Is service personalisation the answer?

The actions taken by the telecom industry have mostly been around cost cutting, both in terms of opex and capex, and that has not resulted in breaking the curve. Too few activities has been centered around revenue growth, such as focused activities in personalization, customer experience, segmentation, targeted offerings that become part of or drive ecosystems. These activities are essential if you want to break the curve; thus, it is time to gear up for growth… I am very surprised that very few, if any, service providers today collect and analyze data, create dynamic targeted offerings based on real-time insights, and do that per segment or individual.”
Lars Sandstrom
, here.

I have two completely opposite and conflicting perspectives on the pervading wisdom of personalised services (including segmentation of one and targeted offerings) in the telecoms industry.

Telcos tend to be large organisations. If I invest in a large organisation it’s because the business model is simple, repeatable and has a moat (as Warren Buffett likes to say). Personalisation is contra to two of those three mantras – personalisation makes our OSS/BSS far more complicated and hence less repeatable (unless we build in lots of automations, which BTW, are inherently more complex).

I’m more interested in reliable and enduring profitability than just revenue growth (not that I’m discounting the search for revenue growth of course). The complexity of personalisation leads to significant increases in systems costs. As such, you’d want to be really sure that personalisation is going to give an even larger up-tick in revenues (ie ROI). Seems like a big gamble to me.

For my traditional telco services, I don’t want personalised, dynamic offers that I have to evaluate and make decisions on regularly. I want set and forget (mostly). It’s a bit like my electricity – I don’t want to constantly choose between green electricity, blue electricity, red electricity – I just want my appliances to work when I turn on the switch and not have bill shock at the end of the month / quarter. In telco, it’s not just green / blue / red. We seem to want to create the millions of shades of the rainbow, which is a nightmare for OSS/BSS implementers.

I can see the argument however for personalisation in what I’ll call the over-the-top services (let’s include content and apps as well). Telcos tend to be much better suited to building the platforms that support the whole long tail than selecting individual winners (except perhaps supply of popular content like sport broadcasts, etc).

So, if I’m looking for a cool, challenging project or to sell some products or services (you’ll notice that the quote above is on a supplier’s blog BTW), then I’ll definitely recommend personalisation. But if I want my telco customers to be reliably profitable…

Am I taking a short-term view on this? Is personalisation going to be expected by all end-users in future, leaving providers with no choice but to go down this path??

Networks lead. OSS are an afterthought. Time for a change?

In a recent post, we described how changing conditions in networks (eg topologies, technologies, etc) cause us to reconsider our OSS.

Networks always lead and OSS (or any form of network management including EMS/NMS) is always an afterthought. Often a distant afterthought.

But what if we spun this around? What if OSS initiated change in our networks / services? After all, OSS is the platform that operationalises the network. So instead of attempting to cope with a huge variety of network options (which introduces a massive number of variants and in turn, massive complexity, which we’re always struggling with in our OSS), what if we were to define the ways that networks are operationalised?

Let’s assume we want to lead. What has to happen first?

Network vendors tend to lead currently because they’re offering innovation in their networks, but more importantly on the associated services supported over the network. They’re prepared to take the innovation risk knowing that operators are looking to invest in solutions they can offer to their customers (as products / services) for a profit. The modus operandi is for operators to look to network vendors, not OSS vendors / integrators, to help to generate new revenues. It would take a significant perception shift for operators to break this nexus and seek out OSS vendors before network vendors. For a start, OSS vendors have to create a revenue generation story rather than the current tendency towards a cost-out business case.

ONAP provides an interesting new line of thinking though. As you know, it’s an open-source project that represents multiple large network operators banding together to build an innovative new approach to OSS (even if it is being driven by network change – the network virtualisation paradigm shift in particular). With a white-label, software-defined network as a target, we have a small opening. But to turn this into an opportunity, our OSS need to provide innovation in the services being pushed onto the SDN. That innovation has to be in the form of services/products that are readily monetisable by the operators.

Who’s up for this challenge?

As an aside:
If we did take the lead, would our OSS look vastly different to what’s available today? Would they unequivocally need to use the abstract model to cope with the multitude of scenarios?

A purple cow in our OSS paddock

A few years ago, I read a book that had a big impact on the way I thought about OSS and OSS product development. Funnily enough, the book had nothing to do with OSS or product development. It was a book about marketing – a subject that I wasn’t very familiar with at the time, but am now fascinated with.

And the book? Purple Cow by Seth Godin.
Purple Cow

The premise behind the book is that when we go on a trip into the countryside, we notice the first brown or black cows, but after a while we don’t pay attention to them anymore. The novelty has worn off and we filter them out. But if there was a purple cow, that would be remarkable. It would definitely stand out from all the other cows and be talked about. Seth promoted the concept of building something into your products that make them remarkable, worth talking about.

I recently heard an interview with Seth. Despite the book being launched in 2003, apparently he’s still asked on a regular basis whether idea X is a purple cow. His answer is always the same – “I don’t decide whether your idea is a purple cow. The market does.”

That one comment brought a whole new perspective to me. As hard as we might try to build something into our OSS products that create a word-of-mouth buzz, ultimately we don’t decide if it’s a purple cow concept. The market does.

So let me ask you a question. You’ve probably seen plenty of different OSS products over the years (I know I have). How many of them are so remarkable that you want to talk about them with your OSS colleagues, or even have a single feature that’s remarkable enough to discuss?

There are a lot of quite brilliant OSS products out there, but I would still classify almost all of them as brown cows. Brilliant in their own right, but unremarkable for their relative sameness to lots of others.

The two stand-out purple cows for me in recent times have been CROSS’ built-in data quality ranking and Moogsoft’s Incident Room model. But it’s not for me to decide. The market will ultimately decide whether these features are actual purple cows.

I’d love to hear about your most memorable OSS purple cows.

You may also be wondering how to go about developing your own purple OSS cow. Well I start by asking, “What are people complaining about?” or “What are our biggest issues?” That’s where the opportunities lie. Once discovering those issues, the challenge is solving the problem/s in an entirely different, but better, way. I figure that if people care enough to complain about those issues, then they’re sure to talk about any product that solves the problem for them.

I will never understand…

I will never understand why Advertising is an investment and customer service is a cost.
Let’s spend millions trying to reach people, but if they try to reach us, make our contact details impossible to find, incentivise call center workers to hang up as fast as possible or ideally outsource it to a bot. It’s absolute lunacy and it absolutely matters
Tom Goodwin

Couldn’t agree more Tom. In fact, we’ve spoken about this exact irony here on PAOSS a few times before (eg herehere and here).

Telcos call it CVR – Call Volume Reduction (ie reduction in the number of customers’ calls that are responded to by a real person who represents the telco). But what CVR really translates to is, “we’re happy for you to reach us on our terms (ie if you want to buy something from us), but not on your terms (ie you have a problem that needs to be resolved).” Unfortunately, customer service is the exact opposite – it has to be on the customer’s terms, not yours.

Even more unfortunately, many of the problems that need to be resolved are being caused in our OSS / BSS (not always “by” our OSS / BSS, but that’s another story). Worse still, the contact centre has no chance of determining where to start understanding the problem due to the complexity of fall-out management and the complicated data flows through our OSS / BSS.

Bill Gates said, “Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning.”

Let me ask you a question – Do you have a direct line of learning from your unhappy customers to your backlog of OSS / BSS enhancements? Or even an indirect line of learning? Nope?? If so, you’re not alone.

Let me ask you another question – You’re an OSS expert. Do you have any idea what problems your customers are raising with your contact centre staff? Or perhaps that should be problems they’re not getting to raise with contact centre staff due to the “success” of CVR measures? Nope?? If so, you’re not alone here either.

Can you think of a really simple and obvious way to start fixing this?

Re-writing the Sales vs Networks cultural divide

Brand, marketing, pricing and sales were seen as sexy. Networks and IT were the geeks no one seemed to speak to or care about. … This isolation and excommunication of our technical team had created an environment of disillusion. If you wanted something done the answer was mostly ‘No – we have no budget and no time for that’. Our marketing team knew more about loyalty points … than about our own key product, the telecommunications network.”
Olaf Swantee
, from his book, “4G Mobile Revolution”

Great note here (picked up by James Crawshaw at Heavy Reading). It talks about the great divide that always seems to exist between Sales / Marketing and Network / Ops business units.

I’m really excited about the potential for next generation OSS / orchestration / NaaS (Network as a Service) architectures to narrow this divide though.

In this case:

  1. The Network is offered as a microservice (let’s abstractly call them Resource Facing Services [RFS]);
  2. Sales / Marketing construct customer offerings (let’s call them Customer Facing Services [CFS]) from those RFS; and
  3. There’s a catalog / orchestration layer that marries the CFS with the cohesive set of RFS

The third layer becomes a meet-in-the-middle solution where Sales / Marketing comes together with Network / Ops – and where they can discuss what customers want and what the network can provide.

The RFS are suitably abstracted that Sales / Marketing doesn’t need to understand the network and complexity that sits behind the veil. Perhaps it’s time for Networks / Ops to shine, where the RFS can be almost as sexy as CFS (am I falling too far into the networks / geeky side of the divide?  🙂  )

The CFS are infinitely composable from RFS (within the constraints of the RFS that are available), allowing Sales / Marketing teams to build whatever they want and the Network / Ops teams don’t have to be constantly reacting to new customer offerings.

I wonder if this revolution will give Olaf cause to re-write this section of his book in a few years, or whether we’ll still have the same cultural divide despite the exciting new tools.

Does the death of ATM bear comparison with telco-grade open-source OSS?

Hands up if you’re old enough to remember ATM here? And I don’t mean the type of ATM that sits on the side of a building dispensing cash – no I mean Asynchronous Transfer Mode.

For those who aren’t familiar with ATM, a little background. ATM was THE telco-grade packet-switching technology of choice for most carriers globally around the turn of the century. Who knows, there might still be some ATM switches/routers out there in the wild today.

ATM was a powerful beast, with enormous configurability and custom-designed with immense scale in mind. It was created by telco-grade standards bodies with the intent of carrying voice, video, data, whatever, over big data pipes.

With such pedigree, you may be wondering then, how it was beaten out by a technology that was designed to cheaply connect small groups of computers clustered within 100 metres of each other (and a theoretical maximum bandwidth of 10Mbps).

Why does the technology that scaled up to become carrier Ethernet exist in modern telco networks, whereas ATM is largely obsoleted? Others may beg to differ, and there are probably a multitude of factors, but I feel it boils down to operational simplicity. Customers wanted operational simplicity and operators didn’t want to have a degree in ATM just to be able to drive it. By being designed to be all things to all people (carriers), did that make ATM compromised from the start?

Now I’ll state up front that I love the initiative and collaboration being shown by many of the telcos in committing to open-source programs like ONAP. It’s a really exciting time for the industry. It’s a sign that the telcos are wresting control back from the vendors in terms of driving where the collective innovation goes.


Just like with ATM, are the big open source programs just too big and too complicated? Do you need a 100% focus on ONAP to be able to make it work, or even to follow all the moving parts? Are these initiatives trying to be all things to all carriers instead of changing needs to more simplified use cases?

Sometimes the ‘right’ way to do it just doesn’t exist yet, but often it does exist but is very expensive. So, the question is whether the ‘cheap, bad’ solution gets better faster than the ‘expensive, good’ solution gets cheap. In the broader tech industry (as described in the ‘disruption’ concept), generally the cheap product gets good. The way that the PC grew and killed specialized professional hardware vendors like Sun and SGi is a good example. However, in mobile it has tended to be the other way around – the expensive good product gets cheaper faster than the cheap bad product can get good.”
Ben Evans

Is there an Ethernet equivalent in the OSS world, something that’s “cheap, bad” but getting better (and getting customer buy-in) rapidly?

Blown away by one innovation. Now to extend on it

Our most recent two posts, from yesterday and Friday, have talked about one stunningly simple idea that helps to overcome one of OSS‘ biggest challenges – data quality. Those posts have stimulated quite a bit of dialogue and it seems there is some consensus about the cleverness of the idea.

I don’t know if the idea will change the OSS landscape (hopefully), or just continue to be a strong selling point for CROSS Network Intelligence, but it has prompted me to think a little longer about innovating around OSS‘ biggest challenges.

Our standard approach of just adding more coats of process around our problems, or building up layers of incremental improvements isn’t going to solve them any time soon (as indicated in our OSS Call for Innovation). So how?

Firstly, we have to be able to articulate the problems! If we know what they are, perhaps we can then take inspiration from the CROSS innovation to spur us into new ways of thinking?

Our biggest problem is complexity. That has infiltrated almost every aspect of our OSS. There are so many posts about identifying and resolving complexity here on PAOSS that we might skip over that one in this post.

I decided to go back to a very old post that used the Toyota 5-whys approach to identify the real cause of the problems we face in OSS [I probably should update that analysis because I have a whole bunch of additional ideas now, as I’m sure you do too… suggested improvements welcomed BTW].

What do you notice about the root-causes in that 5-whys analysis? Most of the biggest causes aren’t related to system design at all (although there are plenty of problems to fix in that space too!). CROSS has tackled the data quality root-cause, but almost all of the others are human-centric factors – change controls, availability of skilled resources, requirement / objective mis-matches, stakeholder management, etc. Yet, we always seem to see OSS as a technical problem.

How do you fix those people challenges? Ken Segal puts it this way, “When process is king, ideas will never be. It takes only common sense to recognize that the more layers you add to a process, the more watered down the final work will become.” Easier said than done, but a worthy objective!

One sentence to make most OSS experts cringe

Let me warn you. The following sentence is going to make many OSS experts cringe, maybe even feel slightly disgusted, but take the time to read the remainder of the post and ponder how it fits within your specific OSS context/s.

“Our OSS need to help people spend money!”

Notice the word is “help” and not “coerce?” This is not a post about turning our OSS into sales tools, well, not directly anyway.

May I ask you a question – Do you ever spend time thinking about how your OSS is helping your customer’s customer (which I’ll refer to as the end-customer) to spend their money? And I mean making it easier for them to buy the stuff they want to buy in return for some form of value / utility, not trick or coerce them into buying stuff they don’t want.

Let me step you through the layers of thinking here.

The first layer for most OSS experts is their direct customer, which is usually the service provider or enterprise that buys and operates the OSS. We might think they are buying an OSS, but we’re wrong. An organisation buys an OSS, not because it wants an Operational Support System, but because it wants Operational Support.

The second layer is a distinct mindset change for most OSS experts. Following on from the first layer, OSS has the potential to be far more than just operational support. Operational support conjures up the image of being a cost-centre, or something that is a necessary evil of doing business (ie in support of other revenue-raising activities). To remain relevant and justify OSS project budgets, we have to flip the cost-centre mentality and demonstrate a clear connection with revenue chains. The more obvious the connection, the better. Are you wondering how?

That’s where the third layer comes in. We have to think hard about the end-customer and empathise with their experiences. These experiences might be a consumer to a service provider’s (your direct customer) product offerings. It might even be a buying cycle that the service provider’s products facilitate. Either way, we need to simplify their ability to buy.

So let’s work back up through those layers again:
Layer 3 – If end-customers find it easier to buy stuff, then your customer wins more revenue (and brand value)
Layer 2 – If your customer sees that its OSS / BSS has unquestionably influenced revenue increase, then more is invested on OSS projects
Layer 1 – If your customer recognises that your OSS / BSS has undeniably influenced the increased OSS project budget, you too get entrusted with a greater budget to attempt to repeat the increased end-customer buy cycle… but only if you continue to come up with ideas that make it easier for people (end-customers) to spend their money.

At what layer does your thinking stop?

Those who rule perfect data…

A Passionate About OSS article last month spoke of how the investment strategy of a $106 billion VC fund has changed my thinking on our OSS‘ most valuable asset. Masayoshi Son is quoted in that article as follows:

“Those who rule data will rule the entire world. That’s what people of the future will say.”

But one question keeps coming back to me… if you’re ruling poor quality data, will you rule nothing whatsoever?

Along the same lines, the old adage, “practice makes perfect,” is not very helpful if you’re not practicing in a constructive way. A better (albeit somewhat impossible) variant on the adage would be “PERFECT practice makes perfect.”

Let me share an example. There is a product that is completely ground-breaking in its ability to automate and optimise designs of large-scale network roll-outs – designs that include outside plant and access network technologies. In bake-offs with some of the best available network designers, this product and its algorithm consistently beats the humans by far more than 25% (when measured by capital costs, implementation time and various other metrics).

Its one challenge in taking over the world and automating every future network design is having a base set of data that is so perfect that no re-design work is required. For example, if the base data says a duct route is available and has capacity for inserting a cable, then the product assumes it can use the duct in its optimal design. But when the field techs arrive at site, they find the duct is too badly damaged to use or already filled to capacity with other cables that can’t be overhauled. A new optimal design has to be calculated to consider the lack of availability of that duct.

The tool still gives great results, even after all the manual intervention, but perfect source data would give breathtaking results.

So I’d look to make one small tweak to Masayoshi Son’s quote. “Those who rule PERFECT* data will rule the entire world. That’s what people of the future will say.”

* whereby perfect means as high in quality as realistically possible.

So, perhaps those expensive data audits and cumbersome data quality processes will have a far greater ROI (Return on Investment) in future than any of us could ever estimate.

How smart contracts might reduce risk and enhance trust on OSS projects

Last Friday, we spoke about all wanting to develop trusted OSS supplier / customer relationships but rarely finding them and a contrarian factor for why trust is so hard to achieve in OSS – complexity.

Trust is the glue that allows OSS projects to happen. Not only that, it becomes a catch-22 with complexity. If OSS partners don’t trust each other, requirements, contracts, etc get more complex as a self-protection barrier. But with every increase in complexity, there becomes an increasing challenge to deliver and hence, risk of further reduction in trust.

On a smaller scale, you’ve seen it on all projects – if the project starts to falter, increased monitoring attention is placed on the project, which puts increased administrative load on the project team and reduces the time they have to deliver the intended outcomes. Sometimes the increased admin / report gains the attention of sponsors and access to additional resources, but usually it just detracts from the available delivery capability.

Vish Nandlall also associates trust and complexity in organisational models in his LinkedIn post below:

This is one of the reasons I’m excited about what smart contracts can do for the organisations and OSS projects of the future. Just as “Likes” and “Supplier Rankings” have facilitated online trust models, smart contracts success rankings have the ability to do the same for OSS suppliers, large and small. For example, rather than needing to engage “Big Vendor A” to build your entire, monolithic OSS stack, if an operator develops simpler, more modular work breakdowns (eg microservices), then they can engage “Freelancer B” and “Small Vendor C” to make valuable contributions on smaller risk increments. Being lower in complexity and risk means B and C have a greater chance of engendering trust, but their historical contract success ranking forces them to develop trust as a key metric.

An OSS niche market opportunity?

The survey found that 82 percent of service providers conduct less than half of customer transactions digitally, despite the fact that nearly 80 percent of respondents said they are moving forward with business-wide digital transformation programs of varying size and scale. This underscores a large perception gap in understanding, completing and benefiting from digitalization programs.

The study revealed that more than one-third of service providers have completed some aspect of digital transformation, but challenges persist; nearly three-quarters of service providers identify legacy systems and processes, challenges relating to staff and skillsets and business risk as the greatest obstacles to transforming digital services delivery.

Driving a successful digital transformation requires companies to transform myriad business and operational domains, including customer journeys, digital product catalogs, partner management platforms and networks via software-defined networking (SDN) and network functions virtualization (NFV).
Survey from Netcracker and ICT Intuition.

Interesting study from Netcracker and ICT Intuition. To re-iterate with some key numbers and take-aways:

  1. 82% of responding service providers can increase digital transactions by at least 50% (in theory).  Digital transactions tend to be significantly cheaper for service providers than manual transactions. However, some customers will work the omni-channel experience to find the channel that they’re most comfortable dealing with. In many cases, this means attempting to avoid digital experiences. As a side note, any attempts to become 100% digital are likely to require social / behavioural engineering of customers and/or an associated churn rate
  2. Nearly 75% of responding service providers identify legacy systems / processes, skillsets and business risk as biggest challenges. This reads as putting a digital interface onto back-end systems like BSS / OSS tools. This is less of a challenge for newer operators that have been designed with digitalised customer interactions in mind. The other challenge for operators is that the digital front-ends are rarely designed to bolt onto the operators’ existing legacy back-end systems and need significant integration
  3. If an operator want to build a digital transaction regime, they should expect an OSS / BSS transformation too.

To overcome these challenges, I’ve noticed that some operators have been building up separate (often low-cost) brands with digital-native front ends, back ends, processes and skills bases. These brands tend to target the ever-expanding digitally native generations and be seen as the stepping stone to obsoleting legacy solutions (and perhaps even legacy business models?).

I wonder whether this is a market niche for smaller OSS players to target and grow into whilst the big OSS brands chase the bigger-brother operator brands?

We all want to develop trusted OSS partnerships, so why does so much scepticism exist?

Every OSS supplier wants to achieve “trusted” status with their customers. Each supplier wants to be the source trusted to provide the best vision of the future for each customer.

I’m an independent consultant, so I have been lucky enough to represent many organisations on both sides of that equation. And in that position, I’ve been able to get a first-hand view of the perception of trust between OSS vendors / integrators (suppliers) and operators (customers). Let’s just say that in general, we’re working in an industry with more scepticism than trust.

So if trust is so important and such a desired status, where is it breaking down?

Whilst I’d like to assume that most people in our industry go into OSS projects with the very best of intentions, there are definitely some suppliers that try to trick and entrap their customers whilst acting in an untrustworthy way. For the rest of this post, I’m going to assume the best – assume that we all have great intentions. We then look at why the trust relationships might be breaking down and some of the ways we can do better.

Jon Gordon provides a great list of 11 ways to build trust. Check out his link for a more detailed view, but the 11 factors are as follows:

  1. Say what you are going to do and then do what you say!
  2. Communicate, communicate, communicate
  3. Trust is built one day, one interaction at a time, and yet it can be lost in a moment because of one poor decision
  4. Value long term relationships more than short term success
  5. Sell without selling out. Focus more on your core principles and customer loyalty than short term commissions and profits.
  6. Trust generates commitment; commitment fosters teamwork; and teamwork delivers results.
  7. Be honest!
  8. Become a coach. Coach your customers. Coach your team at work
  9. Show people you care about them
  10. Always do the right thing. We trust those who live, walk and work with integrity.
  11. When you don’t do the right thing, admit it. Be transparent, authentic and willing to share your mistakes and faults

They all sound quite obvious don’t they? Do you also notice that many of the 11 (eg communication, transparency, admitting failure, doing what you say, etc) can be really easy to say but harder to do flawlessly under the pressure of complex OSS delivery projects (and ongoing operations)?

I know I certainly can’t claim a perfect track record on all of  these items. Numbers 1 and 2 can be particularly difficult when under extreme delivery pressure, especially when things just aren’t going to plan technically and you’re focussing attention on regaining control of the situation. In those situations, communication and transparency are what the customer needs to maintain confidence, but the customer relationship takes time that also needs to be allocated to overcoming the technical challenges. It becomes a balancing act.

So, how do we position ourselves to make it easier to keep to these 11 best intentions? Simple. By making a concerted effort to reduce complexity… actually not so simple as it sounds, but rewarding if you can achieve it. The less complex your delivery projects (or operational models), the more repeatable and reliable a supplier’s OSS delivery becomes. The more reliable, the less friction and a reduced chance of fracturing relationships. Subsequently, the more chance of building and retaining trust.

Hat-tip to Robert Curran of Aria Networks for spawning a discussion about trust.

Potential OSS failures aren’t always technical

I recently attended an event where a brainstorming question was posed about how a particular next-gen OSS concept might fail. Interesting exercise!

There were a lot of super-clever technical people in the room. The brainstorming of ideas was a fascinating one. We dived deeply into the experiences of many of the technical people in the room and all the potential technical reasons for failure.

But I was left with an overwhelming feeling that:

    1. Most, if not all, of those technical hurdles could be overcome if given enough resources
    2. None of the more likely causes of failure were brought up, including:
      • People-related factors (or organisational change factors) such as resistance to change, a shortage of skills in a nascent area, stakeholder management, lack of “champion” support if momentum slows, inability to reach consensus on scope / design, etc
      • Financial viability factors such as inability to deliver on time/cost/scope, parallel operations and maintenance of legacy, lower additional benefit than predicted in the business case

That’s where I’ve noticed a greater proportion of OSS project failures anyway. Does this align with your experiences?

This one OSS factor can give a sustainable advantage

The business case justifications of OSS tend to fall into four categories:

  • Revenue increase – the operationalisation and monetisation of an operator’s assets
  • Cost reduction – improving the operational efficiency of the operator
  • Insight generation – by leveraging the valuable data that an OSS collects
  • Brand value – this is a catch-all for many different ways an OSS can contribute to (or detract from) an operator’s brand

On the last point, we can break this down into defence (eg reducing outages that may damage the operator’s brand) or on offence (eg faster time to market or activations that give the operator a competitive advantage).

But there’s one other special category that bears consideration – threat minimisation – which probably has elements of each of the four points above. If we take a really macro-view of this, two of the biggest threats facing operators today are disruptive new business models and disruptive new products. Or, you could take the complete opposite perspective on this and see it as opportunity maximisation (if you’re the one to capitalise on the disruptive opportunity first).

An operator’s OSS can have a massive influence on this category. If an operator takes months to force urgent changes through its OSS, then it can’t respond well to a disruptive threat. Similarly, opportunities / arbitrages only have a short window before the market responds, so a lack of OSS flexibility impacts an operator’s ability to maximise opportunity.

Having an OSS with greater agility than competitors can be a more significant, sustainable market advantage than most people in telecommunications realise.

Check out our OSS business case builder for a more detailed breakdown of factors that can help to build a persuasive OSS business case. Or just contact us and we’d be happy to help.

Finding the most important problems to solve

The problem with OSS is that there are too many problems. We don’t have to look too hard to find a problem that needs solving.

An inter-related issue is that we’re (almost always) constrained by resources and aren’t able to solve every problem we find. I have a theory – As much as you are skilled at solving OSS problems, it’s actually your skill at deciding which problem to solve that’s more important.

With continuous release methodologies gaining favour, it’s easy to prioritise on the most urgent or easiest problems to solve. But what if we were to apply the Warren Buffett 20 punch-card approach to tackling OSS problems?

I could improve your ultimate financial welfare by giving you a ticket with only twenty slots in it so that you had twenty punches – representing all the investments that you got to make in a lifetime. And once you’d punched through the card, you couldn’t make any more investments at all. Under those rules, you’d really think carefully about what you did, and you’d be forced to load up on what you’d really thought about. So you’d do so much better.”
Warren Buffett

I’m going through this exact dilemma at the moment – am I so busy giving attention to the obvious problems that I’m not allowing enough time to discover the most important ones? I figure that anyone can see and get caught up in the noise of the obvious problems, but only a rare few can listen through it…

Bringing Eminem’s blank canvas to OSS

“When you start out in your career, you have a blank canvas, so you can paint anywhere that you want because the shit ain’t been painted on yet. And then your second album comes out, and you paint a little more and you paint a little more. By the time you get to your seventh and eighth album you’ve already painted all over it. There’s nowhere else to paint.”
Eminem. (on Rick Rubin and Malcolm Gladwell’s Broken Record podcast)

To each their own. Personally, Eminem’s music has never done it for me, whether his first or eighth album, but the quote above did strike a chord (awful pun).

It takes many, many hours to paint in the detail of an OSS painting. By the time a product has been going for a few years, there’s not much room left on the canvas and the detail of the existing parts of the work is so nuanced that it’s hard to contemplate painting over.

But this doesn’t consider that over the years, OSS have been painted on many different canvases. First there were mainframes, then client-server, relational databases, XaaS, virtualisation (of servers and networks), and a whole continuum in between… not to mention the future possibilities of blockchain, AI, IoT, etc. And that’s not even considering the changes in programming languages along the way. In fact, new canvases are now presenting themselves at a rate that’s hard to keep up with.

The good thing about this is that we have the chance to start over with a blank canvas each time, to create something uniquely suited to that canvas. However, we invariably attempt to bring as much of the old thinking across as possible, immediately leaving little space left to paint something new. Constraints that existed on the old canvas don’t always apply to each new canvas, but we still have a habit of bringing them across anyway.

We don’t always ask enough questions like:

  • Does this existing process still suit the new canvas
  • Can we skip steps
  • Can we obsolete any of the old / unused functionality
  • Are old and new architectures (at all levels) easily transmutable
  • Does the user interface need to be ported or replaced
  • Do we even need a user interface (assuming the rise of machine-to-machine with IoT, etc)
  • Does the old data model have any relevance to the new canvas
  • Do the assurance rules of fixed-network services still apply to virtualised networks
  • Do the fulfillment rules of fixed-network services still apply to virtualised networks
  • Are there too many devices to individually manage or can they be managed as a cohort
  • Does the new model give us access to new data and/or techniques that will allow us to make decisions (or derive insights) differently
  • Does the old billing or revenue model still apply to the new platform
  • Can we increase modularity and abstraction between modules

“The real reason “blockchain” or “AI” may actually change businesses now or in the future, isn’t that the technology can do remarkable things that can’t be done today, it’s that it provides a reason for companies to look at new ways of working, new systems and finally get excited about what can be done when you build around technology.”
Tom Goodwin

50 exercises to ignite your OSS innovation sessions

Every project starts with an idea… an idea that someone is excited enough to sponsor.

  1. But where are your ideas being generated from?
  2. How do they get cultivated and given time to grow?
  3. How do they get pitched? and How do they get heard?
  4. How are sponsors persuaded?
  5. How do they then get implemented?
  6. How do we amplify this cycle of innovation and implementation?

I’m fascinated by these questions in OSS for the reasons outlined in The OSS Call for Innovation.

If we look at the levels of innovation (to be honest, it’s probably more a continuum than bands / levels):

  1. Process Improvement
  2. Incremental Improvement (new integrations, feature enhancement, etc)
  3. Derivative Ideas (iPhone = internet + phone + music player)
  4. Quantum Innovation (Tablet computing, network virtualisation, cloud delivery models)
  5. Radical Innovations (transistors, cellular wireless networks, Claude Shannon’s Information Theory)

We have so many immensely clever people working in our industry and we’re collectively really good at the first two levels. Our typical mode of working – which could generally be considered fire-fighting (or dare I say it, Agile) – doesn’t provide the time and headspace to work on anything in the longer life-cycles of levels 3-5. These are the levels that can be more impactful, but it’s these levels where we need to carve out time specifically for innovation planning.

If you’re ever planning to conduct innovation fire-starter sessions, I really recommend reading Richard Brynteson’s, “50 Activities for Building Innovation.” As the title implies, it provides 50 (simple but powerful) exercises to help groups to generate ideas.

Please contact us if you’d like PAOSS to help facilitate your OSS idea firestarter or road-mapping sessions.

How the investment strategy of a $106 billion VC fund changed my OSS thinking

What is a service provider’s greatest asset?

Now I’m biased when considering the title question, but I believe OSS are the puppet-master of every modern service provider. They’re the systems that pull all of the strings of the organisation. They generate the revenue by operationalising and assuring the networks as well as the services they carry. They coordinate the workforce. They form the real-time sensor networks that collect and provide data, but more importantly, insights to all parts of the business. That, and so much more.

But we’re pitching our OSS all wrong. Let’s consider first how we raise revenue from OSS, be that either internal (via internal sponsors) or external (vendor/integrator selling to customers)? Most revenue is either generated from products (fixed, leased, consumption revenue models) or services (human effort).

This article from just last month ruminated, “An organisation buys an OSS, not because it wants an Operational Support System, but because it wants Operational Support,” but I now believe I was wrong – charting the wrong course in relation to the most valuable element of our OSS.

After researching Masayoshi Son’s Vision Fund, I’m certain we’re selling a fundamentally short-term vision. Yes, OSS are valuable for the operational support they provide, but their greatest value is as vast data collection and processing engines.

“Those who rule data will rule the entire world. That’s what people of the future will say.”
Masayoshi Son.

For those unfamiliar with Masayoshi Son, he’s Japan’s richest man, CEO of SoftBank, in charge of a monster (US$106 billion) venture capital fund called Vision Fund and is seen as one of the world’s greatest technology visionaries.

As this article on Fortune explains Vision Fund’s foundational strategy, “…there’s a slide that outlines the market cap of companies during the Industrial Revolution, including the Pennsylvania Railroad, U.S. Steel, and Standard Oil. The next frontier, he [Son] believes, is the data revolution. As people like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller were able to drastically accelerate innovation by having a very large ownership over the inputs of the Industrial Revolution, it looks like Son is trying to do something similar. The difference being he’s betting on the notion that data is one of the most valuable digital resources of modern day.”

Matt Barnard is CEO of Plenty, one of the companies that Vision Fund has invested in. He had this to say about the pattern of investments by Vision Fund, “I’d say the thing we have in common with his other investments is that they are all part of some of the largest systems on the planet: energy, transportation, the internet and food.”

Telecommunications falls into that category too. SoftBank already owns significant stakes in telecommunications and broadband network providers.

But based on the other investments made by Vision Fund so far, there appears to be less focus on operational data and more focus on customer activity and decision-making data. In particular, unravelling the complexity of customer data in motion.

OSS “own” service provider data, but I wonder whether we’re spending too much time thinking about operational data (and how to feed it into AI engines to get operational insights) and not enough on stitching customer-related insight sets together. That’s where the big value is, but we’re rarely thinking about it or pitching it that way… even though it is perhaps the most valuable asset a service provider has.

I’m predicting the demise of the OSS horse

“What will telcos do about the 30% of workers AI is going to displace?”
Dawn Bushaus

That question, which is the headline of Dawn’s article on TM Forum’s Inform platform, struck me as being quite profound.

As an aside, I’m not interested in the number – the 30% – because I concur with Tom Goodwin’s sentiments on LinkedIn, “There is a lot of nonsense about AI.
Next time someone says “x% of businesses will be using AI by 2020” or “AI will be worth $xxxBn by 2025” or any of those other generic crapspeak comments, know that this means nothing.
AI is a VERY broad area within computer science that includes about 6-8 very different strands of work. It spans robotics, image recognition, machine learning, natural language processing, speech recognition and far more. Nobody agrees on what is and isn’t in this.
This means it covers everything from superintelligence to artificial creativity to chatbots

For the purpose of this article, let’s just say that in 5 years AI will replace a percentage of jobs that we in tech / telco / OSS are currently doing. I know at least a few telcos that have created updated operating plans built around a headcount reduction much greater than the 30% mentioned in Dawn’s article. This is despite the touchpoint explosion and increased complexity that is already beginning to crash down onto us and will continue apace over the next 5 years.

Now, assuming you expect to still be working in 5 years time and are worried that your role might be in the disappearing 30% (or whatever percentage), what do you do now?

First, figure out what the modern equivalents of the horse are in the context of Warren Buffett’s quote below:

“What you really should have done in 1905 or so, when you saw what was going to happen with the auto is you should have gone short horses. There were 20 million horses in 1900 and there’s about 4 million now. So it’s easy to figure out the losers, the loser is the horse. But the winner is the auto overall. [Yet] 2000 companies (carmakers) just about failed.”

It seems impossible to predict how AI (all strands) might disrupt tech / telco / OSS in the next 5 years – and like the auto industry, more impossible to predict the winners (the technologies, the companies, the roles). However, it’s almost definitely easier to predict the losers.

Massive amounts are being invested into automation (by carriers, product vendors and integrators), so if the investments succeed, operational roles are likely to be net losers. OSS are typically built to make operational roles more efficient – but if swathes of operator roles are automated, then does operational support also become a net loser? In its current form, probably yes.

Second, if you are a modern-day horse, ponder which of your skills are transferable into the future (eg chassis building, brakes, steering, etc) and which are not (eg buggy-whip making, horse-manure collecting, horse grooming, etc). Assuming operator-driven OSS activities will diminish, but automation (with or without AI) will increase, can you take your current networks / operations knowledge and combine that with up-skilling in data, software and automation tools?

Even if OSS user interfaces are made redundant by automation and AI, we’ll still need to feed the new technologies with operations-style data, seed their learning algorithms and build new operational processes around them.

The next question is double-edged – for both individuals and telcos alike – how are you up-skilling for a future without horses?

The developer development analogy (to OSS investment)

In a post last week, we quoted Jim Rohn who said, “You can have more – if you become more.” Jim was surely speaking about personal growth, but we equated it to OSS needing to become more too, especially by looking beyond the walls of operations.

Your first thoughts may be, “Ohh, good idea, I’d love to get my hands on some of the CMO’s budget to invest in my OSS because I’ve already allocated all of the OSS budget (to operational imperatives no doubt).”

We all talk about getting more budget to do bigger and better things with our OSS. But apart from small windows during capital allocation cycles, “more budget” is rarely an option. Sooooo, I’d like to run a thought experiment past you today.

Rather than thinking of budget as CAPEX, what if we think of the existing (OPEX) budget as a “draw-down of utilisation” bucket? The question we have to ask is whether we are drawing down on the right stuff. If we’re drawing down to deliver on more operational initiatives, are we effectively pushing towards an asymptote? If we were to draw down to deliver something outside the (operations) box, are we increasing our chances of “becoming more?”

I equate it to “the developer development analogy.” Let’s say a developer is already proficient at 10 programming languages. If he/she allocates their yearly development budget on learning another programming language (number 11), are they really going to become a much better coder? What if instead, they chose to invest in an adjacency like user experience design or leadership or entrepreneurship, etc? Is that more likely to trigger a leap-frogging S-curve rather than asymptotic result from their investment?

And, if we become more (ie our OSS is delivering more value outside the ops box), we can have more (ie investment coming in from benefiting business units). It’s tied to the law of reciprocity (which hopefully exists in your organisation rather than the law of scavenging other people’s cash).

This is clearly a contrarian and idealistic concept, so I’d love to hear whether you think it could be workable in your organisation.