By Ed Finegold
Many large CSPs’ billing environments are disaster areas because of a long list of common reasons. Product-by-product organization is a big one. Failure to integrate assets after major acquisitions is up there, too. And don’t forget the poor IT governance and reactive architectural roadmaps that so often accompany mad dashes to market with new, me-too offerings. The industry isn’t blind to the effects of these causes, which are evident in the number of billing conversions, consolidations, and transformations that have been initiated throughout the decade. One of the major difficulties for IT planners, however, is that even if they can envision and design ideal end-state architectures, they can’t necessarily figure out how to move from here to there or win the resources to pull it off. Further, the tools they really need to make their streamlined visions realities down the road haven’t matured while they’re doing the planning.
The Anchor Approach
Large operators never work with a blank slate. It takes years of persistent effort, executive buy-in, and consistent priorities to pull of a major conversion effort successfully. And sometimes, the conversion effort delivers an end state that was ideal three years prior, but is on the fast track to obsolescence upon launch. This is why many CFOs hate IT programs. Even the few that make deadlines and stay within budget are ultra-risky because no one can predict the future. Often, architectural approaches that look great on paper prove to be troublesome in the real world.
|
|
Large operators never work with a blank slate. |
|
come in sets. Different manufacturers might actually make the best individual clubs, but they all feel different. Trying to adjust to the difference between a Ping 3 iron and a Tommy Armour 5 iron in the middle of a round is a bad idea. The negative effect it’ll have on one’s swing isn’t worth the slight empirical advantage one might provide over another on a test range. A best of breed architecture is like a golf bag full of mismatched clubs. Each might be the best in testing, but on the course, they make for a lousy set and an ugly score.
Another problem with the best of breed approach is that it can be extremely difficult to govern. There are too many fingers to point, too many overlaps in scope and functionality, and too many distinct projects to manage in the midst of what’s already likely to be a complex, high risk conversion or transformation effort. The knee jerk reaction to this set of circumstances could be to turn
|
|
|
|
The telecom IT space learned this the hard way with componentized, best-of-breed approaches that were popular in the late nineties. They were complicated. They were risky. They were expensive. Most of the time, best of breed programs resulted in fewer benefits and more long term costs than was intended or anticipated at the outset. Think of it this way – there’s a reason golf clubs
|
|
to a single vendor for absolutely everything. This approach usually isn’t possible. Telecom IT architectures are so complex that not only isn’t any one company the best at everything, no single company can actually meet the entire scope of requirements that come out of a major architectural redesign. The happy medium is often known as the anchor or mall approach.
article page
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
|
