|
|
article
page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
“The TM Forum’s SDF programme is the final step in bringing true real time services such as content and media into the new world of Telco’s and content providers. It will create a standardized way of assuring and billing that will accelerate the provision of new content and media services while simplifying the user experience. This step by the TMForum will be key for the industry by finally coupling service creation environments and content delivery together with the OSS/BSS infrastructure - eliminating today’s separate multi Billion dollar stovepipes.”
From the beginning, the TMF realized it could not create all the information or component designs necessary and should instead act to provide a collaborative reference framework for designs collected at large in the industry. As such, OASIS, W3C, IPsphere, OMA, ITIL, ATIS.TMOC, TISPAN, CableLabs, and IEEE/NGSN were mined for parts. The TMF provides its experience in service composition and design and in the technology of management (OSS/BSS). This content was overlaid into the SDF Reference Framework, which couples the “development and management of services” with the “run time delivery of services.” This represents a significant advancement in the conceptualization of a service – that services can be composed and delivered in very short timeframes – when these leverage a consistent infrastructure of common resources, processes, and management. This becomes the replacement for stovepipes.
The TMF has been working on their SDF for a year now – lead by Jenny Huang of AT&T, Dave Milham of BT, and Johan Vandenberghe of Alcatel-Lucent. Keith Miller whets our appetite to see their first results, “The architecture team will report back at the end of Sept with an agreed SDF architecture.” Watch for TMF document TR139 – Service Delivery Framework (SDF) Overview which will peg level 0 and 1 of the reference architecture and explain its relationship with NGOSS elements such as eTOM, TAM, and SID.
Most important, the conceptualization of an SDF is based on the assembly of components from a wide range of suppliers. SDF requires vendor-provider partnerships. But it is still not magic, still no Elves working away all night…it still requires governance and facilitation of the NPI process. Just having components does not solve the problem. For just a simple example, think through call recording in an anywhere, anyhow, any network world. Where should call recording occur for a PC to mobile phone call? Facilities will exist for smartphone recording, desktop recording, or network resident recording on each transit network. If media is involved, who manages the digital rights? There will be many components which can be used in the solution of any service composition, and policy associated with the uses of each. Additionally, the more cooks, the tougher the quality control. When there are more players in the chain, there must be better architectural and executive leadership so that all work consistently together. This cannot just be the service ‘owner’; independent facilitators and auditors will be required to govern in what becomes a Cross Functional Process. These players will still leverage gates.
New technologies like the SDF will place additional pressures on getting current corporate partnerships streamlined. How often have we heard: “Procurement is my enemy.” Why? Because Procurement
|
|
processes are designed to efficiently get to the lowest possible price for a shipment of lug nuts, or other tangible something. And that mentality, and monetary incentive, does not work well in a service industry where dozens of partners must work collaboratively to achieve a successful “purchase.” The result is that today’s Procurement groups get to make decisions on which vendors are “on the list” and which are not - without having the specialist knowledge to understand when and how that may cripple their company’s ability to compete. Just as the NPI process must be as streamlined and agile as possible, so must the Procurement department adapt their processes to become a useful part of the service partnership world.
So we need a measured balance between competition and cooperation. Our common goal, buyers and vendors alike, must be to create “innovation networks” that incorporate large numbers of cooperating suppliers and partners. This becomes the New Telecom Ecosystem.
“The nature of the innovation process is changing as firms become less vertically integrated, and the co-ordination of processes in each link of the chain becomes increasingly critical.” [Centre for Technology Management, University of Cambridge]
Final Words
In considering the big push to only buying COTS packages as the way to get out from under long project cycles, high customization costs, and higher integration taxes, there is even more emphasis required on re-engineering the business. That's because, of course, it is the "old" approaches that are institutionalized in the current systems and processes - and data structures, and reports, and in the performance metrics.
So....while a move to COTS (component or traditional), especially where the packages conform to the SID, the TAM and NGOSS process models, does promise a way to shorter, cheaper, easier-to-integrate solutions, those benefits can only be achieved if the business transforms, too. And that leaves lots of room for the pessimists and obstructionists to point out the hundreds of details involved, and the oh-so-high risks of trying to change all of those things. Executives are reasonable in asking the question: “Maybe just tweaking our custom one off system isn't such a bad idea after all....hmmmm?”
You must decide. Bottom line, there is no shortcut that does not include knowing precisely what is needed by the whole business. The old systems need audits just as the new need creations and assessments. Why this particular product, what does implementing/changing it entail, who is affected, and what difference will it make if successful? How will we know if it is or is not successful? This analysis is not just done once to justify a project; instead, it is an ongoing activity throughout the lifecycle of the product.
Tracey and Wiersema in The Discipline of Market Leaders classify successful companies as those maintaining focus towards: product leadership, customer intimacy, and operational excellence. A company can lead with one of these strategies, but must have a culture of collaboration, and of pragmatic management discipline to succeed. A good NPI is one of those essential disciplines.
article
page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
|
|
|
|
