If ONAP is the answer, what are the questions?

ONAP provides a comprehensive platform for real-time, policy-driven orchestration and automation of physical and virtual network functions that will enable software, network, IT and cloud providers and developers to rapidly automate new services and support complete lifecycle management.
By unifying member resources, ONAP is accelerating the development of a vibrant ecosystem around a globally shared architecture and implementation for network automation–with an open standards focus–faster than any one product could on its own
.”
Part of the ONAP charter from onap.org.

The ONAP project is gaining attention in service provider circles. The Steering Committee of the ONAP project hints at the types of organisations investing in the project. The statement above summarises the mission of this important project. You can bet that the mission has been carefully crafted. As such, one can assume that it represents what these important stakeholders jointly agree to be the future needs of their OSS.

I find it interesting that there are quite a few technical terms (eg policy-driven orchestration) in the mission statement, terms that tend to pre-empt the solution. However, I don’t feel that pre-emptive technical solutions are the real mission, so I’m going to try to reverse-engineer the statement into business needs. Hopefully the business needs (the “why? why? why?” column below) articulates a set of questions / needs that all OSS can work to, as opposed to replicating the technical approach that underpins ONAP.

Phrase Interpretation Why? Why? Why?
real-time The ability to make instantaneous decisions Why1: To adapt to changing conditions
Why2: To take advantage of fleeting opportunities or resolve threats
Why 3: To optimise key business metrics such as financials
Why 4: As CSPs are under increasing pressure from shareholders to deliver on key metrics
policy-driven orchestration To use policies to increase the repeatability of key operational processes Why 1: Repeatability provides the opportunity to improve efficiency, quality and performance
Why 2: Allows an operator to service more customers at less expense
Why 3: Improves corporate profitability and customer perceptions
Why 4: As CSPs are under increasing pressure from shareholders to deliver on key metrics
policy-driven automation To use policies to increase the amount of automation that can be applied to key operational processes Why 1: Automated processes provide the opportunity to improve efficiency, quality and performance
Why 2: Allows an operator to service more customers at less expense
Why 3: Improves corporate profitability and customer perceptions
physical and virtual network functions Our networks will continue to consist of physical devices, but we will increasingly introduce virtualised functionality Why 1: Physical devices will continue to exist into the foreseeable future but virtualisation represents an exciting approach into the future
Why 2: Virtual entities are easier to activate and manage (assuming sufficient capacity exists)
Why 3: Physical equipment supply, build, deploy and test cycles are much longer and labour intensive
Why 4: Virtual assets are more flexible, faster and cheaper to commission
Why 5: Customer services can be turned up faster and cheaper
software, network, IT and cloud providers and developers With this increase in virtualisation, we find an increasingly large and diverse array of suppliers contributing to our value-chain. These suppliers contribute via software, network equipment, IT functions and cloud resources Why 1: CSPs can access innovation and efficiency occurring outside their own organisation
Why 2: CSPs can leverage the opportunities those innovations provide
Why 3: CSPs can deliver more attractive offers to customers
Why 4: Key metrics such as profitability and customer satisfaction are enhanced
rapidly automate new services We want the flexibility to introduce new products and services far faster than we do today Why 1: CSPs can deliver more attractive offers to customers faster than competitors
Why 2: Key metrics such as market share, profitability and customer satisfaction are enhanced as well as improved cashflow
support complete lifecycle management The components that make up our value-chain are changing and evolving so quickly that we need to cope with these changes without impacting customers across any of their interactions with their service Why 1: Customer satisfaction is a key metric and a customer’s experience spans the entire lifecyle of their service.
Why 2: CSPs don’t want customers to churn to competitors
Why 3: Key metrics such as market share, profitability and customer satisfaction are enhanced
unifying member resources To reduce the amount of duplicated and under-synchronised development currently being done by the member bodies of ONAP Why 1: Collaboration and sharing reduces the effort each member body must dedicate to their OSS
Why 2: A reduced resource pool is required
Why 3: Costs can be reduced whilst still achieving a required level of outcome from OSS
vibrant ecosystem To increase the level of supplier interchangability Why 1: To reduce dependence on any supplier/s
Why 2: To improve competition between suppliers
Why 3: Lower prices, greater choice and greater innovation tend to flourish in competitive environments
Why 4: CSPs, as customers of the suppliers, benefit
globally shared architecture To make networks, services and support systems easier to interconnect across the global communications network Why 1: Collaboration on common standards reduces the integration effort between each member at points of interconnect
Why 2: A reduced resource pool is required
Why 3: Costs can be reduced whilst still achieving interconnection benefits

As indicated in earlier posts, ONAP is an exciting initiative for the CSP industry for a number of reasons. My fear for ONAP is that it becomes such a behemoth of technical complexity that it becomes too unwieldy for use by any of the member bodies. I use the analogy of ATM versus Ethernet here, where ONAP is equivalent to ATM in power and complexity. The question is whether there’s an Ethernet answer to the whys that ONAP is trying to solve.

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

(BTW. I’m not saying that the technologies the ONAP team is investigating are the wrong ones. Far from it. I just find it interesting that the mission is starting with a technical direction in mind. I see parallels with the OSS radar analogy.)

What OSS environments do you need?

When we’re planning a new OSS, we tend to be focused on the production (PROD) environment. After all, that’s where it’s primary purpose is served, to operationalise a network asset. That is where the majority of an OSS‘s value gets created.

But we also need some (roughly) equivalent environments for separate purposes. We’ll describe some of those environments below.

By default, vendors will tend to only offer licensing for a small number of database instances – usually just PROD and a development / test environment (DEV/TEST). You may not envisage that you will need more than this, but you might want to negotiate multiple / unlimited instances just in case. If nothing else, it’s worth bringing to the negotiation table even if it gets shot down because budgets are tight and / or vendor pricing is inflexible relating to extra environments.

Examples where multiple instances may be required include:

  1. Production (PROD) – as indicated above, that’s where the live network gets managed. User access and controls need to be tight here to prevent catastrophic events from happening to the OSS and/or network
  2. Disaster Recovery (DR) – depending on your high-availability (HA) model (eg cold standby, primary / redundant, active / active), you may require a DR or backup environment
  3. Sandpit (DEV / TEST) – these environments are essential for OSS operators to be able to prototype and learn freely without the risk of causing damage to production environments. There may need to be multiple versions of this environment depending on how reflective of PROD they need to be and how viable it is to take refresh / updates from PROD (aka PROD cuts). Sometimes also known as non-PROD (NP)
  4. Regression testing (REG TEST) – regression testing requires a baseline data set to continually test and compare against, flagging any variations / problems that have arisen from any change within the OSS or networks (eg new releases). This implies a need for data and applications to be shielded from the constant change occurring on other types of environments (eg DEV / TEST). In situations where testing transforms data (eg activation processes), REG TEST needs to have the ability to roll-back to the previous baseline state
  5. Training (TRAIN) – your training environments may need to be established with a repeatable set of training scenarios that also need to be re-set after each training session. This should also be separated from the constant change occurring on dev/test environments. However, due to a shortage of environments, and the relative rarity of training needed at some customers, TRAIN often ends up as another DEV or TEST environment
  6. Production Support (PROD-SUP) – this type of environment is used to prototype patches, releases or defect fixes (for defects on the PROD environment) prior to release into PROD. PROD-SUP might also be used for stress and volume testing, or SVT may require its own environment
  7. Data Migration (DATA MIG) – At times, data creation and loading needs to be prototype in a non-PROD environment. Sometimes this can be done in PROD-SUP or even a DEV / TEST environment. On other occasions it needs its own dedicated environment so as to not interrupt BAU (business as usual) activities on those other environments
  8. System Integration Testing (SIT)OSS integrate with many other systems and often require dedicated integration testing environments

Am I forgetting any? What other environments do you find to be essential on your OSS?

Your OSS Justice League

Is it just me or has there been a proliferation of superhero movies coming out at cinemas lately? Not only that, but movies where teams of superheros link up to defeat the baddies (eg Deadpool 2, Justice League, etc)?

The thing that strikes me as interesting is that there’s rarely an overlap of super-powers within the team. They all have their different strengths and points of difference. The sum of the parts… blah, blah, blah.

Anyway, I’m curious whether you’ve noticed the same thing as me on OSS projects, that when there are multiple team members with significant skill / experience overlap, the project can bog down in indecision? I’ve noticed this particularly when there are many architects, often super-talented ones, on a project. Instead of getting the benefit of collaboration of great minds, we can end up with too many possibilities (and possibly egos) to work through and the project stagnates.

If you were to hand-pick your all-star cast for your OSS Justice League, just like in the movies, you’d look for a team of differentiated, but hopefully complementary, super-heroes I assume. But I’m diverting away from my main point here.

Each project, just like each formidable foe in the movies, is slightly different and needs slightly different super-powers to tackle it. When selecting a cast for a movie, directors have a global pool to choose from. When selecting a cast for an OSS project, directors have traditionally chosen from their own organisation, possibly with some outside hires to fill the long-term gaps.

With the increasing availability of freelance resources (ie people who aren’t intrinsically tied to carriers or vendors), the proposition of selecting a purpose-built project team of OSS super-heroes is actually beginning to become more possible. I’m wondering how much the gig economy will change the traditional OSS project team model in coming years.

I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences on this.

An alternate way of slicing OSS (part 2)

Last week we talked about an alternate way of slicing OSS projects. Today, we’ll look a little deeper and include some diagrams.

The traditional (aka waterfall) approach to delivering an OSS project sees one big-bang delivery of business value at the end of the implementation.
OSS project delivery via waterfall

The yellow arrows indicate the sequential nature of this style of delivery. The implications include:

  1. If the project runs out of funds before the project finishes, no (negligible) value is delivered
  2. If there’s no modularity of delivery then the project team must stay the course of the original project plan. There’s no room for prioritising or dropping or including delivery modules. Project plans are rarely perfect at first after all
  3. Any changes in project plan tend to have knock-on effects into the rest of the delivery
  4. There is only one true delivery of value, but milestones demonstrate momentum for the project… a key for change management and team morale
  5. Large deliverables represent the proverbial overload one segment of the project delivery team then under-utilises the rest in each stage.  This isn’t great for project flow or team utilisation

The alternate approach seeks to deliver in multiple phases by business value, not artefacts, as shown in the sample model below:
OSS project delivery via AgilePhased enhancements following a base platform build (eg Sandpit and/or Single-site above) could include the following, where each provides a tangible outcome / benefit for the business, thus maintaining perception of momentum (assurance use-cases cited):

  • Additional event collection (ie additional collectors / probes / mediation-devices can be added or configured)
  • Additional filters / sorting of events
  • Event prioritisation mapping / presentation
  • Event correlation
  • Fault suppression
  • Fault escalation
  • Alarm augmentation
  • Alarm thresholding
  • Root-cause analysis (intra, then inter-domain)
  • Other configurations such as latching, auto-acknowledgement, visualisation parameters, etc
  • Heart-beat function (ie devices are unreachable for a user-defined period)
  • Knowledge base (ie developing a database of activities to respond to certain events)
  • Interfacing with other systems (eg trouble-ticket, work-force management, inventory, etc)
  • Setup of roles/groups
  • Setup of skills-based routing
  • Setup of reporting
  • Setup of notifications (eg email, SMS, etc)
  • Naming convention refinements
  • etc, etc

The latter is a more Agile-style breakdown of work, but doesn’t need to be delivered using Agile methodology.

Of course there are pros and cons of each approach. I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences with different OSS delivery approaches.

The OSS Ferrari analogy

A friend and colleague has recently been talking about a Ferrari analogy on a security project we’ve been contributing to.

The end customers have decided they want a Ferrari solution, a shiny new, super-specified new toy (or in this case toys!). There’s just one problem though. The customer has a general understanding of what it is to drive, but doesn’t have driving experience or a driver’s license yet (ie they have a general understanding of what they want but haven’t described what they plan to do with the shiny toys operationally once the keys are handed over).

To take a step further back, since the project hasn’t articulated exactly where the customers want to go with the solution, we’re asking whether a Ferrari is even the right type of vehicle to take them there. As amazing as Ferraris are, might it actually make more sense to buy a 4WD vehicle?

As indicated in yesterday’s post, sometimes the requirements gathering process identifies the goal-based expectations (ie the business requirements – where the customer wants to go), but can often just identify a set of product features (ie the functional requirements such as a turbo-charged V8 engine, mid-mount engine, flappy-paddle gear change, etc, etc). The latter leads to buying a Ferrari. The former is more likely to lead to buying the vehicle best-suited to getting to the desired destination.

The OSS Ferrari sounds nice, but…

Optimisation Support Systems

We’ve heard of OSS being an acronym for operational support systems, operations support systems, even open source software. I have a new one for you today – Optimisation Support Systems – that exists for no purpose other than to drive a mindset shift.

I think we have to transition from “expectations” in a hype sense to “expectations” in a goal sense. NFV is like any technology; it depends on a business case for what it proposes to do. There’s a lot wrong with living up to hype (like, it’s impossible), but living up to the goals set for a technology is never unrealistic. Much of the hype surrounding NFV was never linked to any real business case, any specific goal of the NFV ISG.”
Tom Nolle
in his blog here.

This is a really profound observation (and entire blog) from Tom. Our technology, OSS included, tends to be surrounded by “hyped” expectations – partly from our own optimistic desires, partly from vendor sales pitches. It’s far easier to build our expectations from hype than to actually understand and specify the goals that really matter. Goals that are end-to-end in manner and preferably quantifiable.

When embarking on a technology-led transformation, our aim is to “make things better,” obviously. A list of hundreds of functional requirements might help. However, having an up-front, clear understanding of the small number of use cases you’re optimising for tends to define much clearer goal-driven expectations.

New OSS functionality or speed and scale?

We all know that revenue per bit (of data transferred across comms networks) is trending lower. How could we not? It’s posited as one of the reasons for declining profitability of the industry. The challenge for telcos is how to engineer an environment of low revenue per bit but still be cost viable.

I’m sure there are differentiated comms products out there in the global market. However, for the many products that aren’t differentiated, there’s a risk of commoditisation. Customers of our OSS are increasingly moving into a paradigm of commoditisation, which in turn impacts the form our OSS must mould themselves to.

The OSS we deliver can either be the bane or the saviour. They can be a differentiator where otherwise there is none. For example, getting each customer’s order ready for service (RFS) faster than competitors. Or by processing orders at scale, yet at a lower cost-base through efficiencies / repeatability such as streamlined products, processes and automations.

OSS exist to improve efficiency at scale of course, but I wonder whether we lose sight of that sometimes? I’ve noticed that we have a tendency to focus on functionality (ie delivering new features) rather than scale.

This isn’t just the OSS vendors or implementation teams either by the way. It’s often apparent in customer requirements too. If you’ve been lucky enough to be involved with any OSS procurement processes, which side of the continuum was the focus – on introducing a raft of features, or narrowing the field of view down to doing the few really important things at scale and speed?

Zero touch network & Service Management (ZSM)

Zero touch network & Service Management (ZSM) is a next-gen network management approach using closed-loop principles hosted by ETSI. An ETSI blog has just demonstrated the first ZSM Proof of Concept (PoC). The slide deck describing the PoC, supplied by EnterpriseWeb, can be found here.

The diagram below shows a conceptual closed-loop assurance architecture used within the PoC
ETSI ZSM PoC.

It contains some similar concepts to a closed-loop traffic engineering project designed by PAOSS back in 2007, but with one big difference. That 2007 project was based on a single-vendor solution, as opposed to the open, multi-vendor PoC demonstrated here. Both were based on the principle of using assurance monitors to trigger fulfillment responses. For example, ours used SLA threshold breaches on voice switches to trigger automated remedial response through the OSS‘s provisioning engine.

For this newer example, ETSI’s blog details, “The PoC story relates to a congestion event caused by a DDoS (Denial of Service) attack that results in a decrease in the voice quality of a network service. The fault is detected by service monitoring within one or more domains and is shared with the end-to-end service orchestrator which correlates the alarms to interpret the events, based on metadata and metrics, and classifies the SLA violations. The end-to-end service orchestrator makes policy-based decisions which trigger commands back to the domain(s) for remediation.”

You’ll notice one of the key call-outs in the diagram above is real-time inventory. That was much harder for us to achieve back in 2007 than it is now with virtualised network and compute layers providing real-time telemetry. We used inventory that was only auto-discovered once daily and had to build in error handling, whilst relying on over-provisioned physical infrastructure.

It’s exciting to see these types of projects being taken forward by ETSI, EnterpriseWeb, et al.

Just in time design

It’s interesting how we tend to go in cycles. Back in the early days of OSS, the network operators tended to build their OSS from the ground up. Then we went through a phase of using Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) OSS software developed by third-party vendors. We now seem to be cycling back towards in-house development, but with collaboration that includes vendors and external assistance through open-source projects like ONAP. Interesting too how Agile fits in with these cycles.

Regardless of where we are in the cycle for our OSS, as implementers we’re always challenged with finding the Goldilocks amount of documentation – not too heavy, not too light, but just right.

The Agile Manifesto espouses, “working software over comprehensive documentation.” Sounds good to me! It perplexes me that some OSS implementations are bogged down by lengthy up-front documentation phases, especially if we’re basing the solution on COTS offerings. These can really stall the momentum of a project.

Once a solution has been selected (which often does require significant analysis and documentation), I’m more of a proponent of getting the COTS software stood up, even if only in a sandpit environment. This is where just-in-time (JIT) documentation comes into play. Rather than having every aspect of the solution documented (eg process flows, data models, high availability models, physical connectivity, logical connectivity, databases, etc, etc), we only need enough documentation for collaborative stakeholders to do their parts (eg IT to set up hardware / hosting, networks to set up physical connectivity, vendor to provide software, integrator to perform build, etc) to stand up a vanilla solution.

Then it’s time to start building trial scenarios through the solution. There’s usually quite a bit of trial and error in this stage, as we seek to optimise the scenarios for the intended users. Then we add a few more scenarios.

There’s little point trying to document the solution in detail before a scenario is trialled, but some documentation can be really helpful. For example, if the scenario is to build a small sub-section of a network, then draw up some diagrams of that sub-network that include the intended naming conventions for each object (eg device, physical connectivity, addresses, logical connectivity, etc). That allows you to determine whether there are unexpected challenges with naming conventions, data modelling, process design, etc. There are always unexpected challenges that arise!

I figure you’re better off documenting the real challenges than theorising on the “what if?” challenges, which is what often happens with up-front documentation exercises. There are always brilliant stakeholders who can imagine millions of possible challenges, but these often bog the design phase down.

With JIT design, once the solution evolves, the documentation can evolve too… if there is an ongoing reason for its existence (eg as a user guide, for a test plan, as a training cheat-sheet, a record of configuration for fault-finding purposes, etc).

Interestingly, the first value in the Agile Manifesto is, “individuals and interactions over processes and tools.” This is where the COTS vs in-house-dev comes back into play. When using COTS software, individuals, interactions and processes are partly driven by what the tools support. COTS functionality constrains us but we can still use Agile configuration and customisation to optimise our solution for our customers’ needs (where cost-benefit permits).

Having a working set of vanilla tools allows our customers to get a much better feel for what needs to be done rather than trying to understand the intent of up-front design documentation. And that’s the key to great customer outcomes – having the customers knowledgeable enough about the real solution (not hypothetical solutions) to make the most informed decisions possible.

Of course there are always challenges with this JIT design model too, especially when third-party contracts are involved!

Aggregated OSS buying models

Last week we discussed a sell-side co-op business model. Today we’ll look at buy-side co-op models.

In other industries, we hear of buying groups getting great deals through aggregated buying volumes. This is a little harder to achieve with products that are as uniquely customised as OSS. It’s possible that OSS buy-side aggregation could occur for operators that are similar in nature but don’t compete (eg regional operators). Having said that, I’ve yet to see any co-ops formed to gain OSS group-purchase benefits. If you have, I’d love to hear about it.

In OSS, there are three approaches that aren’t exactly co-op buying models but do aggregate the evaluation and buying decision.

The most obvious is for corporations that run multiple carriers under one umbrella such as Telefonica (see Telefonica’s various OSS / BSS contract notifications here), SingTel (group contracts here), etisalat, etc. There would appear to benefits in standardising OSS platforms across each of the group companies.

A far less formal co-op buying model I’ve noticed is the social-proof approach. This is where one, typically large, network operator in a region goes through an extensive OSS / BSS evaluation and chooses a vendor. Then there’s a domino effect where other, typically smaller, network operators also buy from the same vendor.

Even less formal again is by using third-party organisations like Passionate About OSS to assist with a standard vendor selection methodology. The vendors selected aren’t standardised because each operator’s needs are different, but the product / vendor selection methodology builds on the learnings of past selection processes across multiple operators. The benefits comes in the evaluation and decision frameworks.

How an OSS is like an F1 car

A recent post discussed the challenge of getting a timeslice of operations people to help build the OSS. That post surmised, “as the old saying goes, you get back what you put in. In the case of OSS I’ve seen it time and again that operations need to contribute significantly to the implementation to ensure they get a solution that fits their needs.”

I have a new saying for you today, this time from T.D. Jakes, “You can’t be committed to the dream. You have to be committed to the process.”

If you’re representing an organisation that is buying an OSS solution from a vendor / integrator, please consider these two adages above. Sometimes we’re good at forming the dream (eg business requirements, business case, etc) and expecting the vendor to conduct almost all of the process. While our network operations teams are hired for the process of managing the network, we also need their significant input on the process of building / configuring an OSS. The vendor / integrator can’t just develop it in isolation and then hand it over to ops with a few days of training at the end.

The process of bringing a new OSS into an organisation is not like buying a road car. With an OSS, you can’t just place an order with some optional features like paint and trim specified, then expect to start driving it as soon as it leaves the vendor’s assembly line. It’s more like an F1 car where the driver is in constant communications with the pit-crew, changing and tweaking and refining to optimise the car to the driver’s unique needs (and in turn to hopefully optimise the results).

At least, that’s what current-state OSS are like. Perhaps in the future… we’ll strive to refine our OSS to be more like a road-car – standardised and intuitive enough for operators to drive straight off the assembly line.

3 categories of OSS investment justification

Insurer IAG has modelled the financial cost that a data breach or ransomware attack would have on its business, in part to understand how much proposed infosec investments might offset its losses.
Head of cybersecurity and governance Ian Cameron told IBM Think 2018 in Sydney that the “value-at-risk modelling” project called upon the company’s actuarial expertise to put numbers on different types and levels of security threats.
“Because we’re an insurance company, we can use actuarial methods to price or model what the costs of a loss event would be,” Cameron said.
“If we have a major data breach or a major ransomware attack, we’ve done some really great work in the past 12 months to model the net cost of losses to our organisation in terms of the loss of productivity, the cost of advertising to address the concerns of our customers, the legal costs, and the costs of regulatory oversight.
“We’ve been able to work out the distribution of loss from a small event to a very big event
.”
Ry Crozier
on IT News.

There are really only three main categories of benefit that an OSS can be built around:

  • Cost reduction
  • Revenue generation / increase
  • Brand value (ie insurance of the brand, via protection of customer perception of the brand)

The last on the list is rarely used (in my experience) to justify OSS/BSS investment. The IAG experience of costing out infosec risk to operations and brand is an interesting one. It’s also one that has some strong parallels for the OSS/BSS of network operators.

Many people in the telecoms industry treat OSS/BSS as an afterthought and/or an expensive cost centre. Those people fail to recognise that the OSS/BSS are the operationalisation engines that allow customers to use the network assets.

Just as IAG was able to do through actuarial analysis, a telco’s OSS/BSS team could “work out the distribution of loss from a small event to (be) a very big event” (for the telco’s brand value). Consider the loss of repute during sustained network outages. Consider the impact of negative word-of-mouth from billing mistakes. Consider how revenue leakage analysis and predictive network health management might offset losses.

Can the IAG approach work for justifying your investment in OSS/BSS?

Do you use any other major categories for justifying OSS/BSS spend?

OSS stepping stone or wet cement

Very often, what is meant to be a stepping stone turns out to be a slab of wet cement that will harden around your foot if you do not take the next step soon enough.”
Richelle E. Goodrich
.

Not sure about your parts of the world, but I’ve noticed the terms “tactical” (ie stepping stone solution) and “strategic” (ie long-term solution) entering the architectural vernacular here in Australia.

OSS seem to be full of tactical solutions. We’re always on a journey to somewhere else. I love that mindset – getting moving now, but still keeping the future in mind. There’s just one slight problem… how many times have we seen a tactical solution that was build years before? Perhaps it’s not actually a problem at all in some cases – the short-term fix is obviously “good enough” to have survived.

As a colleague insightfully pointed out last week – “if you create a tactical solution without also preparing a strategic solution, you don’t have a tactical solution, you have a solution.

When architecting your OSS solutions, do you find yourself more easily focussing on the tactical, the strategic, or is having an eye on both the essential part of your solution?

OSS compromise, no, prioritise

On Friday, we talked about how making compromises on OSS can actually be a method for reducing risk. We used the OSS vendor selection process to discuss the point, where many stakeholders contribute to the list of requirements that help to select the best-fit product for the organisation.

To continue with this same theme, I’d like to introduce you to a way of prioritising requirements that borrows from the risk / likelihood matrix commonly used in project management.

The diagram below shows the matrix as it applies to OSS.
OSS automation grid

The y-axis shows the frequency of use (of a particular feature / requirement). They x-axis shows the time / cost savings that will result from having this functionality or automation.

If you add two extra columns to your requirements list, the frequency of use and the resultant savings, you’ll quickly identify which requirements are highest priority (green) based on business benefit. Naturally there are other factors to consider, such as cost-benefit, but it should quickly narrow down to your 80/20 that will allow your OSS to make the most difference.

The same model can be used to sub-prioritise too. For example, you might have a requirement to activate orders – but some orders will occur very frequently, whilst other order types occur rarely. In this case, when configuring the order activation functionality, it might make sense to prioritise on the green order types first.

OSS compromise, not compromised

When you’ve got multiple powerful parties involved in a decision, compromise is unavoidable. The point is not that compromise is a necessary evil. Rather, compromise can be valuable in itself, because it demonstrates that you’ve made use of diverse opinions, which is a way of limiting risk.”
Chip and Dan Heath
in their book, Decisive.

This risk perspective on compromise (ie diversity of thought), is a fascinating one in the context of OSS.

Let’s just look at Vendor Selection as one example scenario. In the lead-up to buying a new OSS, there are always lots of different requirements that are thrown into the hat. These requirements are likely to come from more than one business unit, and from a diverse set of actors / contributors. This process, the OSS Thrashing process, tends to lead to some very robust discussions. Even in the highly unlikely event of every requirement being met by a single OSS solution, there are still compromises to be made in terms of prioritisation on which features are introduced first. Or which functionality is dropped / delayed if funding doesn’t permit.

The more likely situation is that each of the product options will have different strengths and weaknesses, each possibly aligning better or worse to some of the requirement contributor needs. By making the final decision, some requirements will be included, others precluded. Compromise isn’t an option, it’s a reality. The perspective posed by the Heath brothers is whether all requirement contributors enter the OSS vendor selection process prepared for compromise (thus diversity of thought) or does one actor / business-unit seek to steamroll the process (thus introducing greater risk)?

The OSS transformation dilemma

There’s a particular carrier that I know quite well that appears to despise a particular OSS vendor… but keeps coming back to them… and keeps getting let down by them… but keeps coming back to them. And I’m not just talking about support of their existing OSS, but whole new tools.

It never made sense to me… until reading Seth Godin’s blog today. In it, he states, “…this market segment knows that things that are too good to be true can’t possibly work, and that’s fine with them, because they don’t actually want to change–they simply want to be able to tell themselves that they tried. That the organization they paid their money to failed, of course it wasn’t their failure. Once you see that this short-cut market segment exists, you can choose to serve them or to ignore them. And you can be among them or refuse to buy in

It starts to makes sense. The same carrier has a tendency to spend big money on the big-4 consultants whenever an important decision needs to be made. If the big, ambitious project then fails, the carrier’s project sponsors can say that the big-4 organization they paid their money to failed.

Does that ring true of any telco you’ve worked with? That they don’t actually want to change–they simply want to be able to tell themselves that they tried (or be seen to have tried) with their OSS transformation?

Are we actually stuck in one big dilemma? Are our OSS transformations actually so hard that they’re destined to fail, yet are already failing so badly that we desperately need to transform them? If so, then Seth’s insightful observation gives the appearance of progress AND protection from the pain of failure.

Not sure about you, but I’ll take Seth’s “refuse to buy in” option and try to incite change.

From PoC to OSS sandpit

You all know I’m a fan of training operators in OSS sandpits (and as apprenticeships during the build phase) rather than a week or two of classroom training at the end of a project.

To reduce the re-work in building a sandpit environment, which will probably be a dev/test environment rather than a production environment, I like to go all the way back to the vendor selection process.
From PoC to OSS sandpit

Running a Proof of Concept (PoC) is a key element of vendor selection in my opinion. The PoC should only include a small short-list of pre-selected solutions so as to not waste time of operator or vendor / integrator. But once short-listed, the PoC should be a cut-down reflection of the customer’s context. Where feasible, it should connect to some real devices / apps (maybe lab devices / apps, possibly via a common/simple interface like SNMP). This takes some time on both sides to set up, but it shows how easily (or not) the solution can integrate with the customer’s active network, BSS, etc. It should be specifically set up to show the device types, alarm types, naming conventions, workflows, etc that fit into the customer’s specific context. That allows the customer to understand the new OSS in terms they’re familiar with.

And since the effort has been made to set up the PoC, doesn’t it make sense to make further use of it and not just throw it away? If the winning bidder then leaves the PoC environment in the hands of the customer, it becomes the sandpit to play in. The big benefit for the winning bidder is that hopefully the customer will have less “what if?” questions that distract the project team during the implementation phase. Questions can be demonstrated, even if only partially, using the sandpit environment rather than empty words.

Post Implementation Review (PIR)

Have you noticed that OSS projects need to go through extensive review to get funding of business cases? That makes sense. They tend to be a big investment after all. Many OSS projects fail, so we want to make sure this one doesn’t and we perform thorough planing / due-diligence.

But I do find it interesting that we spend less time and effort on Post Implementation Reviews (PIRs). We might do the review of the project, but do we compare with the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) that undoubtedly goes into each business case?

OSS Project Analysis Scales

Even more interesting is that we spend even less time and effort performing ongoing analysis of an implemented OSS
against against the CBA.

Why interesting? Well, if we took the time to figure out what has really worked, we might have better (and more persuasive) data to improve our future business cases. Not only that, but more chance to reduce the effort on the business case side of the scale compared with current approaches (as per diagrams above).

What do you think?

The OSS dart-board analogy

The dartboard, by contrast, is not remotely logical, but is somehow brilliant. The 20 sector sits between the dismal scores of five and one. Most players aim for the triple-20, because that’s what professionals do. However, for all but the best darts players, this is a mistake. If you are not very good at darts, your best opening approach is not to aim at triple-20 at all. Instead, aim at the south-west quadrant of the board, towards 19 and 16. You won’t get 180 that way, but nor will you score three. It’s a common mistake in darts to assume you should simply aim for the highest possible score. You should also consider the consequences if you miss.”
Rory Sutherland
on Wired.

When aggressive corporate goals and metrics are combined with brilliant solution architects, we tend to aim for triple-20 with our OSS solutions don’t we? The problem is, when it comes to delivery, we don’t tend to have the laser-sharp precision of a professional darts player do we? No matter how experienced we are, there tends to be hidden surprises – some technical, some personal (or should I say inter-personal?), some contractual, etc – that deflect our aim.

The OSS dart-board analogy asks the question about whether we should set the lofty goals of a triple-20 [yellow circle below], with high risk of dismal results if we miss (think too about the OSS stretch-goal rule); or whether we’re better to target the 19/16 corner of the board [blue circle below] that has scaled back objectives, but a corresponding reduction in risk.

OSS Dart-board Analogy

Roland Leners posed the following brilliant question, “What if we built OSS and IT systems around people’s willingness to change instead of against corporate goals and metrics? Would the corporation be worse off at the end?” in response to a recent post called, “Did we forget the OSS operating model?

There are too many facets to count on Roland’s question but I suspect that in many cases the corporate goals / metrics are akin to the triple-20 focus, whilst the team’s willingness to change aligns to the 19/16 corner. And that is bound to reduce delivery risk.

I’d love to hear your thoughts!!

The OSS farm equipment analogy

OSS End of Financial Year
It’s an interesting season as we come up to the EOFY (end of financial year – on 30 June). Budget cycles are coming to an end. At organisations that don’t carry un-spent budgets into the next financial year, the looming EOFY triggers a use-it-or-lose-it mindset.

In some cases, organisations are almost forced to allocate funds on OSS investments even if they haven’t always had the time to identify requirements and / or model detailed return projections. That’s normally anathema to me because an OSS‘ reputation is determined by the demonstrable value it creates for years to come. However, I can completely understand a client’s short-term objectives. The challenge we face is to minimise any risk of short-term spend conflicting with long-term objectives.

I take the perspective of allocating funds to build the most generally useful asset (BTW, I like Robert Kiyosaki’s simple definition of an asset as, “in reality, an asset is only something that puts money in your pocket,”) In the case of OSS, putting money in one’s pocket needs to consider earnings [or cost reductions] that exceed outgoings such as maintenance, licensing, operations, etc as well as cost of capital. Not a trivial task!

So this is where the farm equipment analogy comes in.

If we haven’t had the chance to conduct demand estimation (eg does the telco’s market want the equivalent of wheat, rice, stone fruit, etc) or product mix modelling (ie which mix of those products will bear optimal returns) then it becomes hard to predict what type of machinery is best fit for our future crops. If we haven’t confirmed that we’ll focus efforts on wheat, then it could be a gamble to invest big in a combine harvester (yet). We probably also don’t want to invest capital and ongoing maintenance on a fruit tree shaker if our trees won’t begin bearing fruit for another few years.

Therefore, a safer investment recommendation would be on a general-purpose machine that is most likely to be useful for any type of crop (eg a tractor).

In OSS terminology, if you’re not sure if your product mix will provision 100 customers a day or 100,000 then it could be a little risky to invest in an off-the-shelf orchestration / provisioning engine. Still potentially risky, but less so, would be to invest in a resource and service inventory solution (if you have a lot of network assets), alarm management tools (if you process a lot of alarms), service order entry, workforce management, etc.

Having said that, a lot of operators already have a strong gut-feel for where they intend to get returns on their investment. They may not have done the numbers extensively, but they know their market roadmap. If wheat is your specialty, go ahead and get the combine harvester.

I’d love to get your take on this analogy. How do you invest capital in your OSS without being sure of the projections (given that we’re never sure on projections becoming reality)?