The colour palette analogy of OSS

Let’s say you act for a service provider and the diagram below represents the number of variations you could offer to customers – the number that are technically supported by your solution.
13,824,000 Colours
That’s 13,824,000 colours.

By comparison, the following diagram contains just 20 colours:
20 Colours

If I asked you what colours are in the upper diagram, would you say red, orange, yellow, green, blue, etc? Is it roughly the same response as to the lower diagram?

If you’re the customer, and know you want an “orange*” product, will you be able to easily identify between the many thousands of different orange hues available in the upper diagram? Would you be disenfranchised if you were only offered the two orange hues in the lower diagram instead of thousands? Or might you even be relieved to have a much easier decision to make?

The analogy here to OSS is that just because our solutions can support millions of variants, doesn’t mean we should. If our OSS try to offer millions of variants, it means we have to design, then build, then test, then post-sale support millions of variants.

However, in reality, we can’t provide 100% coverage across so many variants – we aren’t able to sufficiently design, then build, then test, then post-sale support every one of the millions of variants. We end up overlooking some or accept risk on some or estimate a test spread that bypasses others. We’ve effectively opened the door to fall-outs.

And it’s fall-outs that tend to create larger customer dissatisfaction metrics than limited colour palettes.

Just curious – if you’ve delivered OSS into large service providers, have you ever seen evidence of palette analysis (ie variant reduction analysis) across domains (ie products, marketing, networks, digital, IT, field-work, etc)?

Alternatively, have you ever pushed back on decisions made upstream to say you’ll only support a smaller sub-set of options? This doesn’t seem to happen very often.

* When I’m talking about colours, I’m using the term figuratively, not necessarily the hues on a particular handset being sold through a service provider.

The PAOSS Call for Innovation has been released

I’ve been promising to release an OSS Call for Innovation, a manifesto of what OSS can become – a manifesto that also describes areas where exponential improvements are just waiting to happen .

It can be found here:
And you’ll also notice that it’s a new top-level menu item here on PAOSS.

Each time I’ve released one of these vision-statement style reports in the past, I’ve been pleasantly surprised to find that some of the visions are already being worked on by someone in the industry.

Are there any visions that I’ve overlooked? I’d love to see your comments on the page and spread the word on all the amazing innovations that you’re working on and/or dreaming about.

Who can make your OSS dance?

OSS tend to be powerful software suites that can do millions of things. Experts at the vendors / integrators know how to pull the puppet’s strings and make it dance. As a reader of PAOSS, chances are that you are one of those experts. I’ve sat through countless vendor demonstrations, but I’m sure you’ll still be able to wow me with a demo of what your OSS can do.

Unfortunately, most OSS users don’t have that level of expertise, nor experiences or training, to pull all of your OSS‘s strings. Most only use the tiniest sub-set of functionality.

If we look at the millions of features of your OSS in a decision tree format, how easy will it be for the regular user to find a single leaf on your million-leaf tree? To increase complexity further, OSS workflows actually require the user group to hop from one leaf, to another, to another. Perhaps it’s not even as conceptually simple as a tree structure, but a complex inter-meshing of leaves. That’s a lot of puppet-strings to know and control.

A question for you – You can make your OSS dance, but can your customers / users?

What can you do to assist users to navigate the decision tree? A few thoughts below:

  1. Prune the decision tree – chances are that many of the branches of your OSS are never / rarely used, so why are they there?
  2. Natural language search – a UI that allows users to just ask questions. The tool interprets those questions and navigates the tree by itself (ie it abstracts the decision tree from the user, so they never need to learn how to navigate it)
  3. Use decision support – machine assistance to guide users in navigating efficiently through the decision tree
  4. Restrict access to essential branches – design the GUI to ensure a given persona can only see the clusters of options they will use (eg via the use of role-based functionality filtering)

I’d love to hear your additional thoughts how to make it easier for users to make your  (their) OSS dance.

Think war!

Think war. Extreme times call for extreme measures. When your ideas are facing life or death, that’s an extreme time. Like a soldier in battle, you can’t even afford to suffer a single hit – so make sure you hit first. Pull out all stops. Remember, when your idea’s life is on the line, the last thing you want is a fair fight. Use every available weapon. If possible, grab the unfair advantage. And never forget what might well be your most effective weapon: the passion you feel for your idea.
Ken Segall
in his book, “Insanely Simple.”

I’m normally involved in OSS projects as a delivery or strategy resource rather than the instigator of the project. However, the quote above represents one of the key messages I suggest to customers during the early days of a project, especially on significant OSS transformation or implementation projects.

Plan to bring (and sustain) all the firepower you can to the change effort. Don’t just scramble for air support if you’re losing the change battle.

Expect there to be many obstacles to arise that are outside the level of influence the delivery teams can exert. What are your unfair advantages?

My least successful project

Many years ago I worked on a three-way project with 1) a customer, 2) a well-known equipment vendor and 3) a service provider (my client). Time-frames were particularly tight, not so much because of the technical challenge, but because of the bureaucratic processes of the customer and the service provider. The project was worth well in excess of $100M, so it was a decent-sized project as part of a $1B+ program.

The customer had handed the responsibility of building a project schedule to the equipment vendor and I, which we duly performed. The Gantt chart was quite comprehensive, running into thousands of lines of activities and had many dependencies where actions by the customer were essential. These were standard dependencies such as access to their data centres, uplift to infrastructure, firewall burns, design approvals, and the list goes on. The customer had also just embarked on a whole-of-company switch of project management frameworks, so it wasn’t hard to see that related delays were likely.

The vendor and I met with the customer to walk through the project plan. About half-way in, the customer asked the vendor whether they were confident that timelines could be met. The vendor was happy to say yes. I was asked the same question. My response was that I was comfortable with the vendor’s part, I was comfortable with our part (ie the service provider’s), but that the customer’s dependencies were a risk because we’d had push-back from their Project Manager and each of the internal business units that we knew were impacted (not to mention the other ones that were likely to be impacted but we had no visibility of yet).

That didn’t go down well. I copped by far the biggest smashing of my career to date. The customer didn’t want to acknowledge that they had any involvement in the project – despite the fact that they were to approve it, house it, host it, use it and maintain aspects of it. It seemed like common sense that they would need to get involved.

Over the last couple of decades of delivery projects, one trend has been particularly clear – the customer gets back what they put in. That project had at least twelve PMs on the customer side over the 18 month duration of the project. It moved forward during stints under the PMs who got involved in internal solutioning, but stagnated during periods under PMs that just blame-stormed. Despite this, we ended up delivering, but the user outcomes weren’t great.

As my least successful project to date (hopefully ever), it was also one of my biggest “learnings” projects. For a start, it emphasised that I needed to get better at hearts and minds change management. There were many areas where better persuasion was required – from the timelines / dependencies to the compromised architecture / hardware that was thrust upon us by the customer’s architects. What seemed obvious to me was clearly not so obvious to the customer stakeholders I was trying to persuade.

Warring tribes and the five paper ball technique

The following extract from Ken Segall’s book, “Insanely Simple,” provides a great story on persuasion:
At one agency meeting with Steve Jobs, we were reviewing the content of a proposed iMac commercial when a debate arose about how much we should say in the commercial. The creative team was arguing that it would work best if the entire spot was devoted to describing the one key feature of this particular iMac. Steve, however, had it in his head that there were four or five really important things to say. It seemed to him that all of those copy points would fit comfortably in a thirty-second spot.
After debating the issue for a few minutes, it didn’t look like Steve was going to budge. That’s when a little voice started to make itself heard inside the head of Lee Clow, leader of the Chiat team. He decided this would be a good time to give Steve a live demonstration.
Lee tore five sheets of paper off of his notepad (yes, notepad—Lee was laptop-resistant at the time) and crumpled them into five balls. Once the crumpling was complete, he started his performance.
“Here, Steve, catch,” said Lee, as he tossed a single ball of paper across the table. Steve caught it, no problem, and tossed it back.
“That’s a good ad,” said Lee.
“Now catch this,” he said, as he threw all five paper balls in Steve’s direction. Steve didn’t catch a single one, and they bounced onto the table and floor.
“That’s a bad ad,” said Lee.
I hadn’t seen that one before, so I rather enjoyed it. And it was pretty convincing proof: The more things you ask people to focus on, the fewer they’ll remember. Lee’s argument was that if we want to give people a good reason to check out an iMac, we should pick the most compelling feature and present it in the most compelling way

For most people in our industry, initiating OSS change is all about designing a technical solution that can fulfill a list of requirements. This may be effective in some situations, but in large carrier environments the bigger challenge is almost always in getting the many stakeholders contributing towards a common goal. If the project is big enough, multiple different business units will be involved and/or impacted. Each will tend to have their own objectives / metrics – and they’re often metrics that are misaligned or even in conflict – what common goal?

In the all-too-common “warring tribe” situation, persuasion techniques become essential. A great place to start is by creating an inspiring vision, much like John F Kennedy established when in 1961, he exhorted America to put a man on the moon before the decade was out.

There are many persuasion techniques, but I put them into two categories:

  • What you’re going to add
  • What you’re going to take away

I’m sure you want to go deeper, so Kellerman and Cole’s 64 Compliance-gaining Strategies give some great persuasive food for thought. Different strategies will work better/worse with different stakeholders of course, .

But to loop back to Ken Segall again, if you’re responsible for a significant change that crosses multiple domains and multiple stakeholders / influencers, you may choose to start with a vision based around the “most compelling feature and present it in the most compelling way.”

How many of you are wondering whether you could use the five paper ball technique to persuade in your next OSS stakeholder group when complexity is running rampant?

Deciding whether to PoC or to doc

As recently discussed with two friends and colleagues, Raman and Darko, Proofs of Concept (PoC) or Minimum Viable Product (MVP) implementations can be a double-edged sword.

By building something without fully knowing the end-game, you are potentially building tech-debt that may be very difficult to work around without massive (or complete) overhaul of what you’ve built.

The alternative is to go through a process of discovery to build a detailed document showing what you think the end product might look like.

I’m all for leaving important documentation behind for those who come after us, for those who maintain the solutions we create or for those who build upon our solutions. But you’ll notice the past-tense in the sentence above.

There are pros and cons with each approach, but I tend to believe in documentation in the “as-built” sense. However, there is a definite need for some up-front diagrams/docs too (eg inspiring vision statements, use cases, architecture diagrams, GUI/UX designs, etc).

The two biggest reasons I find for conducting PoCs are:

  • Your PoC delivers something tangible, something that stakeholders far and wide can interact with to test assumptions, usefulness, usability, boundary cases, etc. The creation of a doc can devolve into an almost endless set of “what-if” scenarios and opinions, especially when there are large groups of (sometimes militant) stakeholders
  • You’ve already built something – your PoC establishes the momentum that is oh-so-vital on OSS projects. Even if you incur tech-debt, or completely overhaul what you’ve worked on, you’re still further into the delivery cycle than if you spend months documenting. Often OSS change management can be a bigger obstacle than the technical challenge and momentum is one of change management’s strongest tools

I’m all for deep, reflective thinking but that can happen during the PoC process too. To paraphrase John Kennedy, “Don’t think, don’t hope, (don’t document), DO!” 🙂

This is the best OSS book I’ve ever read

This post is about the most inspiring OSS book I’ve ever read, and yet it doesn’t contain a single word that is directly about OSS (so clearly I’m not spruiking my own OSS-centric book here 😉 ).
It’s a book that outlines the resolutions to so many of the challenges being faced by traditional communications service providers (CSPs) as well as the challenges faced by their OSS.

It resonates strongly with me because it reflects so many of my beliefs, but articulates them brilliantly through experiences from some of the most iconic organisations of our times – through their successes and failures.

And the title?

Insanely Simple: The Obsession That Drives Apple’s Success.
Book by Ken Segall.
Insanely Simple

OSS is downstream of so many Complexity choices that this book needs to be read far beyond the boundaries of OSS. Having said that, we’re incredibly good at adding so many of our own layers of complexity.

Upcoming blogs here on PAOSS will surely share some of its words of wisdom.

One unasked last question for OSS business cases

OSS business case evaluators routinely ask many questions that relate to key metrics like return on investment, capital to be outlaid, expected returns, return on investment, and more of the same circular financial questions. 🙂

They do also ask a few technical questions to decide risk – of doing the project or not doing the project. Timeframes and resources come into play, but again tend to land back on the same financial metric(s). Occasionally they’ll ask how the project will impact the precious NPS (Net Promoter Score), which we all know is a simple estimate to calculate (ie pluck out of thin air).

As you can tell, I’m being a little tongue-in-cheek here so far.

One incredibly important question that I’ve never heard asked, but is usually relatively easy to determine is, “Will this change make future upgrades harder?

The answer to this question will determine whether the project will have a snowballing effect on the TCO (total cost of ownership – yes, another financial metric that actually isn’t ROI) of the OSS. Any customisation to off-the-shelf tools will invariably add to the complexity of performing future upgrades. If customisations feed data to additional customisations, then there is a layer multiple to add to the snowball effect.

Throw in enough multi-layered (meshed?) customisations and otherwise routine upgrades start to become massive undertakings. If upgrades are taking months of planning, then your OSS clearly no longer facilitates the level of flexibility that is essential for modern service providers.

The burden of tech-debt insidiously finds its way into OSS stacks, so when evaluating change, don’t forget that one additional question, “Will this change make future upgrades harder?

The mafia… Pressure? What pressure?

OSS delivery teams can be quite tense environments to work within can’t they? Deadlines, urgency, being in the customer’s line of sight and did I mention deadlines? [As an aside, I’m not sure which type of deadline is more stressful, the ongoing drain of fortnightly releases under Agile, or the chaos of a big-bang release that is preceded by lengthier periods of relative calm.]

When it comes to dealing with stress, I see two ends of a continuum:

  • The teflon end – get it off me, get it off me – the people who, when under stress, push stress onto everyone else and make the whole team more stressed
  • The sponge end – the people who are able to absorb the pressure around them and exude a calm that reduces stress contagion

I can completely understand those who fall at the teflon end, but I can’t admire them or aspire to work with them. I’m sure most would feel the same way. They let urgency overwhelm logic.

This reminds me of a project where the mafia were tightly entwined into a customer’s project team and they were constantly wrangling scope, approvals and payments to ensure “the organisation” profited. They were particularly “active” around delivery time.

A biggest of big-bang deliveries required me to stand in front of a large customer contingent for three days straight to demonstrate functionality and get grilled about processes, tools and data sets. At the end of the third day, we’d scheduled the demonstration of some brand new functionality.

It was a module that had been sold to the customer before even being conceptually architected let alone built. [You know the story – every requirement on an RFP must be responded to with a “Complies” even if it doesn’t]. My client (the vendor) was almost ready to back away from this many-million dollar contract due to the complexity and time estimated to build the entirely new module from scratch. I stepped in and proposed a solution that stitched together four existing tools, some glue and only a few weeks of effort… but we’d never even had it working in the lab before entering into the demo.

At first pass, the demo failed. Being at the end of the three-day demo (and the hectic weeks leading up to it), my brain was fried. The customer agreed to take a short break while we investigated what went wrong. We were struggling to find a resolution, so I was proposing to delay demonstration of the new tool until the following day.

Luckily for me, the most junior member of our team sat in the background plugging away, trialling different fixes. He tapped me on the shoulder and told me that he thought he’d resolved the problem.

We regathered the customer’s team and presented the new module. We waited for the customer’s lead to push an unknown configuration into the network and waited for him to check whether our new tool had responded correctly. It did and the customer was ecstatic.

We’d been saved by a very clever young man with an ability to absorb pressure like a sponge. I couldn’t thank him enough.

If you can’t repeat it, you can’t improve it

The cloud model (ie hosted by a trusted partner) becomes attractive from the perspective of repeatability, from the efficiency of doing the same thing repeatedly at scale.”
From, “I want a business outcome, not a deployment challenge.”

OSS struggles when it comes to repeatability. Often within an organisation, but almost always when comparing between organisations. That’s why there’s so much fragmentation, which in turn is holding the industry back because there is so much duplicated effort and brain-power spread across all the multitude of vendors in the market.

I’ve worked on many OSS projects, but none have even closely resembled each other, even back in the days when I regularly helped the same vendors deliver to different clients. That works well for my desire to have constant mental stimulation, but doesn’t build a very efficient business model for the industry.

Closed loop architectures are the way of the future for OSS, but only if we can make our solutions repeatable, measurable / comparable and hence, refinable (ie improvable). If we can’t then we may as well forget about AI. After all, AI requires lots of comparable data.

I’ve worked with service providers that have prided themselves on building bespoke solutions for every customer. I’m all for making every customer feel unique and having their exact needs met, but this can still be accommodated through repeatable building blocks with custom tweaks around the edges. Then there are the providers that have so many variants that you might as well be designing / building / testing an OSS for completely bespoke solutions.

You could even look at it this way – If you can’t implement a repeatable process / solution, then measure it, then compare it and then refine it, then you can’t create a customer offering that is improving.

Omnichannel will remain disjointed until…

Omnichannel is intended to be a strategy that provides customers with a seamless, consistent experience across all of their contact channels – channels that include online/digital, IVR, contact centre, mobile app, retail store, B2B portal, etc.

The challenge of delivering consistency across these platforms is that there is little cross-over between the organisations that deliver these tools. Each is a fragmented market in its own right and the only time interaction happens (in my experience at least) is on an as-needed basis for a given project.

Two keys to delivering seamless customer experience are the ability to identify unique customers and the ability to track their journeys through different channels. The problem is that some of these channels aren’t designed to uniquely identify and if they can, aren’t consistent with other products in their linking-key strategies.

A related problem is that user journeys won’t follow a single step-by-step sequence through the channels. So rather than process flows, user journeys need to be tracked as state transitions through their various life-cycles.

OSS/BSS are ideally situated to manage linking keys across channels (if the channels can provide the data) as well as handling state-transition user journeys.

Omnichannel represents a significant opportunity, in part because there are two layers of buyers for such technology. The first is the service provider that wants to provide their customer with a truly omnichannel experience. The second is to provide omnichannel infrastructure to the service providers’ customers, customers that are in business and want to offer consistent omnichannel experiences for their end-customers.

Who is going to be the first to connect the various channel products / integrators together?

In desperate search of OSS flow

Flow, also known as the zone, is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one’s sense of space and time.”

It’s almost definitely no coincidence that a majority of the achievements I’m most proud of within the context of OSS have been originated outside business hours. I strongly believe it all comes down to flow. In a day that is punctuated by meeting after meeting, there is no flow, no ability to get into deep focus. In the world of transaction-based doing, there is rarely the opportunity to generate flow.

Every OSS project I’ve worked on has been in desperate need of innovation. That’s not a criticism, but a statement of the whole industry having so many areas in which improvement is possible. But on your current and/or past projects, how many have fostered an environment where deep focus was possible for you or your colleagues? Where have your greatest achievements been spawned from?

Jason Fried of Basecamp and 37signals fame is an advocate of building an environment where flow can happen and starts with manager and meeting minimisation. The best managers I’ve worked with have been great at facilitating flow for their teams and buffered them from the M&M noise.

How can we all build an OSS environment where the thinkers get more time to think… about improving every facet of ideating, creating, building and implementing?

Use cases for architectural smoke-tests

I often leverage use-case design and touch-point mapping through the stack to ensure that all of the use-cases can be turned into user-journeys, process journeys and data journeys. This process can pick up the high-level flows, but more importantly, the high-level gaps in your theoretical stack.”

Yesterday’s blog discussed the use of use cases to test a new OSS architecture. TM Forum’s eTOM is the go-to model for process mapping for OSS / BSS. Their process maps define multi-level standards (in terms of granularity of process mapping) to promote a level of process repeatability across the industry. Their clickable model allows you to drill down through the layers of interest to you (note that this is available for members only though).

In terms of quick smoke-testing an OSS stack though, I tend to use a simpler list of use cases for an 80/20 coverage:

  • Service qualification (SQ)
  • Adding new customers
  • New customer orders (order handling)
  • Changes to orders (adds / moves / changes / deletes / suspends / resumes)
  • Logging an incident
  • Running a report
  • Creating a new product (for sale to customers)
  • Tracking network health (which may include tracking of faults, performance, traffic engineering, QoS analysis, etc)
  • Performing network intelligence (viewing inventory, capacity, tracing paths, sites, etc)
  • Performing service intelligence (viewing service health, utilised resources, SLA threshold analysis, etc)
  • Extracting configurations (eg network, device, product, customer or service configs)
  • Tracking customer interactions (and all internal / external events that may impact customer experience such as site visits, bills, etc)
  • Running reports (of all sorts)
  • Data imports
  • Data exports
  • Performing an enquiry (by a customer, for the purpose of sales, service health, parameters, etc)
  • Bill creation

There are many more that may be required depending on what your OSS stack needs to deliver, but hopefully this is a starting point to help your own smoke tests.

Use-case driven OSS architecture

When it comes to designing a multi-vendor (sometimes also referred to as best-of-breed) OSS architecture stack, there is never a truer saying than, “the devil is in the detail.”

Oftentimes, it’s just not feasible to design every interface / integration / data-flow traversing a theoretical OSS stack (eg pre-contract award, whilst building a business case, etc). That level of detail is developed during detailed design or perhaps tech-spikes in the Agile world.

In this interim state, I often leverage use-case design and touch-point mapping through the stack to ensure that all of the use-cases can be turned into user-journeys, process journeys and data journeys. This process can pick up the high-level flows, but more importantly, the high-level gaps in your theoretical stack.

A new, more sophisticated closed-loop OSS model

Back in early 2014, PAOSS posted an article about the importance of closed loop designs in OSS, which included the picture below:

OSS / DSS feedback loop

It generated quite a bit of discussion at the time and led me to being introduced to two companies that were separately doing some interesting aspects of this theoretical closed loop system. [Interestingly, whilst being global companies, they both had strong roots tying back to my home town of Melbourne, Australia.]

More recently, Brian Levy of TM Forum has published a more sophisticated closed-loop system, in the form of a Knowledge Defined Network (KDN), as seen in the diagram below:
Brian Levy Closed Loop OSS
I like that this control-loop utilises relatively nascent technologies like intent networking and the constantly improving machine-learning capabilities (as well as analytics for delta detection) to form a future OSS / KDN model.

The one thing I’d add is the concept of inputs (in the form of use cases such as service orders or new product types) as well as outputs / outcomes such as service activations for customers and not just the steady-state operations of a self-regulating network. Brian Levy’s loop is arguably more dependent on the availability and accuracy of data, so it needs to be initially seeded with inputs (and processing of workflows).

Current-day OSS are too complex and variable (ie un-repeatable), so perhaps this represents an architectural path towards a simpler future OSS – in terms of human interaction at least – although the technology required to underpin it will be very sophisticated. The sophistication will be palatable if we can deliver the all-important repeatability described in, “I want a business outcome, not a deployment challenge.” BTW. This refers to repeatability / reusability across organisations, not just being able to repeatedly run workflows within organisations.

I want a business outcome, not a deployment challenge

We can look and take lessons on how services evolved in the cloud space. Our customers have expressed how they want to take these services and want a business outcome, not a deployment challenge.”
Shawn Hakl

Make no mistake, cloud OSS is still a deployment challenge (at this nascent stage at least), but in the context of OSS, Shawn Hakl’s quote asks the question, “who carries the burden of that deployment challenge?”

The big service providers have traditionally opted to take on the deployment challenge, almost wearing it as a badge of honour. I get it, because if done well, OSS can be a competitive differentiator.

The cloud model (ie hosted by a trusted partner) becomes attractive from the perspective of repeatability, from the efficiency of doing the same thing repeatedly at scale. Unfortunately this breaks down in a couple of ways for OSS (currently at least).

Firstly, the term “trusted partner” is a rare commodity between OSS providers and consumers for many different reasons (including trust from a security perspective, which is the most common pushback against using hosted OSS). Secondly, we haven’t unlocked the repeatability problem. Every organisation has different networks, different services, different processes, even different business models.

Cloud-hosted OSS represents a big opportunity into the future if we first focus on identification of the base ingredients of repeatability amongst all the disparity. Catalogs (eg service catalogs, product catalogs, virtual network device catalogs) are the closest we have so far. Intent abstraction models follow this theme too, as does platform-thinking / APIs. Where else?

Be afraid, be very afraid

Just because you’re afraid of doing something doesn’t give you a permission slip to not do it.”
Debbie Millman

There’s a lot of fear in OSS. So many things can go wrong (the OctopOSS theory), so much incompetence is created, so many nearly insurmountable integration challenges await and their complexity means that there is no perfect plan going into a project.

They do require a leap of faith, a confidence in your team to work your way through all the challenges and a commitment from senior stakeholders to help drive change through (with compassion for those whose working life is about to be impacted of course). They also need an eye for simplification, like the Mechanical Turk model.

Oh, and I’d like you to have a think about how the momentum spiral or corkscrew model might help you to get from afraid to delivered.

When in doubt, connect

When in doubt, connect.
That’s what fast-growing, important organizations do.
Making stuff is great.
Making connections is even better
Seth Godin
in his post here.

Simple words. Simple concept. Interesting message…. with a traffic-light of OSS layers.

Layer 1 – A connection red light
The more connections an OSS has, the more enriched the data tends to become. However, by contrast the more interconnected an OSS gets, the more inflexible and difficult it gets to maintain. The chess-board analogy and the handshake analogy attest to the challenges associated to a highly connected OSS. In this case, when in doubt, don’t connect.

Layer 2 – A connection orange light
Five of the top seven companies (by market cap) in the world are tech companies (1. Apple, 2. Alphabet (Google), 3. Microsoft, 6. Amazon, 7. Facebook). They have become valuable through the power of connection. China Telecom represents one of the original connectors, the telecommunications carriers, and just makes it into the top 10 whilst Verizon and AT&T are both worth over $250B too. Our OSS allow these connections to be made – but they’re making a connection “for” the customer rather than making a connection “with” the customer. Until brand-OSS starts making a connection with the customers, we’ll never be fast growing like the tech titans. When in doubt, connect at a deeper level.

Layer 3 – A connection green light
Tripods or Linchpins are the most valuable of OSS resources because of their ability to connect (ideas, people, products, workflows, contracts, etc). They are the pinnacle of OSS implementers because their breadth of connections allows them to interconnect the most complex of OSS jigsaws. If you want to become an OSS tripod, then Seth’s lead is a great one to follow – When in doubt, connect.

The trickle-down effect

There’s an interesting thing with off-the-shelf OSS solutions that are subsequently highly customised by the buyer. I call it the trickle-down effect.

By nature, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions tend to be designed to cope with as many variants as their designers can imagine. They’re designed to be inclusive in nature.

But customised COTS solutions tend to narrow down that field of view, adding specific actions, filters, etc to make workflows more efficient, reports more relevant, etc. Exclusive in nature.

The unintended result of being exclusive is the trickle-down effect. If you exclude / filter things out, chances are you’ll have to continually update those customisations. For example, if you’re filtering on a certain device type, but that device type is superseded, then you’ll have to change all of the filters, as well as anything downstream of that filter.

The trickle-down effect can be insidious, turning a nice open COTS solution into a beast that needs constant attention to cope with the most minor of operational changes. The more customisations mat, the more gnarly the beast tends to be.