Image linked from GCaptain.com.
As you already know, the word pivot has become common in the world of business, particularly the world of start-ups. It’s a euphemism for a significant change in strategic direction. In the context of today’s post, I love the word pivot because it implies a rapid change in direction, something that’s seemingly impossible for most of our OSS and the customers who use them.
I like to use analogies. It’s no coincidence that some of the analogies posted here on PAOSS relate to the challenge in making strategic change in our OSS. Here are just three of those analogies:
The OSS intertia principle relates classical physics with our OSS, where Force equals Mass x Acceleration (F = ma). In other words, the greater the mass (of your OSS and your organisation), the more force must be applied to reach a given acceleration (ie to effect a change)
The OSS chess-board analogy talks about the rubber bands and pulleys (ie integrations) that enmesh the pieces on our OSS chessboard. This means that other pieces get dragged out of position whenever we try to move any individual piece and chaos ensues.
The aircraft carrier analogy compares OSS (and the CSPs they service) with navies of old. In days gone by, CSPs enjoyed command of the sea. Their boats were big, powerful and mobile enough to move around world. However, their size requires significant planning to change course. The newer application and content communications models are analogous to the advent of aviation. The over the top (OTT) business model has the speed, flexibility, lower cost base and diversity of aircraft. Air supremacy has changed the competitive dynamic. CSPs and our OSS can’t quickly change from being a navy to being an airforce, so the aircraft carrier approach looks to the future whilst working within the constraints of the past.
When making day to day changes within, and to, your OSS does the ability to pivot ever come to mind?
Do you intentionally ensure it stays small, modular and limit its integrations to simplify your game of OSS chess?
If constrained by existing mass that you simply can’t eliminate, do you seek to transform via OSS‘s aviation equivalents?
Or like many of the OSS around the world, are you just making them larger, enmeshed behemoths that will never be able to change the laws of physics and achieve a pivot?
Do any of our global target architectures represent such behemoths?Read the Passionate About OSS Blog for more or Subscribe to the Passionate About OSS Blog by Email