|
|
Treillage Network Strategies, Inc. |
|
|
News and Views |
 |
 |
 |
       |
|
"Smart" Networks Have to Have Some "Sense" Too Total Cost of Ownership or Time Consuming Operation
As I was driving home just today, I heard a report on how all of the mass media marketing/advertising structures are breaking down because of the demise of broadcast television. The report went on to say that big companies like P&G and American Express are trying to figure out where to spend their billions of dollars of marketing cash now that network TV just isn't giving them the "bang for the buck" they'd like. It seems that "content" is becoming more and more "niche" oriented. Almost everyone who owns a computer also owns a digital video camera, editing software and a burner. Or folks own digital still cameras, camera phones and CD/DVD burners. In either case, they're looking for ways to share their "individual" content - and publish it for consumption by friends, family and even the world at large. Additionally, as more and more folks find their business and personal worlds merging when they're at home in their home office, the need to share media-oriented content with business partners or colleagues - securely and efficiently - gains increasing importance. So the idea of "content" is changed - from four or five major distributors globally to small, micro groups of content consumers. Massive turmoil on the horizon! For cable companies and traditional telephone companies entering "content" markets (TV, video distribution, etc.), new challenges are looming. How do you get "in the middle" of the new content distribution models - and make money at it??!! How will network infrastructures need to change (more symmetric rather than asymmetric network transport services) to meet these emerging trends. What will folks pay for - in personal and professional modes? My take is that cable companies and service providers need to help their customers create their own "virtual communities" of friends, family and business colleagues. These "community content" services could include varying levels of security as well as a variety of "media specific" sharing capabilities - video, voice, still image, text, audio, etc. Like current wireless plans that offer free subscriber to subscriber calling (or very old MCI "Friends and Family) plans, one of the ways to "lock in" content - and customers would be to provide discounts/better service quality/increased security to "communities" that run on a single provider network. And, as always, "content hosting" could increasingly become a lucrative business - along with data backup (not well marketing by ANYONE right now in consumer and SMB markets), network-based collaboration services and other capabilities we haven't even dreamed of yet. The bottom line for service providers of all stripes is - if you're building your network infrastructure, IT systems and service portfolio - prepare for the new "peered" future - content services are rapidly changing from one (content generator) to many (consumers) to every user becoming a content generator in their own right. And begin to think about the services that will be the "new" content money makers - on-demand, from your cell phone, at the lake.
"Smart" Networks Have to Have Some "Sense" Too "Smart" phones, cards, appliances, cars - networks and, of course people. I just love smart things - including people! However, in networks and networking as well as in your friends, neighbors and colleagues, smart is a wonderful thing that can be ruined without some "sense" to go along with it. Why do I think network "sense" is so important? Networks are in the optimal position to be the "control room" or "cockpit" of the corporate IT infrastructure. No other part of that infrastructure touches so many areas of it - from users, to servers, to applications - and is so intrinsically tied to the critical functions that ensure the performance and reliability of that infrastructure. Those functions include security, performance (including quality of service), admission control, load balancing, and rerouting traffic in the event of an application, server or "heaven forbid", network outage. I like to think of networks as "situationally aware". They share tasks with lots of other IT components and are the entities that keep all of those components informed about the state of things ("up" "down", "authenticated", etc.). (A good description of this idea can be found in Donald A Norman's book, Things That Make Us Smart, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1993 in the chapter on Distributed Cognition). And, networks can make decisions, and help other components make decisions, that synchronize actions to ensure that the system, as a whole, continues to function - even in times of high utilization or component failures. Sounds like a big job - and it is. That's why networks - networking equipment and software - must not only be "smart", they've got to have good "sense" too. They must utilize their position in the infrastructure and "situational awareness" to ensure that every other component has the information it needs to make good decisions - in concert with those of the network - and other components such as end user devices and the users themselves. Networks can be - and are - much, much, more than big, fat dumb pipes. They are the central nervous system of businesses around the world. Let's continue to work to make them not just "smarter" but more "aware". That's my opinion - I welcome yours as well!
Keeping data secure is a high priority for everyone - from individuals to large enterprise and service providers as well. Not just for regulatory compliance (although that IS a huge motivator) but just as a good, common sense protection strategy for valuable business information. There are TONS of products, services and technologies, all vying to become the solution. It's very tough to sort out! So, in my continuing effort to take complexity and attempt to simplify it to a point where it is "consumable" and "implementable", I'm going to take a stab at where various security functions "belong" - in the network, in the IT foundation (servers, storage, OS's, etc.) or in the applications themselves.
Yes, this is a complex, ever changing area - whatever someone dreams up to protect the systems/data with, someone else will "break". However, we can bolster the strength of our security solutions by understanding where each particular feature and function is best performed and apply security technology is a logical, cohesive manner. A "simple" approach doesn't necessarily mean "weak", it can mean manageable, implementable and upgradeable instead. That's my opinion... How many millions of dollars have network equipment vendors spent on securing OSMINE compliance? Don't get me wrong, OSMINE has served a very good purpose over the years in ensuring the equipment and software was reliable and manageable (and as a nice "barrier to entry" for those equipment providers that the local operating companies don't really want to spend time with)- pretty important to a service provider operating a service that people/companies actually pay for. However, don't you think it's time for us to move on? In the "new world" of IP-based networking, it's important that systems - and standards - are in harmony. OSMINE, though useful, is a legacy of the Public Switched Telephone Network, and is good for monitoring and managing circuits and circuit-based services - not packets! It's also based on what were originally proprietary protocols and back-office systems and was designed for one market segment and one market segment only - service providers! IP on the other hand, is more of an "open" standards environment with many participants bringing many unique attributes and capabilities to the table. It has a "community" feel which, in my mind actually "opens" up more opportunity for exchange of information - and making money. Where is all of this rambling leading? I think it's time that service providers, and their partner hardware and software system vendors, place themselves more firmly on the XML track. ATIS's T1M1 group already has issued an XML standard for fault management (T1.278-200X) and a "test" standard for POTS Service (T1.277-200X) a good start. However, with just about every imaginable industry using XML to interchange information (including the government), it seems to me that the telecommunications industry could leverage XML to take services - and service management "one step further". Not only could we manage devices and systems more intelligently and efficiently, by including XML data interchanges with customers, service providers could:
Telecommunications networks and network service providers sit squarely amid every business transaction that occurs around the world. Why not "get on board" with every other industry - and use XML-based data exchange to simplify and optimize internal and external business transactions!
That's my opinion!
Total Cost of Ownership or Time Consuming Operation O.k., we're going to tell you right off the bat, that, although TCO analysis' are fine for understanding how a new technology investment can make an immediate impact on one area of a corporation's operation (ongoing support costs, maintenance, network management, etc., etc.), we think that they are nothing more than a Time Consuming Operation when you step back and think about how a new technology impacts the corporation as a whole. The problem is, how often do we do that, and how can we possibly measure the "corporate" impact of a technology investment? The issue is that, until now, it was very, very difficult - if not impossible, to do a "before and after" snapshot of any investment. So, you put in the new bigger, faster, better network - transaction processing is faster (measurable), network response time and reliability is up (measurable) - but what about those "extras" like improved customer satisfaction (not measurable), increased employee productivity due to shorter response times and better transaction processing (not measurable), increased revenue opportunities due to better customer relations (not measurable), improved supplier communications efficiencies (not measurable) - well, you get the picture. These are the problems that have hounded the technical buyer since the beginning. How do you quantify "soft" values and improvement in how a company communicates internally as well as with customers and business partners? And, most importantly, how those improvements affect the corporate bottom line. We believe that the answer is "coming online" with the rise of Corporate Performance Management software and systems. Gartner Group has stated that 70% of Fortune 500 companies will have implemented CPM by the end of 2006, but we all must be careful to use these new tools not just to analyze the disconnect between a sales forecast and sales numbers, but instead to use them as a means of quantifying the "net impact" of our technology investments and innovations. What were sales/revenues before the implementation? After? When other factors (such as new revenue streams) are removed, did the gain from the investment still remain? Which investments made the most impact to the corporate bottom line - and what investments should be made in the same areas to gain even bigger, compounded returns? If used wisely, new CPM tools can be a big boost to the credibility of the technical buyer and a powerful method to begin the process of quantifying the "soft" values that technology investments bring and their "real" contribution to the corporate bottom line. That's my opinion. Comments are always welcome and can be posted to our Open Forum or you can send an email to me at: dmielke@treillagenet.com.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
www.treillagenet.com |
 
|
| Copyright © 2005 Treillage Network Strategies, Inc.. All rights reserved |