|
|
article
page | 1
| 2 | 3
|
All spoke, to tie these diverse presentations
together with the widest of umbrellas,
on how OSS has evolved and the natural
pitfalls that have been the result of
haste or myopia by the original developers.
The truth is, modern OSS is simply
not sustainable. There is a genuine
need for flexible and cost-efficient
solutions for ever-changing landscape
of next-gen service offerings. Increased
competition among CSPs leads to increased
pressure on systems integrators and
OSS vendors to keep costs low. Inertia,
however, is a killer. Change
|
|
|
It seems NGOSS is fully ready
for the industry. Why, oh why, doesn't
some of the industry seem ready
for NGOSS? |
|
|
There are benefits for systems
integrators, too. Martin Creaner,
the CEO of the TM Forum, said
a few years ago in this very
magazine that “While custom
integration projects are typically the boon of telecom system integrators, mounting pressure from service providers to cut costs forces SIs to make their projects more predictable and epeatable, and thus less customized,
to |
|
|
|
in internal business processes is never
easy, and objects at rests tend to remain
at rest.
As was astutely pointed out during
the conference, it's not entirely accurate
to lump all next-gen OSS/BSS in with
NGOSS. NGOSS is something very specific.
It's New Generation (NOT “next-generation”)
Operation Systems and Software, and
it's based around five key principles:
-
Separation of Business
Process from Component Implementation
-
Loosely Coupled Distributed
System
-
Shared Information
Model
-
Common Communications
Infrastructure
-
Contract-Defined Interfaces
The details of all of these could be
found on the website of the TM Forum,
as NGOSS has been that body's flagship
program for the better part of a decade.
And what is the ultimate goal of NGOSS?
A conversation with Wedge Greene, a
frequent contributor to this publication
and an NGOSS pioneer, reminds us that
the goal was to reduce costs significantly
(even, in early NGOSS plans, drastically),
as well as reducing time to market,
increasing flexibility, and incorporating
long-term vision that is often missing within new projects.
“Vendors,” according
to Greene, “are rewarded
for their efforts with reduced
development costs and increased
built-in relevance for niche
players.”
|
|
retain their margins.”
So the dust has settled and many points
about NGOSS have been rattled off by
many. Is NGOSS ready for prime time?
At the March '07 iteration of this same
event, “Willy” Seibert of Vodafone, noting his excitement
over NGOSS and its potential exclaimed,
“It works! It really works!”
His enthusiasm was based on a 50% savings
in development capital and ongoing expenses
over point-to-point TMN. Other especially
meaningful projects have been documented
at BT, Deutsche Telekom, and others. Literally
hundreds of case studies available through
the TMF
There are lots of issues still to address.
Infighting and politicking within organizations
is always bound to be a setback for
the adoption of new and different standards
and services. The accusation has been
made that, due to the sheer complexity
of the architecture and its ramifications,
true understanding of NGOSS is limited
to a relatively small 'brain trust'
of individuals. Furthermore, one of
those that could be considered among
that 'brain trust' notes that few, if
any, of the original developers of NGOSS
is currently being retained for his
or her expertise on the subject.
The question arises: Do carriers, vendors, and equipment manufacturers really
care about
|
|
|
