy here. It’s well worth a read, so much so that I’ll unpack a few of the concepts it contains in a series of articles this week.
It rightly points out that, “Alarms and fault management are what most people think of when hearing the term service assurance. Classical service assurance systems do fall into this category, as they collect indicators from network devices (such as traps, syslog messages and telemetry data) and try to pinpoint faulty devices and interfaces that need fixing.”
This takes us into the rabbit-hole of what exactly is a service (a rabbit-hole that this article partly covers). But let’s put that aside for a moment and consider a service as being an end-to-end “thing” that a customer uses (and pays for, and therefore assumes will behave as “they” expect).
To borrow again from Netrounds, “… we must be able to measure and report on service KPIs in order to accurately measure network service quality from the end user, or customer, perspective. The KPIs should correspond to the service that the customer is paying for. For example, internet access services should measure network KPIs like loss, latency, jitter, and DNS and HTTP response times; a storage backup service should measure data throughput rate; IPTV should measure video frame loss, video buffer underrun events and channel zapping time; and VoIP should measure Mean Opinion Score (MOS).”
There’s just one problem with traditional assurance measuring techniques (eg traps, syslog messages). They are only an indirect proxy for the customer’s experience (and expectations) with the service they’re paying for. Traditional techniques just report on the links in the chain rather than the integrity of the entire length of chain. We have to look at each broken link and attempt to determine whether the chain’s integrity is actually impaired (considering the “meshing” that protects modern service chains). And if there is impairment, to then determine whose chain is impacted, in what way, and what priority needs to be given to its repair.
If we’re being completely honest, the customer doesn’t care about the chain links, or even their MOS score, only that they couldn’t understand what the person at the other end of the VoIP line was trying to communicate with them.
Exacerbating this further, with increasing dependency on cloud and virtualised resources means that there are more chain links that fall outside our domain of visibility.
So, this thing that we’ve called service assurance for the last few decades might actually be a misnomer. We’ve definitely been monitoring the health of network devices and infrastructure (the links), but we tend to only be able to manage services (the chain) through reverse-engineering – by inference, brute force and wizardry.
Is there another way? Let’s dig further in tomorrow’s post.
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.
Over the many OSS implementation projects I’ve worked on, UI/UX (user interface / user experience) has been an afterthought (if even thought about at all). I know there are OSS UI/UX experts out there (I’ve met a handful), but none have ever been assigned to the projects I’ve worked on unfortunately. UI has always just been the domain of the developer. If the functionality worked (even if in a highly convoluted way), then the developer would move on to the next epic. The UI was almost never re-visited unless the functionality proved to be almost unusable.
So the question becomes, how do we observe, measure and trial UI/UX effectiveness?
Have you ever tried running a heat-mapping analysis over your OSS to show actual user behaviour?
Given that almost all OSS are now browser-based, there are plenty of heat-map tools available. They give results that might look something like this (but can also provide more granularity of analysis too):
Whereas these tools are generally used by web developers to improve retention and conversion rates on their pages (ie customers buying, clicking through on a banner ad, calls to action, etc), we’ll use them in a different way within our OSS. We’ll instead be looking for efficiency of movement, an indicator of whether the design of our page is intuitive or not. Are the operators of your OSS clicking in the right places (menus, titles, buttons, links, etc) to achieve certain outcomes?
I’d be particularly interested in comparing heat-maps of new operators (eg if you’ve installed a sand-pit environment at a client site for the first time and let the client’s operators loose) versus experienced teams. Depending on the OSS application you’re analysing, you may even been interested in observing different behaviours across different devices (eg desktops, phones, tablets).
There’s generally a LOT of functionality available within each OSS. Are we optimising the experience for the functionality that matters most? For web-page designers, that might mean ensuring all the most important information is “above-the-fold” (ie can be seen on the page without having to scroll down – noting that the “fold” will be different across different devices/resolutions). If they want a user to click on the “buy now” button, then they *may* want that to appear above the fold, ensuring the prospective buyer doesn’t have to go searching for it.
In the case of an OSS, you don’t want to hide the most important functionality under layers of menus. And don’t forget that different personas (eg designers, admins, execs, help-desk, NOC, etc) are likely to have different definitions of “important functionality.” You may want to optimise important UI elements for each different persona (if your OSS allows for that level of configurability).
I’m not endorsing Smartlook, but if you’d like to read more about heat-mapping techniques, you can start here.
I was speaking with a friend today about an old OSS assurance product that is undergoing a refresh and investment after years of stagnation.
He indicated that it was to come with about 20 out of the box adaptors for data collection. I found that interesting because it was replacing a product that probably had in excess of 100 adaptors. Seemed like a major backward step… until my friend pointed out the types of adaptor in this new product iteration – Splunk, AWS, etc.
Our OSS no longer collect data directly from the network anymore. We have web-scaled processes sucking everything out of the network / EMS, aggregating it and transforming / indexing / storing it. Then, like any other IT application, our OSS just collect what we need from a data set that has already been consolidated and homogenised.
I don’t know why I’d never thought about it like this before (ie building an architecture that doesn’t even consider connecting to the the multitude of network / device / EMS types). In doing so, we lose the direct connection to the source, but we also reduce our integration tax load (directly to the OSS at least).
This is the third part of a series describing a really exciting analysis I’ve just finished.
Part 1 described how we can turn simple log files into a Sankey diagram that shows real-life process flows (not just a theoretical diagram drawn by BAs and SMEs), like below:
Part 2 described how the logs are broken down into a design tree and how we can assign weightings to each branch based on the data stored in the logs, as below:
I’ve already had lots of great feedback in relation to the Part 1 blog, especially from people who’ve had challenges capturing as-is process. The feedback has been greatly appreciated so I’m looking forward to helping them draw up their flow-charts on the way to helping optimise their process flows.
But that’s just the starting point. Today’s post is where things get really exciting (for me at least). Today we build on part 2 and not just record weightings, but use them to assist future decisions.
We can use the decision tree to “predict forward” and help operators / algorithms make optimal decisions whilst working towards process completion. We can use a feedback loop to steer an operator (or application) down the most optimal branches of the tree (and/or avoid the fall-out variants).
This allows us to create a closed-loop, self-optimising, Decision Support System (DSS), as follows:
Using log data alone, we can perform decision optimisation based on “likelihood of success” or “time to complete” as per the weightings table. If supplemented with additional data, the weightings table could also allow decisions to be optimised by “cost to complete” or many other factors.
The model has the potential to be used in “real-time” mode, using the constant stream of process logs to continually refine and adapt. For example:
If the long-term average of a process path is 1 minute, but there’s currently a problem with and that path is failing, then another path (one that is otherwise slightly less optimised over the long-term), could be used until the first path is repaired
An operator happens to choose a new, more optimal path than has ever been identified previously (the delta function in the diagram). It then sets a new benchmark and informs the new approach via the DSS (Darwinian selection)
If you’re wondering how the DSS could be implemented, I can envisage a few ways:
Using existing RPA (Robotic Process Automation) tools [which are particularly relevant if the workflow box in the diagram above crosses multiple different applications (not just a single monolithic OSS/BSS)]
Providing a feedback path into the functionality of the OSS/BSS and it’s GUI
Via notifications (eg email, Slack, etc) to operators
Via a simple, more manual process like flow diagrams, work instructions, scorecards or similar
This visualisation is exciting because it shows how your processes are actually flowing (or not), as opposed to the theoretical process diagrams that are laboriously created by BAs in conjunction with SMEs. It also shows which branches in the flow are actually being utilised and where inefficiencies are appearing (and are therefore optimisation targets).
Some people have wondered how simple activity logs can be used to show the Sankey diagrams. Hopefully the diagram below helps to describe this. You scan the log data looking for variants / patterns of flows and overlay those onto a map of decision states (DPs). In the diagram above, there are only 3 DPs, but 303 different variants (sounds implausible, but there are many variants that do multiple loops through the 3 states and are therefore considered to be a different variant).
The numbers / weightings you see on the Sankey diagram are the number* of instances (of a single flow type) that have transitioned between two DPs / states.
* Note that this is not the same as the count value that appears in the Weightings table. We’ll get to that in tomorrow’s post when we describe how to use the weightings data for decision support.
In your travels, I don’t suppose you’ve ever come across anyone having challenges to capture and/or optimise their as-is OSS/BSS process flows? Once or twice?? 🙂
Well I’ve just completed an analysis that I’m really excited about. It’s something I’ve been thinking about for some time, but have just finished proving on the weekend. I thought it might have relevance to you too. It quickly helps to visualise as-is process and identify areas to optimise.
The method takes activity logs (eg from OSS, ITIL, WFM, SAP or similar) and turns them into a process diagram (a Sankey diagram) like below with real instance volumes. Much better than a theoretical process map designed by BAs and SMEs don’t you think?? And much faster and more accurate too!!
A theoretical process map might just show a sequence of 3 steps, but the diagram above has used actual logs to show what’s really occurring. It highlights governance issues (skipped steps) and inefficiencies (ie the various loops) in the process too. Perfect for process improvement.
But more excitingly, it proves a path towards real-time “predict-forward” decision support without having to get into the complexities of AI. More has been included in the analysis!
If this is of interest to you, let me know and I’ll be happy to walk you through the full analysis. Or if you want to know how your real as-is processes perform, I’d be happy to help turn your logs into visuals like the one above.
PS1. You might think you need a lot of fields to prepare the diagrams above. The good news is the only mandatory fields would be something like:
Flow type – eg Order type, project type or similar (only required if the extract contains multiple flow types mixed together. The diagram above represents just one flow type)
Flow instance identifier – eg Order number, project number or similar (the diagram above was based on data that had around 600,000 flow instances)
Activity identifier – eg Activity name (as per the 3 states in the diagram above), recorded against each flow instance. Note that they will ideally be an enumerated list (ie from a finite pick-list)
Timestamps – Start/end timestamp on each activity instance
If the log contains other details such as the name of the operator who completed each activity, that can help add richness, but not mandatory.
PS2. The main objective of the analysis was to test concepts raised in the following blog posts:
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?
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…
We contrasted this with the mechanisms used in most OSS that actually prevent flow-state from occurring. Today I’m going to dive into the work that goes into creating a new design (to activate a customer), and how our current OSS designs / processes inhibit flow.
“Being switched on at all times and expected to pick things up immediately makes us miserable, says [Cal] Newport. “It mismatches with the social circuits in our brain. It makes us feel bad that someone is waiting for us to reply to them. It makes us anxious.”
Because it is so easy to dash off a quick reply on email, Slack or other messaging apps, we feel guilty for not doing so, and there is an expectation that we will do it. This, says Newport, has greatly increased the number of things on people’s plates. “The average knowledge worker is responsible for more things than they were before email. This makes us frenetic. We should be thinking about how to remove the things on their plate, not giving people more to do…
Going cold turkey on email or Slack will only work if there is an alternative in place. Newport suggests, as many others now do, that physical communication is more effective. But the important thing is to encourage a culture where clear communication is the norm.
Newport is advocating for a more linear approach to workflows. People need to completely stop one task in order to fully transition their thought processes to the next one. However, this is hard when we are constantly seeing emails or being reminded about previous tasks. Some of our thoughts are still on the previous work – an effect called attention residue.”
That resonates completely with me. So let’s consider that and look into the collaboration process of a stylised order activation:
Customer places an order via an order-entry portal
Perform SQ (Service Qualification) and Credit Checks, automated processes
Order is broken into work order activities (automated process)
Designer1 picks up design work order activity from activity list and commences outside plant design (cables, pits, pipes). Her design pack includes:
Updating AutoCAD / GIS drawings to show outside plant (new cable in existing pit/pipe, plus lead-in cable)
Updating OSS to show splicing / patching changes
Creates project BoQ (bill of quantities) in a spreadsheet
Designer2 picks up next work order activity from activity list and commences active network design. His design pack includes:
Allocation of CPE (Customer Premises Equipment) from warehouse
Allocation of IP address from ranges available in IPAM (IP address manager)
Configuration plan for CPE and network edge devices
FieldWorkTeamLeader reviews inside plant and outside plant designs and allocates to FieldWorker1. FieldWorker1 is also issued with a printed design pack and the required materials
FieldWorker1 commences build activities and finds out there’s a problem with the design. It indicates splicing the customer lead-in to fibres 1/2, but they appear to already be in use
So, what does FieldWorker1 do next?
The activity list / queue process has worked reasonably well up until this step in the process. It allowed each person to work autonomously, stay in deep focus and in the sequence of their own choosing. But now, FieldWorker1 needs her issue resolved within only a few minutes or must move on to her next job (and next site). That would mean an additional truck-roll, but also annoying the customer who now has to re-schedule and take an additional day off work to open their house for the installer.
FieldWorker1 now needs to collaborate quickly with Designer1, Designer2 and FieldWorkTeamLeader. But most OSS simply don’t provide the tools to do so. The go-forward decision in our example draws upon information from multiple sources (ie AutoCAD drawing, GIS, spreadsheet, design document, IPAM and the OSS). Not only that, but the print-outs given to the field worker don’t reflect real-time changes in data. Nor do they give any up-stream context that might help her resolve this issue.
So FieldWorker1 contacts the designers directly (and separately) via phone.
Designer1 and Designer2 have to leave deep-think mode to respond urgently to the notification from FieldWorker1 and then take minutes to pull up the data. Designer1 and Designer2 have to contact each other about conflicting data sets. Too much time passes. FieldWorker1 moves to her next job.
Our challenge as OSS designers is to create a collaborative workspace that has real-time access to all data (not just the local context as the issue probably lies in data that’s upstream of what’s shown in the design pack). Our workspace must also provide all participants with the tools to engage visually and aurally – to choreograph head-office and on-site resources into “group flow” to resolve the issue.
Even if such tools existed today, the question I still have is how we ensure our designers aren’t interrupted from their all-important deep-think mode. How do we prevent them from having to drop everything multiple times a day/hour? Perhaps the answer is in an organisational structure – where all designers have to cycle through the Design Support function (eg 1 day in a fortnight), to take support calls from field workers and help them resolve issues. It will give designers a greater appreciation for problems occurring in the field and also help them avoid responding to emails, slack messages, etc when in design mode.