To Be or Not To Be - Digital

 I had to step away from my role for a period of time and as such did more reading than I have in a while and realised that businesses are going through the hardest changes and decisions that they have seen in a long time. Most businesses have realised they need to change, in fact in a recent survey by BCG[1] it was shown that 89% of Managers globally are involved in digital transformation. The challenge we face is transformations are often compared with any other business decision we take, linear, a or b, left or right. A true transformation is just that, ceasing to be what you were before to become something new. Think about the Caterpillar who becomes a butterfly, this is what business leaders should have in mind when they are seeking to transform, at the end of the initial transformation (because once you start to evolve, your team should continue to keep looking at how that journey can continue), you should be able to see the marked differences from how you operated before to what you are doing now.

Lets stay with that Caterpillar analogy, if a business decided to glue wings on the caterpillar, change its colour, it would not be a transformation, it would still do what it did before, it might look interesting, but actually we would have just made things harder by bringing new complexity to an organism that was built to do what it does (crawl and eat). Many businesses are stuck in this pattern, looking at new technologies, bringing in exciting consultants, however the way of working and the processes and roles and responsibilities all remain exactly the same. Whether there is a new app or website, without these broader changes those businesses – like it or not – will remain a caterpillar. A caterpillar who spends a significant amount of money and whose Board, Senior leaders start asking why are they not becoming a Butterfly.

This brings me to my question – “To be or not to be digital”. Many people will say that being digital is having digital channels to engage with your customers, or having an app to support your employees, these in all honesty are the cosmetics. Imagine a butterfly racing a caterpillar to get to the next branch above, now the caterpillar can eat more but how long will it take to get there and is it worth eating when it does? When we look at Digital native businesses – i.e. those who were born digital, the way they work, they way they create and continue to evolve, just think about some of the apps you use. How many of those are the same as they were a year ago, or even 3 months ago?

Being Digital requires the thinking within an organisation to change, a rewiring if you will, its really hard, but hard things done well is what will effect real change going forward for an organisation. If the organisation can go digital, then the technology can follow. Its amazing in fact there are so many technology options that if a business can transform itself it will realise that it can test ideas, and then decide what works or doesn’t as they continually evolve with low risk and high reward through a fail fast and continually learn approach.

The caterpillar puts in a lot of energy to first builds its cocoon then expends so much energy through its transformation that it loses nearly half of its weight in the process. The same is for businesses, when you are truly transforming you need to ensure it has everyone’s focus and commitment to make the change, if one part of a cocoon wasn’t ready then perhaps the transformation might not look complete or could be eaten by predators crawling in.

Ok I know enough about the caterpillar, but it is a great example for us to consider as we all seek to “Be Digital”. Use it as a measure of how much is actually changing within your organisation, are people taking on new roles, are teams working in different ways? Are outcomes being realised incrementally faster? It isn’t easy, but big changes should never be easy, choosing to be digital brings with it, risks, challenges, emotions, learnings and a commitment that many won’t have experienced before. Hence when you are thinking about embarking on your transformation, think about what it will look like on the other side for your people, your customers and yourself. How bold will your transformation be, because at the end of your journey only you can decide whether you will choose to be or not to be digital – as likewise for any transformation that remains the ultimate question.

[1] BCG Global Survey on Digital Transformation  engagement - https://www.bcg.com/press/3july2020-digital-transformation-survey

The Achilles’ Heel of the Digital Era is…Us

Wow, so there we all were in early 2020, across the globe, slowly embracing digital (yes, some faster than others) and accepting that every aspect of our lives was going digital. But with the global spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, digital is now the “norm’. It’s how we are consuming content, buying products, and ordering meals and “party packs” (apparently these are a thing now!). At a time when physical connection has become impossible in many ways, digital businesses are enabling our lives and our connections in new ways. Though businesses in our global economy have sought to optimise supply chains, many assumed that call centres, and logistics and distribution centre operations were fine as they were. The human dependency for all of these could not be more visible than it is today. Now, people’s lives are impacted by whether or not they can quickly receive the products they order through digital channels, and businesses have had to adopt digital capabilities fast in order to adapt to new ways of working.

I was initially surprised –and later realised I should not have been – when seeing the breadth of this impact even on digital native businesses. Digital native firms were informing customers that the usually responsive customer service they provide would not be available as the call centre locations were closed. Equally laptop demand could not be met because so many firms were looking to specific markets that develop chip sets to keep costs as low as possible, this has impacted the availability of not only laptops, but servers and other digital-supporting infrastructure. Additionally, many businesses rushed to enable staff to work from home to minimise productivity losses whilst also seeking to implement security measures and the ability to measure staff performance. Rapidly doing this in the context of a crisis has proven a significant dilemma that is still ongoing for many businesses even today.

All of this goes to show that the current COVID-19 restrictions have demonstrated for any business looking to “be digital” that the human factor has proven to be the Achilles’ heel as evidenced by degradation in service, the impact on productivity and, in some cases, complete shut downs.

What is interesting to note is this type of global disruption does not usually sit high on the radar for digital transformation, transformation is usually about enabling the next wave of growth, not protecting existing business flows. The likelihood of there being a global pandemic is so rare that the need for a call centre to close, or for a distribution hub to ramp down, or for businesses to diversify their supply chain was near zero – until now. That said, the warnings about global pandemics have been shared with us previously, and particularly in a great 2015 TED Talk presentation by Bill Gates about how the next battle would not be on a field but actually in a Petri dish (yes, I am paraphrasing here). I’m sure the implications of this were never fully appreciated by many of us (me included).

So where are we now? Well, many people are talking about a “new normal”, where we will change the way we connect as humans and where digital enablement of businesses will occur faster than ever before. The diversification of supply chains, the virtualisation of call centres, and the permanent setup for work from home minimises future risks, but also potentially mitigates future costs as many businesses realise large offices may no longer be needed and instead just offer touch down zones when people “visit” from their home office.

I am not sure going to these extremes permanently is the right thing to do. Whilst I do encourage businesses to look at digital holistically so they can be ready for future impactful events, its important that we don’t lose sight of the most valuable aspect of being human: our ability to connect. This human connection is something that is feeling disrupted now and while Video calls are trying to fill the void, in my opinion they can never replace the real world value of connecting with others.

At M1, we had already started our digital transformation journey, though the path we set for ourselves is no longer about preparing for the future but also the new normal. Hence, we need to keep driving our transformation outcomes as fast as we can with the knowledge that the gradual transition we expected is likely to happen a lot faster than we thought. We must become a digital telco so that we can serve our customers, partners and our people in the best possible way. This doesn’t mean everything becomes driven by a machine – it means all our people are in roles that are adding value to our customers and to each other as colleagues. It means we are creating capabilities that strike the right balance between empowering our customers to live in the digital era with the right support tools; and ensuring that we leverage the value of human interaction where it makes sense.

When we exit these pandemic restrictions, we need to ensure that we do not end up with a mantra of digitalising all aspects of our lives. Instead, let’s make sure we are ready to respond when disasters strike so that businesses, governments and all of us as individuals can continue to be effective. In fact it is the collaboration across business, government and the public at large that can ensure we are aware, have the right framework to respond and people have the right working environments to continue to support our economy. We must always ensure though that any intervention, preparation or change in working environments, should always be temporary and that human connection is what will ensure digital adds value to our lives rather than meaning we spend the rest of our lives looking at screen(s).

Humans are the reason businesses exist - it's our needs that create demand and markets to serve. While many businesses will see the human factor as the  Achilles’ heel of digital – that is to say a dependency - when we look to the future let’s ensure that the Achilles’ heel  actually becomes the strength that allows us, businesses and the community to leap forward and see the true value of digital through human eyes, not machines. #staysafe #stayhealthy

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31956344

https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_the_next_outbreak_we_re_not_ready?language=en 

How Fragile is Agile?

I have been reading a lot of articles lately about whether Agile actually works, or whether it’s simply a dream for businesses looking to accelerate business outcomes. Ultimately, the growing view seems to be that Agile doesn’t work – that it is a hype that consulting firms are thriving on, and we’re actually better off going to traditional delivery methods that provide predictability, consistency and the ability to hold someone accountable to get things done.

This debate stems from a need to find the ‘magic answer’ – the silver bullet to take all of our worries away, especially when we are looking to transform. We like Waterfall because we can allocate responsibility to someone else, whereas Agile requires us to get more involved through evolving design, constant prioritisation, showcase presentation, and ultimately owning the outcome (scary stuff). Waterfall means I can document everything I want and then point to someone else to deliver the outcomes. Any delays, errors or increased costs are totally on them, right? (ahem). However, with Waterfall delivery we tend to forget the wonderful concept of change request, where it tends to have a growing number of change requests over time, and then finishes with a resignation of taking what can be delivered with the remaining budget. Now, some might say that if you plan things right you don’t need change requests, but in today’s era of constant change, avoiding it is challenging, to say the least. Historically, in a market where market change was measured in years and for the most part manual (or at best, half yearly) the scale of change was manageable, today however, we are faced with two types of businesses: those that were born digital and those that aspire to become digital. In this dynamic, the extent and scale of change is huge and the challenges this brings to Waterfall delivery means we constantly ask for changes to our delivery plans to evolve with the market.

On the other hand, Agile provides a degree of unpredictability and tends to shift directions based on the priorities set by the business and, more specifically, the product owner themselves. The timing of when a specific capability is completed can be a little vague, as the definition of ‘done’ comes down to when the product owner is actually happy with the capability, and whether they feel it’s fit for purpose. While there can be a desire to go fast with Agile, the concept of minimum viable is always in the eyes of the product owner and thus velocity is determined by the business. For those looking to test in-market quickly, you could achieve a faster launch, but with the knowledge that there might be errors or adjustments to make ongoing. For others who like a capability to be holistic and low risk, it can mean numerous sprints are necessary before it is deemed “done” and as such ready to share with colleagues and / or customers.

I am not going to say that Agile is faster or cheaper – in fact, it can be more ambiguous, frustrating, and lack accountability, which ultimately means there’s no one to point the finger at in pushing toward an outcome. However, this is also why I believe Agile is our future.

Agile represents the cultural change a business needs to go through. We need to be comfortable with a degree of ambiguity and we need to share ownership of the outcome. One aspect that Agile does outperform Waterfall on is the ability to learn faster – and if a business is willing to learn through quick tests and recognises that early failures ensure a program is on the right track overall, then Agile can be a great vehicle to achieve business outcomes. My concern is that Agile has been branded in the tech market as a vehicle to move faster, which means the expectations are wrong from the get-go. Agile will help you learn faster and pivot as the needs of the business evolve or the market drives change, which can create a sense of speed, however it is simply an ingredient in the recipe for broader business agility.

The challenge we keep facing is that our world is not the stable working environment it was before. The predictability of having a three-year outlook that could merely be followed through with minimal disruption is rapidly diminishing, with software that felt more like hardware because it was very much standalone and constant. Today, change doesn’t happen in a two or three-year cycle; it’s happening in months and, if you are really unlucky, in weeks. This is why Waterfall is struggling, as the changes we need to make means we would need to constantly raise change requests and our costs keep going up.

This doesn’t mean I have suddenly prescribed to Agile as being the answer to everything, but it’s about knowing what has the right outcome for your business. If you are doing a migration to the cloud of premise-based applications with fixed scope and deliverables, then Waterfall is likely a better path. On the other hand if you’re developing capability that you know will continue to evolve, then Agile can actually help drive a better outcome.

So, to answer the question in the headline of this article, Agile can appear fragile because it means accepting that we are all accountable for its success. When we struggle to accept ambiguity, the need to change the way we work, or accept joint accountability in partnership of realising outcomes, we make the process fragile.

All of this is simply leading to one key reason - We are the reason why Agile is fragile. We don’t like change, we don’t like being responsible for things which in a traditional IT world was always the ownership of others. In fact, I remember my first project with Agile ways of working, I was constantly asking the delivery partner if this is going to work. My big realisation was when one of the team leads from the delivery partner turned to me and asked me back, “I don’t know, you tell me.” After my heart skipped a couple of beats, I realised this was the difference, and what I didn’t like was that there wasn’t the same clarity that I felt I had before. On the other hand, following our initial delivery, I realised it was that constant ability to keep improving, evolving our tools and external facing systems that was giving us the ability to continue to evolve.

I look at Agile as being a reminder that the business needs to take accountability for the delivery of projects. The time of simply pushing the problem to someone else is over. The introduction of Agile has added another tool to our bag to support our business in become increasingly digital. In doing this, we can enable the business to be less fragile and more adaptable, innovative, disruptive, and, well, agile.

One million reasons to do business in Indonesia

No, this isn’t going to be a list of the one million things, but as my time in Indonesia comes to an end, I thought I would sit down and provide my perspective as to what it has been like working in the Indonesian market. Well put simply, it has been an amazing experience. Well of course I can’t just leave it at that! It has been an amazing journey and learning experience from both a personal and business perspective, learnings that I expect I will carry with me for some time.

Indonesia is an incredible place with high growth potential both for local businesses, as well as businesses and individuals from overseas looking to invest into Indonesia. There is so much happening in Indonesia and for the joint venture that Telkom and Telstra have established, we have had our own journey in navigating the business environment in this market. Like everything else, (including the traffic), establishing the joint venture in Indonesia was very much a journey, and to understand how best to navigate your path to maximise the opportunity, you need to first understand the market itself.

Indonesia is going through a significant growth phase at the moment, and Indonesia’s demographics are a great starting point to suggest they will continue to see this growth continue through a digital lens. With a population of more than 250 million people, and the average age being 28[i], there is a rapidly growing and eager young working population.

As such, this also means a growing desire to leverage new found purchasing power to determine lifestyles. This has been best represented by the penetration of mobile phones into Indonesia standing at 121%[ii] and Smartphones accounting for almost 1 in 4 of those. Indonesia, as of 2014, was the third largest “Twitting” nation and the second largest Facebook nation[iii]. This to me demonstrates a population that is highly connected and, with only a 21% Internet penetration rate, there is clearly further opportunity for Indonesia to expand the digital aspect of their lives for both public and business services.

The reason why I view these figures as important is that, as for any market to achieve success in our digital era, it needs to be connected and have a population which is digital savvy. Indonesia is clearly rapidly moving in that direction. With the fourth largest GDP in Asia (closing quickly on Japan),[iv] combined with a Government under President Jokowi, which is clearly striving to create a market open to investment and value creation, Indonesia is on its way in positioning itself as a growth centre for many years to come.

So Indonesia is a growth market and becoming highly digital, well pack your bags and head over, right? … Ok, well glad it sounds exciting but before you do head for the airport let me share my journey with you so as hopefully you can realise that success you seeking. Prior to moving to Indonesia, I had travelled to Indonesia many times - and no not just Bali before you ask – I believed I had experience in knowing what Indonesia would be like, the culture, what it meant to do business, and managing the joyous travel times between meetings. I was clearly only scratching the service when it came to understanding what it means to work in Indonesia.

Well one of my first learnings is that “jetting” in to visit and experience the working environment is simply not enough from which to draw experiences.  In fact it comes down to the actual experience of living and breathing the market, and connecting with the people to understand the real opportunity and likewise the challenges faced by the teams on the ground.

In establishing our business in Indonesia we knew there would be challenges, but we had underestimated the breadth of these challenges, as well as the amount we would need to adapt to ensure we established a path for success. As we landed on the ground to establish our business we quickly realized what we had hoped would be a few bumps in the road ended up being some obstacles in the road that would need to be navigated:

      1.       As we were working with the largest telecom provider in Indonesia, doing business would be easier. Of course we all knew it would be different to other markets, but that was why we were there to enter new markets and create new value. Shortly after we arrived however there was a change in Government, which led to a change in our partners’ leadership. This was apparently the norm given it’s a state-owned business.

      

      2.       The supply chain we were familiar with from Australia, or other parts of the world, would already be in place in Indonesia, with the recognition we would need to adjust some terms regarding language and local terms and conditions. The supply chain proved to be very different to our expectations, with vendors engaging with their distributors differently. In addition, the responsibility of managing the hardware supply chain proved to be very much the providers’ responsibility, especially given the proactive service that we were seeking to provide our customers.

      

      3.       Given we already had the support of our joint ventures partners executives, it would simply be a matter of being open for business would immediately start to drive the opportunity. Of course, given we were going to a new element of the partner’s business, there would always be some people not totally happy with our approach but that was ok as “they would simply adapt to us”.  We soon realised as the new kid on the block it was up to us to build those local relationships, establish trust and ultimately demonstrate our value to our partners and customers to encourage those partners to collaborate with us instead of seeing us as a new threat to their existing business models.

      

      4.       Business engagement would be transparent as it would be the same as many other places in Asia. It would simply be a matter of re connecting with the local representatives of our global partners and we would be ready to go. We quickly learned that many of our technology partners already had their own local partnerships established with in country System Integrators and telecom divisions, and in matter of fact, we were disrupting a model that was believed to already be working well.

      Now with all of this said the path to securing our business license took longer than we had expected, but this ended up being a hidden benefit in as it gave us the time to understand these challenges and many others as we were establishing this business. That proved invaluable as the time we gained gave us the window to understand how we could set ourselves up for success. Whether it was building one of the largest stakeholder management maps I have ever seen, or establishing a supply chain across a nation from zero, through to redefining the localised product set we would need to demonstrate relevance, all of these developments helped to shape what our business is today. Through these learnings, and the business’ ability to adapt to them, we have realised the results that I have previously shared in earlier blogs.

      The message I hope you take away from this blog is that there are a few key critical considerations when establishing your business in Indonesia:

      

      1)       Ensure you have a clear target and plan – don’t assume you know what it is as soon as you step off the plane but make sure you understand the environment you are looking to operate in and then start to shape your plan.

      

      2)      Make sure you have a solid partner you can work with who understands the market you are seeking to address and more importantly is able to help you navigate through the challenges, and equally help you to identify new opportunities you may not have originally identified in your plan.

      

      3)      Be agile. Things won’t work out the way you expect them to, so you can sit there and get frustrated, or actually look at what you can do differently to navigate the challenge or incorporate the new challenge into your plans and make it part of the goals you are looking to address.

      

      4)      Lastly, - and in my view this was one of the hardest things I had to do personally - be patient. There is a different sense of urgency in Indonesia, what I learned was that whilst I can get frustrated that things weren’t moving fast enough. I needed to find a different approach, share the goal that I was trying to achieve, and leverage the local team around us to understand how we can best reach that outcome in the fastest time possible without the traditional voice like the kid in the back seat of a car, “Are we ready yet?”

      

      I am sure other people who have worked in Indonesia will share other challenges from their experiences in Indonesia and ultimately some of their own critical considerations but for me this is what gave me increased confidence in our ability to succeed. With these considerations in mind, I believe businesses have a great chance to realise the opportunity that is Indonesia. An opportunity that has over one million registered businesses of different sizes, an opportunity that if approached with eyes open can result in businesses being part of an exciting growth market, all of which surely must be enough of a reason to want to do business in Indonesia … right?

---

[i] Source: worldometers.info/world-population/indonesia-population

[ii]  GSMA Intelligence

[iii] Sating Silang & BBh Asia Pacific

[iv] CIA Factbook 2015

A Bridge Too Far

If you haven’t seen the film, it’s a classic and although the film is about a group of soldiers being dropped at a bridge further than they are supposed to, the part I relate most to business these days is the scene when they are asking what is on the other side of that bridge. No one knows, but someone is going to have to go over there. Of course no one wants to, but eventually a brave soul takes the steps to cross the bridge ready to try and blow up the bridge but fully expecting to be shot before they get there so he goes in with guns blazing. You will now be asking what does that have to do with people and technology. Put simply, the way we work can sometimes feel like that bridge too far.

In my own journey, I have worked in sales functions, led products and marketing teams and most recently, headed up operations – all disciplines that have a unique view on the business that they are tasked with supporting. From my time in sales, we focused on ensuring we could get the deal done and ask the products team to figure out how we build a product around it. In a products and marketing capacity, our focus was very much on understanding how we could best define the product and throw it over the wall to operations who will figure out how to build it. And in operations, it is the task of figuring out what has been requested and how this is going to actually work with the systems, tools and people a business currently uses. When an operations team then hands it back to sales – proud that they have been able to deliver the customer requirement with a marvelous “Ta-da it’s ready” to which sales may responds with a “That’s not what we asked for”. This is kind of like playing Chinese Whispers as a kid and giggling at how the message became so fragmented when it reached the start of the circle again. But in business we don’t tend to giggle – well not as much anyway!

For those of you familiar with the film “A bridge too far”, and equally familiar with these functions, you may be thinking a bridge crossing a river doesn’t do these differences justice. I would agree in fact that we sometimes view these as worlds apart instead of merely crossing a river. So let’s extrapolate this analogy. You aren’t merely trying to cross a bridge between functions, but actually we are asking people to don a spacesuit, board a rocket and cross a space bridge not knowing how they will be received on the other side or even if they will understand us. But don’t worry we are armed and dangerous with our own knowledge of how things should work in the business in order for us to do our job, right?

Start-up businesses provide a great learning for established businesses, in start-ups you simply don’t have a choice. You have to cross that bridge or otherwise see your start-up fail. And often in start-ups, it requires people who are working across functions in order to keep the business moving at pace. If the business loses momentum, market confidence can rapidly decline and in turn customers may be lost, resulting in a negative position for the business. Employees of a start-up have no fear because there is simply no time to be fearful or worry about how requirements will be misinterpreted. A start-up ensures these worlds overlap so as decisions are made quickly and together to ensure the business is on board with the outcome we are looking for.

I am sure there will be many of you out there thinking, but a start-up is easier they don’t have the scale we do, they don’t have the complexity of services and systems. Well who put that complexity there, or the systems that you are using? What if we could sit together and redefine what that way of working could look like? Forget who was the person who made the decision or who created the complexity, imagine a world where you could change the business model you work in, below are a few of my suggestions on how you can improve that collaboration.

Stop focusing on the customer and think about the one element you have in common no matter what your function is – the customer. It doesn’t matter if you are the lawyer, IT manager, finance manager, marketing manager or sales manager, this is the one aspect that any function will have in common. I would challenge anyone to identify a function that doesn’t impact a customer directly or indirectly. If you are going to say janitor then my answer is first impressions are everything – what if your customer visited a messy office or overflowing bins? What would that perception mean for your initial conversation?

Take a walk in the other team’s shoes – I will always remember a quote from my coach (you know who you are). In any discussion, no matter how much we disagree there will always be at least 10% truth in what the other person is saying. Pause for a moment and reflect on that concept, what could be that 10% from the other function, once you start there you may quickly find there is more truth or more importantly more alignment between your functions you are merely looking from different lenses toward the customer.

Define what is truly important. I am always amazed at the resolute stand we can make between functions to say we can’t change this or this is a deal breaker, with people left scratching their heads wondering where did that come from? Consider as a cross functional team what are key factors for success as well as failure for any activity undertaken. Agreeing these as a group provides guidance to a business and encourages ideation to be brought into a forum seeking to help realise the benefit vs. attending an episode of Dragons Den (Don’t know what it is … watch some of the video’s gulp!)

These are just a few examples based on my experience and I am sure there are many more suggestions from people out there, but the purpose of these examples is to get you thinking, looking out beyond your realm of influence and seize the opportunity.

What I am saying is this is a call for volunteers, volunteers to cross the bridge, unarmed, vulnerable and open to helping the other-side achieve their outcome with the knowledge of not what your world needs but what your world can provide. Take the leap and move to a role where you can challenge yourself to help another function succeed based on your diverse skills. In time, this bridge crossing will be two ways so when you are volunteering you will need to encourage others to follow your example and cross the bridge the other way. This mindset of adding value to encourage collaboration and ultimately drive the outcome the business is looking for namely sustainable growth and serving your customer, all of this resulting in a business realising that no bridge is too far. 

Who's watching now?

With recent news topics covering the “standoff” between the FBI’s ask for access to `the San Bernadino Killers’ phone and Apple seeking to stand up and protect the privacy of its customers with concerns this could quickly become a default ask for all devices, ironically, I am getting a sense of déjà vu from almost 15 years ago when operators were facing the same debate.

15 years ago, governments and their security agencies were asking telecom operators to share their voice and data information for people deemed a security risk or to investigate a person’s activities prior to an event that happened - criminal or otherwise. At that point, the world was up in arms as to what this would mean for personal security or for that matter privacy as  governments were able to track what people were doing and where they were going.

However, over the years this has become a norm and, although not always accepted, a balance has been established where the operators report to the public on how many times they are asked to share information by the relevant government agency. What is interesting here is that this data is quickly becoming irrelevant as we move to digital and start to reduce our use of mobile platforms like traditional voice and SMS. With these traditional platforms, operators have had visibility of the activities of individual’s voice and messaging communications, whilst in our digital world all communications are increasingly moving to IP or Internet based services. This makes it incredibly difficult for operators to keep track, if they can keep track of the information at all.

I recognize that it is not only telecom operators being asked for end user information, but also the over-the- top players like Google, Apple and Facebook among others, and that they report on these regularly to the public. However, we need to recognize that there is increasingly ony one common source when it comes to telecom services, over-the-top services and other applications and that is simply our mobile phone. A little like our wallets used to be with our ID, credit card information, loyalty cards, receipts etc, with all of this now digital it is the mobile phone, which will increasingly become the centre of security discussions.

It is therefore not surprising that in recent surveys when people are asked what they would be most worried to lose the “mobile phone” is becoming increasingly prevalent[1], versus a decade ago when it was their wallet. The simple reason for this being we store more of our lives in our phones and online that anywhere else these days. Government agencies can approach credit card companies or operators and even online providers to ask for data about an individual, but the one area they are still trying to gain access to remains the phone. The documents, photos, message exchanges all have a common source instead of trying to debate access rights with all of the individual platforms.

I raise this because at some point the “national security” card will get played by government agencies and businesses could end up being forced to comply, similarly with what telecom operators have been through already. I would like to suggest to these handset manufacturers and over-the-top providers to start collaborating together about how they can protect the majority and isolate any handset access to be limited to individual cases. Perhaps there is a unique code that is created based on mutual compliance between the vendor and a government agency for an individual handset, that is to say avoiding sharing access to all phones through a generic override code or similar, which governments could then gain access to whenever they should so choose. In combination with this, then provide visibility to the public as to how many devices the government agency requested access to and how many devices they were given access to. Now this is just a suggestion and the important point here is for the digital community to think through a proactive approach of how they want to engage government agencies rather than being forced to comply with some all-encompassing banner of national security.

Our world continues to change and we need to remember that our lives, which were once paper-based, followed by analog and mobile, are now quite simply digital. Combine this with many governments that continue to fear what they don’t understand, the result is raising concerns on information that they believe exists, but are unable to see or control. In a digital world, where the data we create and store is growing exponentially every day, of course it is impossible to track absolutely everything. However, perception can quickly become reality, as governments and their associated agencies will continue to want to gain further visibility of our digital lives. So, we either act proactively and educate through defining an engagement model which protects the majority of people and addresses data sharing when only absolutely critical for the protection of society, or digital businesses will rapidly become the victims after a few cases under the banner of “National Security” become common place.

I appreciate this is a fine balance and many people will be unhappy with the idea of giving up privacy of our personal items, some will say this must be defended at all costs, but there are precedents already and I fear simply defending will result in a outcome none of us are happy with. I for one would rather know there is an understanding between digital providers and governments as to how this will be managed in the future before it becomes a case of turning on my phone or tablet and asking myself the question “Who’s watching me now?”

---

[1] http://blog.zixcorp.com/2014/09/survey-says-individuals-would-rather-lose-wallet-than-mobile-device/

Ctrl-Alt-Del

We all know what happens when we press ’Ctrl-Alt-Del’ on our keyboards – well, at least I hope you do, otherwise you may find this article rather uninteresting (now, I know a few of you just checked by doing it, so welcome back to the story). When we perform this ‘three button miracle’, we get to see the task manager, i.e all of the active applications we see on our laptop. Imagine for a moment, that you have closed all of those active applications and you are left with a desktop with no activity. Would you continue your work by simply reopening what you closed, or would you think about how you would do things differently?

In today’s “digital world”, we are increasingly comfortable to evolve our collaboration choices, social media, applications for our phone (yes, both for fun and the more serious activities). This is often because there is a better tool for us to use, or the tools we have aren’t working in the right way, or we simply want a change. Interestingly though, most of us don’t do this in our business environments. Think for a minute and ask yourselves, “Why do we do the ‘Ctrl-Alt’Del’ magic combination”? Perhaps our application isn’t working, or our PC or tablet is running slow? Are we worried that our device is stuck within a loop and can’t move forward from? Now, consider the business environments we work in. These reasons can seem very similar, yet our response tends to be a shrug of the shoulders and we continue to push through.

As you read this, consider for a moment that you could ‘Ctrl-Alt Del’ your business. Take a moment to pause and reflect on what is working, and think about whether your processes, systems and tools are doing what you need them to do? Which ones are consuming too much time or resource? As you reflect, you may also sense a glimmer of hope – that idea that pops into your head of the “What if?.

However. then the reality of how complicated or hard it can be leaps to the front again and the hope is gone. I encourage you to force that “What if” concept back to the front just for a moment – let it breathe and consider a minor application or toolset in your business that could be changed with minimal effort and would help your business start to realise the impact a pause and change could have on your organisation.

Of course, many of you will say, “But Nathan, we are already doing this we, are going through significant change as the market evolves”, or “We have tried it before and ended up in the same place”. I tip my hat to those who have not only achieved a rethink, but equally to those who are continuing to try. Without this commitment to change, then businesses will continue to plod through using what they have.

In essence, businesses can’t simply pause and then create a change. It needs to be embraced by the leaders of organisations. Congratulating one another for doing something new, without understanding how to create the right environment for it to be continually successful will simply doom it to failure. One such example was for a start-up business unit which was a business’s efforts to pause and use a fresh approach to change direction for an area of their business where they were being challenged by competitors.

I was fortunate enough to have a discussion with the start-up business unit, working under a large parent company the other day (no, not mine!), where they were being given conflicting direction – “Go forth and conquer this market as a disruptive player!”. Sounds great, right? However, this was followed by the second part of the conversation – “You must of course remain within the architecture and capabilities of the parent business so as we maximise our assets”. Now, after being ready to jump for joy, I was left staring into my coffee cup hoping that my disappointment for their predicament didn’t show. Unfortunately, this is very common for many incumbent businesses seeking to jump on the start-up bandwagon, without truly understanding the changes they need to make in their own thinking when considering what they set out to achieve.

In the case of this business unit start-up, that change from the parent company needs to be in giving them the opportunity to be disruptive or accepting that the goal in establishing the business unit is to disrupt the broader organisation. The latter would require some serious commitment, and a jump off a sizable cliff given the risks it may be perceived to have within the business, particularly as in many large established businesses, the employees are the culture, and they represent the way of working – hence changing this overnight can be challenging.

In this case, providing that new business unit the flexibility to define its market approach, its IT architecture and ultimately its culture will help to define its success. Of course, we can say “But what if it fails?” At least, if it stays within the way of working of the parent company then the assets and people can be reintegrated into the business”. If this is your thinking, then I’m afraid you will never know what success could look like. We don’t see business start-ups wondering about how they might mitigate failure, but how can then create the best chance for success.

“Hackathons” are a great example of how businesses can create the best chance for success, and to date have always been synonymous with technology led businesses, and in particular start-up environments. The idea of throwing a problem into a room with some really bright people to design and develop with a new widget or code to address a bug in a platform is increasingly common. I would however propose that hackathons become the tool of choice for our ‘Ctrl-Alt-Del’ moment.

Once we pause our business, what are we going to do? How do we ensure we don’t go back to our old ways of working? How do ensure our staff embrace this change with us? In any organisation, there are lots of bright people in their field who are keen to get more involved and with the right tools, they can have  a phenomenal impact on helping to improve the way a business achieves its objectives. The people that make up an organisation want their business to be successful; it’s what makes it a great place to work, so leveraging their commitment and channeling that willingness to succeed through these types of tools can create a great environment for change.

This for me is why leaders really need to ‘Ctrl-Alt-Del’ their businesses and have a serious think about the way they are running their organisations. Can it be done differently? Yes, I hear some of you saying –  it is simply impossible to change your business given how long you have been working in that way, but I say give your teams a chance to embrace change, a change made of their own interest, engagement and outcome. It might start small – from how a team collaborates, or how you engage with your customers, but ultimately if it gets the business thinking about the “possible”, then that can only be a good thing … right?

We built a house!

Ok, so it’s not a physical house but we have built a new business in Indonesia. I can tell you, having previously seen my first home being built, it feels very much the same.  In any construction there are a number of key factors to consider; managing the timelines for the project, ensuring contractors don’t blow out the budget (this is a biggie), adapting to the required changes as we learn what works best and above all ensuring the customer is happy with the outcome. In the case of my first home, my customer was my wife, and in the case of building this business, our customer was the Indonesian market.

When building this business or “digital house” as I call it, we learned there are a lot of great technologies in existence that can be leveraged to build a business’ operations and business systems. And for anyone that knows me, exploring these new technologies was like placing a kid in a candy store and giving them some money to fill a basket – don’t worry I was well behaved, for the most part.

Ironically though, I don’t believe it is the strength of our technology that will drive the right outcome for our digital house, but more so the less predictable elements that will define the successful build of our house - quirky people! Whilst quirky people are not necessarily sought to build a physical house  –in the event the bathroom may end up in the kitchen and a shower in the study – we were fortunate to have some amazing people on this project. It wasn’t just their knowledge that assisted us, but their ability to think outside of the box, and consider the unusual and unconventional ways to approach the deliverables for this unique program. Simply put, they needed to be quirky!

There were a lot of unknowns in the building of this house –  from how we could integrate into the local operator’s business and operating systems and avoiding significant upfront investment to ensuring we were compliant to local market regulatory policies. Importantly we also needed to ensure that whatever we built would support the business’ key goal in serving our customers in a new and differentiated way.

I can appreciate anyone who has worked in a start-up before will be thinking, ”well Nathan, as a start-up that’s pretty straight forward and common”. However, I would ask you to consider that this is a joint venture between two incumbents that were running successful businesses in a prescribed way for a long period of time with clear views on how they felt the business should be established. This isn’t in line with a common start-up model.

The approach we took therefore may have appeared normal for a tech start-up, but for two incumbents it was a leap of faith to change the approach in addressing these challenges, whist driving the outcome that would enable a new business to grow. It wasn’t possible to simply run through a check list – what we needed was people who would adapt to the changing landscape as we learned more about the market and business environment we were operating in, and challenge what was possible (or equally not viable) and what was needed to adapt to the needs of the local operator.

What was imperative in building this digital house was the need to change our way of thinking, focusing on quick outcomes in small steps, empowering our teams and accepting that failure could and would happen.  It is very easy to slip into an approach of “that’s what we have always done” as a reason as to why we shouldn’t try something different, I can’t count the number of people who were happy to tell us “that won’t work”, or “you can’t do it that way”.

This is where we get to the next critical factor - you need people that are committed, and almost stubborn, to ensure that they stay true to the journey that is being defined. You also need an understanding boss who will give you the flexibility to pull this together without losing faith in what we are able to achieve (thanks Boss!). There were times when we would question ourselves – “are we doing the right thing?”, and “should we back off and simply accept that near enough is good enough”. I am glad we didn’t as the outcomes we have started to realise are down to that commitment to the goal.

Equally, the team knew we would not make all the right bets to address both our current and future requirements. As such, we needed to make sure that we had some flexibility moving forward. By taking a cloud platform approach to all the technologies that we introduced offered us the flexibility to evaluate functionality, without feeling we were committed to the tools that we were using in the long term. Yes, there would be a revised integration effort if we changed out an element of our architecture. However, that was better than being stuck with a physical platform for five to seven years that we would have to keep customising to the point that it could no longer be changed out without a complete new build.

 The cloud approach has also meant that our costs for the platforms are directly correlated with the growth of the business. Yes, there is a case of initial capacity, however this is minor compared with the scale we can grow these platforms to as demand increases. Lastly, the hybrid nature of our cloud environment, which extends from Indonesia across international markets, ensures that we can be compliant to evolving regulatory requirements in Indonesia whilst leveraging the benefits of different cloud platforms.

Another key aspect has been the way that we have engaged our suppliers. Every conversation has started with, “how do you interface into other systems?”, “what use cases can you share about that integration”, and “what best practices have driven the development of your systems?” The reasons for these questions were because we knew that to maximise the value of the technology we were using, it was more important to have systems that would naturally talk to each other and had done so before, versus our own team having to build a system to translate between two systems – as if we were trying to help translate between two completely different languages.

To this end, it became clear to us we were building a “digital ecosystem” or a collection of technology partners that would need to interoperate to ensure we could serve our customers in a valued and differentiated way. This ecosystem may evolve over time as we find different technologies that will help us serve more effectively in the future. Fortunately, by remaining true to the approach the team has taken, will help to ensure all new members of the ecosystem understand the requirement for interoperability.

We have now established a Service Provider in Indonesia with no network assets, nor any voice infrastructure. Admittedly, we have had to build a private cloud to meet local market criteria, however the majority of our technology is cloud based. We are developing a culture where the teams succeed or fail together, and where we do fail, we fail fast, dust ourselves off, understand why we fail and then move forward again – but always as one team.

We are also now serving customers and gearing up to expand our portfolio, but the house is clearly built. To that end, in building our digital house; the operating license is our foundation, our walls are the tools, platforms and processes we have created, the roof is the governance we use to always make sure there are no leaks in what we have built, the windows our experience centre to show customers a view of what we can provide, and the interfaces connecting our systems together is the cabling. We can now see where we need to improve the house - where the walls need finishing and where the roof needs to be maintained, but none the less we now have a house!

However, our digital house is still just a shell. It’s the people who work in it that are making the digital house our digital home, and ultimately will be the ones who welcome our customers and partners in as we seek to change the customer experience and serve the Indonesian market with our version of kopi and thee.

This article is dedicated to the Implementation team from the past year that had the patience to work with us, the passion to drive us to complete our goals and never accept near enough as good enough. We recognized that this success will always be bigger than any one person and that we all should reflect on the role we played in realising the building of this house. I would especially like to thank the team for putting up with my crazy ideas, passionate discussions and occasional singing in the corridor!

Lost in Translation

I love technology, but if there is one thing I have learned over the years, it is that it is really irrelevant how much you know about the functionality of a particular widget.   The decision to buy a service is no longer about how “shiny” or “rich” a service is, but how it can be relevant. We have reached a tipping point where the traditional buyers of procurement and IT are no longer front and centre in the buying decisions.  These individuals are being replaced by the Business Unit owners and customer facing functions, a shift which requires a fundamentally different type of conversation and one which is causing many challenges for numerous ICT related industries.

“Big bets”, or big changes, are increasingly a thing of the past, especially as ICT services become more on-demand. This change gives customers the ability to transform much easier than in years past. Therefore, businesses need to evolve their thinking toward a new approach of differentiation…one towards relevance as it pertains to the business and the new decision makers.  We need to shift our language from the bits and bytes to understanding the challenges and opportunities that exist and what it can mean for the business. As businesses start to become more granular and focused, on tracking outcomes from individual initiatives, their expectations from suppliers equally change.

One of the things I love about my job is the opportunity to listen to business owners regarding their ambitions for their business, their key challenges and where they would like help.  In speaking with them, I begin thinking about the role I can play for that person in translation and/or understanding of what he/she is trying to achieve and the solutions out there that could help to solve their business challenges. If you are going to be meeting new business people there are three key tips I would suggest you do ahead of time. First, learn about who you are meeting with, what are their priorities and key goals? Secondly, how do they actually measure success for their business and industry? Finally, how can you help them to bridge from your understanding of feature and functionality with the insights of the above?

Let me be more specific, I am not talking about simply writing a script to accomplish what I’ve suggested above. You need to truly embrace and understand these questions and make them part of your approach to doing business. If you are able to do this and can then change the way you have a conversation, this will leave you feeling like you have had a positive impact on someone’s life and or business. Now this is not to say I will stop talking about technology. I simply love technology, but I love it for the same reason I write these blogs. I want to know the impact technology can have on people and to understand how we as individuals can influence and shape the evolution of technology. Technology plays a growing integral part of our daily lives, from the watch on your wrist to the self driving car; our lives will continue to be impacted hence the need to understand how we want technology to add value versus trying to make the functionality of a new widget work for us.

 I am reminded by a great Simpsons episode (stay with me now) where a techie is attracted by Homer Simpsons offer of fast internet but when the techie asks: “I'm interested in upgrading my twenty eight point eight kilobit internet connection to a one point five megabit fibre-optic T-1 line. Will you be able to provide an IP router that's compatible with my token ring ethernet LAN configuration?” – Now you could be forgiven for thinking and those things are what? - but in basic terms he is looking for an internet upgrade and one that will not require him to change any hardware at his home thus keeping his costs low so as he can visit the comic book store and buy more magazines (seriously!). Now of course the obvious question is, “well then why not say that?” I often find myself having to remind people that functionality is great but unless it has relevance to the person you are trying to sell to (or in the case of this Simpson episode – buy from) then there is not much point in starting a conversation.

In the case of Homer Simpson and similar for many businesses, there is a need for a new type of translator – one which can help people and businesses translate features and functionality to demonstrable business benefits, in the language of the customer or partner. This is something that I love to do and moreover enjoy seeing that “light go on” when the translation has been successful and everyone around the room gets excited about the outcome they are then working towards. Without these translators of the future, it is going to be akin to a meeting of two foreign countries, where gestures and pictures is all that is able to be used to explain anything which will ultimately result in a loss of translation moment and leave many people with that Homer Simpson expression as their only answer … “Can I have some money now?” 

Fail fast or suffer slow

Telstra recently released its Connecting Countries thought leadership report, which was based on a survey of some 4,100 executives across Asia capturing their views on best practices, challenges and overall business performance in the region. It was exciting to read that there were a number of management lessons that businesses can take with them as they seek to invest into Asia as well as an insight into the profile of an Asia Business Champion – one who doesn't only recognize best practices but also lives and breathes them.  While there were a number of takeaways from the report,  there was one which jumps out at me particularly as it relates to driving success in an Asia market place. One of the key management lessons for success in Asia was looking at the need to move forward with multiple growth strategies concurrently.

Now I have always believed that a person cannot multi-task (despite my numerous attempts to try!) hence this strategy could only ever exist for a large size business and not an individual or SMB. But the need to look at multiple strategies is important for international businesses to consider in order to balance the potential risk of one failing due to internal or market challenges. I must make clear though there are limits to running multiple strategies. A couple of years ago for example, one vendor shared with me their plans to run 25 new initiatives in parallel. Now I don’t care how big you think you are or how mature your strategy execution process is, but when you talk about multiple strategies to this degree it is simply a death warrant for the strategy itself and puts the business at risk of losing its way. I am glad to see that San Francisco based vendor has since realized this and re-evaluated how many initiatives it takes on at the one time.

Now when a business is looking at multiple strategies it needs to understand the levers it can use, for example how quickly a strategy decision can be moved into action and equally, how quickly it can be shut down. These days it is increasingly common place that a strategy is dependent on people, systems and communication. Now, we know we have the ability to redeploy people to other projects and – as hard as it can be at times – sometimes people choose or must move on , however for Systems and communication platforms we often have to make investments that tend to have a pay back only after 3-5 years,. This can cause a challenge as businesses then need to assess how they can mitigate risks to drive a strategy to a positive outcome. For this reason it is important for businesses to adopt what is increasingly being known as a “Fail Fast” principle. The Fail Fast principle looks at prioritizing initiatives that need an investment based on requiring limited capex and leveraging platforms that can be turned up quickly and equally turned off with very little delay post a decision, if it is not working.

Take for example the idea of replicating a solution into a new vertical, which  might require assigning people temporarily, adding  system capacity for marketing campaigns, tracking opportunities and managing customer deployed solutions. But what if all of this could be set up within weeks and taken down even quicker? Would that make you rethink your prioritization of business strategies and equally consider additional initiatives, knowing your investment risk is significantly reduced and not committing the business to years of investment? Well hopefully the answers to both are yes, if not then perhaps a multi path strategy is not for you (either that or you have money and resource to burn).

Historically this would have been a challenge; however the virtualization of IT and communications means that businesses are now more empowered than ever to introduce the Fail Fast principle into their strategy decisions. Now considering the feedback from the Connected Countries survey that businesses need to consider multiple strategies in order to achieve success – at the beginning of this article it would be perfectly normal to think this is only achievable by either very large businesses or for those who have learned through expensive or painful experiences of what strategies work and equally which don’t. However hopefully now you are thinking about how your business could introduce a multiple path strategy by leveraging the advancements of technology that exist today, combined with the key principle in defining which strategies to go after based on their ability to align to a fail fast approach.

We are not talking about transformation or changing the way your business operates. This is very much about understanding how a business can be successful in a market like Asia where the only constant is change. But there are clearly multiple market opportunities and with the right approach –  as demonstrated by the Asia Business Champions – combined with the right principles, businesses can create the environment needed to succeed by failing fast, which ultimately has to be a better approach than suffering slow and not reaping the rewards of a multi path strategy.

You can find the Connected Countries report at the attached link - http://www.telstraglobal.com/connectingcountries/?concountries=tgbanner

Leopards need to change their spots too

We associate Leopards with being fast, agile, and adaptive – something many businesses would love to aspire to or believe they have already achieved. However, think about that Leopard for a moment lacking the ability to maintain a sustainable pace, using up all of its energy in a very short period of time and spending a lot of its time resting to conserve energy.  Now doesn’t that sound more like many organisations you know of, expending large amounts of energy but finding that sustainable pace in a market of change?

In our work environment we increasingly find organisations that need to adapt to the changing market around them. But, I would propose that it is the constant adaption, customisation and “tinkering” of applications and systems that really restrict a business’s ability to do just that.

Consider for a moment how many changes you requested from your supplier to ensure your application or system would operate effectively based on your current ways of working. And now consider how frustrated you were at the supplier’s lack of understanding of your business needs. 

Next, consider what your company did when looking to adapt to market changes or a shift in strategy.  I am guessing – as tends to be the case – you invited in your suppliers and told them there would be a number of change requests required as updates to your applications and systems were needed to ensure they evolved with the needs of your business. What happens next is the response you receive from your suppliers is an extensive program of system changes, which are significantly more expensive than what you had expected. At this point the inevitable happens and we introduce that word that every strategy leader hates … compromise. You are then entering a phase of your business change where you need to balance the necessity of change with the market need to change against the cost. The end result is that the costs continue to increase, you don’t receive the changes you were hoping for and you ultimately end up setting up the business to fail, not fast mind you, just a slow and painful death.

I share this with you because, given the world we live and work in, there is a need for a fresh approach to business.  An approach which actually requires an organisation to change, a change in the way it works and not necessarily by overhauling existing systems and tools. As strange as it may sound it is increasingly crucial for businesses to avoid customisation as much as possible so they can adapt to the market quickly and avoid expensive system overhauls. Of course people will say “well hang on Nathan we need to customise those systems if the market is changing.” Well, I would challenge that there are two approaches businesses need to be taking to ensure sustainable growth in today’s market.

The first is by moving to standard components and interfaces.  With this, you are then able to consider vendor replacements. By forcing the use of API’s, or application interfaces, you can replace components much more easily without the need of a potential full rip and replace of all systems supporting a process.  This equally ensures your business can regularly validate the latest capability from CRM systems to Billing systems and even, dare I say, communication systems. How often have you found yourself frustrated just after launching a new platform, application or system that a capability had just been added that would have benefited your organisation?  Need I say more?

The second key approach is to look in the mirror more often.  Instead of the levers you seek to adjust being limited to third party components, look into your business at the people, processes and ultimately ways of working that you have established and ask yourself, how often have these actually changed over the years?  I am not talking about rearranging the deck chairs, I am referring to real changes in ways of working to ensure 1. that a business can maximise the opportunities that change can bring; 2. to ensure that sustainable growth is understood as the journey.

The first approach is strengthened by the introduction of cloud based architectures, which means you can consume what you need, and equally adjust to new market developments quickly. I appreciate some elements are more difficult to change than others but, by starting with a view that everything can be changed, this will ultimately create the right environment for success. Cloud capabilities have created new avenues for businesses to feel more in control of the risks their business chooses to take and equally the opportunity to leverage the latest technology at each step of the way.

The second approach is a lot more difficult because no one likes change.  Change can cause a stall in business performance and ultimately comes with its own risks. However, people will accept and equally embrace change, as long as you can articulate the benefit to the business. Whatever those change may be, understanding the business need first is the most important element.

Speed and agility are crucial business elements, but without simplifying the tools and ensuring the business adapts to the market change, all that an organisation will achieve is declining profitability and increasingly demoralised employee engagement. I am always intrigued by business leaders who share how confident they are about their business, but it is those businesses who recognise that being as agile as a leopard is not enough. Sometimes you need to change yourself in order to succeed and the tools round you may enable part of that change, but unless you are willing to change your own spots you may find that the speed you have is only enough to spin your wheels  and not to deliver the continued momentum.

Time to get out of the box!

Mobile Operators are at the crossroads of an exciting Journey. They need to choose to become the best of breed connectivity player delivering Internet access, Talk and text services, OR become a next generation services provider delivering multi-media and end user applications. Now I am not here to pass judgement or to say which is better (ok I do have a view), however they must choose a path as trying to dance between the two will only cause increasing prioritization challenges and conflicts of investment strategies. My intent with this article is to open the eyes of operators so that they may see an opportunity before them.

In order to move forward Mobile Operators need to get back to what they were known for, when Mobile Networks were the next best thing driving innovation and service creation.  Remember when we couldn't send more than 30 characters in a message, or the first time you viewed the Internet through your mobile? I mean, come on, how cool was that! The status of Mobile Networks going “All IP” has finally arrived and hence a new horizon has been reached!  So, what are we going to do differently?

Despite a growing view that Over the Top (OTT) players “own the customer relationship”, I suggest you ask yourself this simple question:  “Who do you call when you can’t access certain content or make a Skype call or even view your Google maps?”…. The majority of us first call our mobile operator, with a common statement of “Hey, I can’t access my Apps, Content, or speak to my family whilst trying to avoid your expensive long distance charges!” In my view, if the operator is being asked to be accountable, then shouldn’t they leverage the role as a differentiator as well? Operators have a great chance to remove demarcations and show their customers a true value service, where predictability in end user costs are provided – therefore reducing bill shock when accessing high bandwidth services; and where customers can choose what type of content they want.

I believe, there are some very exciting services that Mobile Operators should consider, if they haven’t already, offering to their customers:

·         Media:  This is the most obvious avenue, given Mobile networks are moving to an all IP network, they can now prioritize and effectively optimize traffic to balance quality of experience whilst minimizing loads on the network to minimize impact on other customers. There are equally exciting opportunities to work with local content providers and/or broadcasters. Operators provide significant value in that they can provide very detailed information on the profile of the individual watching the content (no this is not about selling information, but about profiling a customer base to drive demand and more importantly relevance of advertisements and content to the end user. This is something broadcasters fail to do today when we are watching on our TV’s at home, Yes Broadcaster and Content providers can predict, based on time of day but that is really it, to have the opportunity to know , who is watching what type of content and when would increase the granularity and market insights. This means broadcaster could tell their advertisers that they could increase the profiling of viewers for specific shows and ultimately realize a better ROI for their programming.

·         Applications: Yes we all know the demand and “stores” of applications are expanding rapidly, however, they remain tied to specific Operating System stores and as such, remain difficult to share amongst friends with different operating systems. Mobile Operators are quite unique in that they don’t care if a customer prefers an Iphone over an Android, or Nokia above Blackberry (hey it could happen). Therefore, consider an application store, which is run by the Operator, where customers are able to recommend applications to friends, create apps and share them across a broader market without worrying what Operating System their application is based on or what type of device their friends choose to use.  And because of this, they then see the relevance and value of a Operator enabled store that much faster! Equally, local hosting of the applications improves customer experience for the application owner – especially for the growing number of high bandwidth demanding services, as well as localization of Internet traffic. For Application developers, in local markets, it is always a choice of what app store do you start hosting your application on. Yet, mobile operators have an opportunity to help the application developer access multiple Operating Systems and, at the same time, promote their particular application to a broader audience. The value for the operator, as mentioned earlier, comes in optimization of those access applications across their “all IP” mobile network and I would suggest sharing the advertising monetization with the app developer.

·         Service Bundling: Historically we have looked at bundles based on a mobile device, phone line and access to the Internet. But, these days, all of these elements are a given. Why not change this to become: access your top three social media pages, favourite content sources and/or applications? By collecting all of this data, Mobile Operators can then share with the customer what other content or apps may be of interest based on similar profiles without divulging personal data! Equally in understanding these preferences for customers operators can start to prioritize or optimize traffic to ensure customers receive an exciting experience whilst also working with the content or service owner to consider hosting high demand services with the operator to reduce overseas Internet expense and improve performance.

·         Advertising: This has become a fact of life, whether you like it or not, it is here to stay. We see ads everywhere on line and where the Mobile Operator can add value, is to use this to help the customer gain access to content and services at a lower cost. Before you skip past this idea, consider for a moment an option to buy into Ad categories which are of relevance to you and use these as credits to offset your new profile based service bundles or expand your bundle to other services at little or no extra cost. We have tended to forget that the Advertisers will consider all avenues to reach their potential customers as long as they are more likely to view the advertising. Let’s face it, if you know the ads being shown are of relevance and then you are more likely to click on the ad. Combine this with basic profile data of Day, Time, location and personal preferences to create the greatest likelihood of interest for both the end customer and the advertiser. in the end it is the operator who is actually facilitating the relationship and making it beneficial to both!

Mobile Operators are at a cross roads, they have the capability to redefine the customer experience through optimization, prioritization and packaging. The “all IP” network means it is much easier to introduce over the top services which could be viewed on laptops, mobiles or tablets (and increasingly TV’s!) The traditional Over the top providers (OTT’s) may become agitated with this approach, however, in my opinion; it is ultimately what we have been missing for some time.  A healthy competition and a realization that mobile operators have more than one choice, when it comes to delivering a content and service rich diversity and high quality customer experience. It is up to the OTT players to excite the operators in how they are going to partner in service creation, customer growth and end to end service assurance. OTT’s have a choice to make as Operators are now in a position to shop around.

Mobile Operators therefore need to identify the role they want to play, build the above capability or identify the partners (not suppliers) who they can work with to achieve the same. However, whatever the decision, the end result MUST be that they take responsibility for the end to end customer experience and that is only possible if they embrace the Over the Top model, recognize that the era of talk and text is moving to all IP and OTT players are increasingly challenging mobile operators for this space. Going all IP means Operators can now leverage the growing standardization that Operating systems for mobile devices have brought us and ultimately it is the OTT’s who have provided the opportunity to Operators to create their own services, or as I like to say perhaps now is the time for Mobile Operators to go “OTT to the OTT!”