Last Friday the post, “Managing satellites,” discussed how the satellite OSS concept provides core OSS to work on Telco networks / eTOM models, whereas ITIL / ITSM has become increasingly prevalent for the tools to help service managed service contracts.
Does this concept resonate with you regarding management of virtualised networks in terms of satellites for the virtualised components and Core for the more physical activity management? Service catalogs, Service establishment, service reporting, SLA management, contracts, Service chaining and automations are natural candidates for “satellite” management as they are tied to logical/virtual resources.
There have been many discussions about OSS being superseded. This potential for disruption is particularly true in the “satellite” space.
However the “satellite” service management approach doesn’t tend to do the physical work done by the core. This includes CAD / GIS designs of physical networks, planning (augmentation, infill), ticket of work, field work management, physical resource management, DCIM and more.
The fully virtualised management tools may works for OTT (over the top) providers but not so well for providers that have significant physical assets to manage.
This could be true for BSS too. Satellites do service level billing and aggregated reporting for managed service customers but bill runs, clearing house and other business / billing functions are done by the core.
You can read more about this principle in the Aircraft carrier analogy.
The satellite model also bears comparison to the split up of telcos into REIT and DSP business models with satellite and core being more easily split.
Can you see other benefits (or disadvantages) of the satellite vs core OSS model?Read the Passionate About OSS Blog for more or Subscribe to the Passionate About OSS Blog by Email