At the 2nd Annual Telco Cloud Strategies 2013 event in Singapore, I moderated a discussion on how Southeast Asian telcos are gearing up to offer cloud services. Here’s what I observed:
In the cloud era, SE Asian telcos are moving faster than they are used to. A year ago, Philippine telco Globe Telecom set up a new division, IT Enabled Services, to effectively deliver cloud services, supported by more than 100 professional services people on the ground. While revenues are still low, the new division is now freed from being part of the larger parent company’s processes and can move quicker than competitors to offer managed cloud services for specific industries. Indonesia’s Indosat, on the other hand, has brought both the IT and network divisions together to offer a bundled service — cloud with connectivity — in the same period. Others, like Singapore’s SingTel, acquired IT services company, NCS, to tap into the enterprise segment.
Telcos need partners for cloud services. This is essential, as telcos do not typically have all the pieces for an end-to-end solution. For instance, even with a solid IaaS offering, a telco still needs partners to build the value chain in their ecosystem, e.g., SaaS, and grow together. Indosat, for instance, partnered with Dimension Data to offer enterprise cloud services in Indonesia. The partnership combines Indosat’s nationwide connectivity backbone infrastructure and its 10 data center facilities in Indonesia with Dimension Data’s cloud consultancy services.
At a recent SAP customer event on Business Transformation, Alexander Budzier from the Said Business School at the University of Oxford presented findings on IT project outcomes and their correlations with various project factors. When determining project success rates, the researchers considered business benefits, adherence to budget, and on-time delivery.
Interesting findings from this research include:
Project success does not correlate (or very minimally correlates) with size or length of project, or with public versus private sector.
Focusing on one goal too much can have a negative effect on other metrics. Consider the extreme example of the Olympics, which had a 100% on-time result (over 10 Games analyzed) but the highest cost overruns, at an average of 207%!
Agile deployments (versus big bang) had greater success in some metrics, particularly schedule adherence, but not all.
The single biggest factor in determining project adherence to budget and timelines was benefits management. (In this research fewer than half of the projects they studied had actually tracked benefits.) Those who focused on measuring benefits significantly reduced BOTH project cost and schedule risk. Project cost overruns averages decreased from 36% to 6% when focusing on business benefits; schedule overruns decreased from 119% to 51%.
So, what can we take away from this? Project leaders should:
Focus on benefits – throughout the project lifecycle. Benchmarking can help leaders to identify what benefits / metrics to track.
Recognize warning signs / risks early -- and address them before they result in disaster. These risks include unknowns in design, organizational resistance, and shifting project requirements.
HP recently hosted its Asia Pacific (AP) and Japan analyst event in Singapore. The company presented its “New Style of IT” value proposition and how it intends to position a combined HP hardware, software and IT services stack to deliver client value. After the Boston event back in February, I was particularly interested to see how HP Enterprise Services (ES) is positioning itself as the tip of the spear of the “one HP” messaging and offering in Asia.
When assessing service providers’ relevance to customer needs, I focus on two major areas:
Red ocean offerings – where service providers need to help their clients build scalable, flexible, secure and cost efficient technology foundations around cloud, mobility and analytics.
Blue ocean offerings – where service providers need to help the CIO engage business stakeholders to drive better business outcomes in areas like customer experience, for instance.
We all like free stuff and we all like saving money. I’m a big fan of any free-to-use tools that help identify cost saving opportunities. I regularly dip into online cost comparison sites for stuff I buy at home, such as house and car insurance. These sites are easy and quick to use and often highlight the savings I’ll make by swapping from one provider to another. And we all like to save money, whether it’s at home or at work.
One big cost item for IBM mainframe users is software costs; they consume a significant proportion of enterprise IT budgets and the biggest single item is usually IBM’s Monthly License Charges (MLCs). These often consume a third or even more of a mainframe software budget. In a cash-strapped world, where budgets are under pressure, it’s therefore no surprise to see IT sourcing professionals regularly challenged with finding ways to cut the MLC bill.
Last year, I wrote about some options for reducing IBM mainframe software costs in a Forrester Research paper entitled ‘How to reduce IBM System z Mainframe Software Costs’. Even so I still get asked by clients ‘what else can I do?’, and ‘are there any tools that can help me identify ways to save money?’
So I am always on the hunt for new ideas and cost saving opportunities.
Telstra’s recent FY13 earnings announcement recorded a strong showing of its Network Application and Services (NAS) division, which saw a 17.7 per cent increase in revenue to A$1.5 billion from the previous year. Its international business delivered a combined Global Connectivity and NAS revenue of A$566 million, or a growth of 11.4 per cent from the previous year. Telstra also plans to continue to build out its NAS division, particularly in Asia.
What It Means
A beneficiary of the NAS investment is Telstra Global, nestled under its International division, offering network connectivity and services to enterprises in Asia. In my recent report, I argued that Telstra Global is a well-placed partner for medium-size to large companies in sectors like transportation and logistics, shipping, manufacturing, and professional services looking to expand their operations out from Hong Kong, Australia, and Singapore into Southeast Asia and China. While this looks rosy, there are areas that require closer attention:
SAP officially started its first business operations in 1995 in China. Prior to that, several Chinese end-user organizations like Shanghai Machine Tool Works Ltd. tried to implement SAP through partners based outside China. Through discussions with CIOs who have experience in such projects, all agree that these early SAP projects did not meet expectations. During this first decade of SAP in China (1995-2005), aka the 1st wave of SAP implementations in China, many SAP projects either failed outright or continued to fall short of expectations, primarily due to shortage of local SAP skills and cultural misalignment. China is not a unique in Asia and early adopters in Indonesia and Thailand faced similar challenges since the early 2000s.
As Chinese organizations continue to rapidly grow their activities, one of their major IT challenges is shifting from legacy to more standard information systems – and SAP solutions remain a key option in this shift. But today, experienced CIOs are also setting more realistic expectations regarding business outcomes for these SAP projects. For instance, they now consider SAP as a tool to automate some of their organization’s business processes rather than misinterpret it as a primary mechanism to drive revenue growth or improve profitability – which was a rather common misconception in the past. Chinese organizations have also modified their views on external service providers and are now much more open to leveraging these providers to bring additional value to their SAP implementation projects.
We recently met with Huawei executives during the launch of its latest product in China, the S12700 switch. The product, which ships in limited quantity in Q1 2014 is designed for managing campus networks, and acts as a core and aggregation switch in the heart of campus networks. While wired/wireless convergence, policy control and management come as standard features, the draw is the Ethernet Network Processor (ENP). The ENP competes against merchant silicon in competitive switch products, and Huawei claims to be able to deliver new programmable services in six months, compared to one to three years for competitive application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) chips. This helps IT managers respond quicker to the needs of campus network users, especially in the age of BYOD, Big Data, and cloud computing.
While it is a commendable product in its own right, Huawei will need to position its value more strategically against IT managers that have technology inertia, especially in ‘Cisco-heavy’ networks:
Tying the value of the switch to existing and future enterprise campus needs. In the age of cloud computing, big data, mobility, and social networking, IT managers need to solve network challenges like insufficient service processing capability and slow service responses. Huawei says the new switch is able to provide agile services and respond flexibly to changes in service requirements, on demand. For example, the switch has access control built in for wired/wireless access management. This is a good start. Enterprises will need to understand how the switch plays a central role in a campus network, and Huawei should continue to reinforce its agile network architecture’s storyline.
I’m part of a team called “sourcing and vendor management” (SVM). Forrester organizes its research teams by individual client roles, so my teammates and I all focus on helping clients who are sourcing and vendor management professionals. Wait a moment. Should that read “helping clients who are sourcing or vendor management professionals”? Aren’t they separate functions within a client’s organization? This is a frequent question from our clients, and one that causes a lot of internal debate within our team.
My view, formed from witnessing the experience of hundreds of enterprises, is that, at least in the software category, sourcing and supplier management should be very closely linked, but not via org structure and reporting lines. This is because:
· It is impossible to manage software suppliers effectively unless you can influence sourcing. The major players are so big and powerful that they usually have the upper hand in discussions about maintenance renewals and service levels. Even small software providers can build immovable, entrenched positions in their chosen niches. To have sufficient negotiation leverage to do a good job, the supplier manager must be able to credibly threaten to negatively impact the supplier’s ability to win future business.
· Sourcing is infrequent but intensive, whereas supplier management is continual. The former consumes huge amounts of time and effort for a relatively small period, which risks dropping the ball on monitoring while you’re immersed in a big negotiation, or missing opportunities on the sourcing side due to distractions from the ‘day job’. You therefore need different people handling each side, but collaborating closely with each other.
Tata Communications has emerged from its role as an incumbent Indian service provider to become a globally recognized provider of network connectivity services such as MPLS, Ethernet and IP transit as well as managed hosting in data centers, voice, data, and video.
Tata Communications is starting to measure up to global carriers. I’ve received a number of inquiries on Tata Communications’ regional and global carrier wholesale strategy, as well as its market focus. This increased interest among Forrester clients is a sign that Tata Communications is getting some things right in its carrier business, as the aforementioned global MPLS report makes clear. Its continual network and cable investments are paying off for the service provider.
On June 6, iSoftStone announced plans to make the company a wholly owned subsidiary of China Asset Management Co., Ltdand delist from the U.S. stock market. This is the fifth IT services (ITS) provider headquartered in China to announce plans to go private in the past 9 months. The others were Yucheng Technology, AsiaInfo-Linkage, Camelot and Pactera.
Why are these firms going private? Despite ambitious global growth plans, Chinese ITS providers have largely failed to articulate a compelling value proposition to U.S. and European clients. By focusing mainly on low-end application development services they have instead primarily competed with much bigger and much more experienced Indian providers – but without the ability to offer lower costs. In fact, the average profitability of Chinese ITS providerswent down from 10-15% to less than 5% over the past 2 years, when most large Indian firms are in the 15-25% range. Going private will give these5companies a chance to transform their current model relieved from the quarterly pressure to meet Wall Street analyst expectations.
Existing and potential customers of these ITS providers may have concerns seeing these providers going private, particularly regarding overall company transparency, including financial strength and corporate governance. I believe clients will have to balance their concerns against the potential benefits that going private may deliver, which include: