In the 90's the the management battle cry was "turn task to projects". With adoption of such Philosophy the productivity in most companies increased and in some instances the quality of work increased as well. Now going into 2010 Is Project Management a thing of the past?
No matter how good a project is managed there are basic flaws resulting to project delays, ever increasing cost and lack of decision making from people working on a project. Several decades onwards, the question is there a strategy better than project management where tasks are broken down to smaller and manageable projects. In my perspective, yes, there is and it has to do with turning project management to product management. The biggest flaw in project management is the hierarchy of decision making where as a project member needs to get a decision from his team lead then the team lead will need to get a decision from the project manager whereas the project manager needs to receive the decision from his programme director and finally the decision has to be taken by the company's management. This is true even in most simple issue such as purchasing a server for a particular project because the old one broke down....
How do you solve this common management problem? The answer is to optimise how each project is managed which in turn requires a new approach. Let's say what happens if we give project managers the full responsibility of a particular deliverable without and full decision making power? When you manage a project you expert results, what ever the results will be. What if we turn the task into a product and make the project manager fully responsible from concept to delivery? Will this avoid the most common problems encountered today? In my perspective yes it will. Now let's turn a project manager to a product manager give him or her full responsibility of the project much like managing a product and let's watch an amazing transformation. Of course we still need good management skills to be fully successful. The "product" is defined as the results of a particular task or deliverable.
As a product manager he or she is fully responsible from concept to delivery and also responsible for constant innovation and improvement. With this the best in a person is brought out since he or she has now the flexibility not available before, further to that completing a "product" and continuously innovating is a more rewarding task.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Is lean star-up the most cost effective start up?
This is a continuation of the previous blog...
Today I delivered a presentation in front of a group of venture capitals in Oresund top 10... I was very surprised by the reaction after the presentation was completed. I never thought that VCs would react on a presentation the same way that an inspired group of conference attendees do.
OK onward to the question is lean start-up the most cost effective start up? Yes and No. Let's start with the NO. When is Lean start-up not cost effective? The simple answer is when it is not managed properly. This happens when too much waste is generated by multiple failures without learning from such failures. It also happens when you overpromise and under deliver thus ruining your reputation in the market and losing further business. Remember the Minimum Viable Product? It is good for marketing but be careful as an organisation you don't have too many chances to disappoint your customers. There are several other reasons why a lean start-up is not cost effective, however those two are endemic.
So when is lean start-up cost effective? Again it boils down to good management and avoiding the most common fit fall of overpromising and under delivery. Furthermore it is cost effective when you manage to eliminate CAPEX intensive technologies and go open source. Why open source? It allows you to benefit from innovation of others without spending your time and resource re-inventing the wheel. Why re-invent the wheel when you can fly?
There are more arguments why lean start-up is cost effective but I guess I have to leave that to Eric Ries :-).... If you want to know more from me then simply ask :-)
Can someone please prove me wrong?
Today I delivered a presentation in front of a group of venture capitals in Oresund top 10... I was very surprised by the reaction after the presentation was completed. I never thought that VCs would react on a presentation the same way that an inspired group of conference attendees do.
OK onward to the question is lean start-up the most cost effective start up? Yes and No. Let's start with the NO. When is Lean start-up not cost effective? The simple answer is when it is not managed properly. This happens when too much waste is generated by multiple failures without learning from such failures. It also happens when you overpromise and under deliver thus ruining your reputation in the market and losing further business. Remember the Minimum Viable Product? It is good for marketing but be careful as an organisation you don't have too many chances to disappoint your customers. There are several other reasons why a lean start-up is not cost effective, however those two are endemic.
So when is lean start-up cost effective? Again it boils down to good management and avoiding the most common fit fall of overpromising and under delivery. Furthermore it is cost effective when you manage to eliminate CAPEX intensive technologies and go open source. Why open source? It allows you to benefit from innovation of others without spending your time and resource re-inventing the wheel. Why re-invent the wheel when you can fly?
There are more arguments why lean start-up is cost effective but I guess I have to leave that to Eric Ries :-).... If you want to know more from me then simply ask :-)
Can someone please prove me wrong?
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Lean Startup in Large Companies
Today I attended Eric Ries' seminar on lean start-up in Malmö. To those who attended the event you might have known me to be the last person to have had asked a question before the panel discussion started. The question of course was captivating "How can you use lean start-up principles to obtain VC funding?" and resulted to a long and entertaining answer from Eric.
During the panel discussions there were 3 questions that strike a cord on me and did not get a clear answer from the panel members. (1)How can you apply lean start-up in large companies? (2)Is lean start-up the most cost effective way of starting up a successful company? (3)Does outsourcing innovation work? Pity that there were no meaningful answers provided on this questions, well, answers were provided but not concrete enough nor definitive enough.
Having practiced lean start-up since '98 and have been exposed to the early lean start-up practices in a telecom operator way back in the mid '90s I can shed light into the questions above. My observations are very limited to the telecom sector so I can not claim that it can translate across multiple industries.
Onwards to the question of "How can you apply lean start-up in large companies?" Actually this is not a new concept, the practice of lean start-up principles has been around for decades and it’s been called good management practice. Several fads have come and go but the good old management practice remains the same. So how do you exactly implement lean start-up principles in large organisations? To answer that let me tell you a story.
While managing business development for a large firm (1B$ in revenue) I was responsible in developing business and establishing operations in new territories. The process of establish this new operations is similar to starting up a new company. The limitations are the same (1)Budget is very limited (2)You need to get funding (3)No existing customer (4)All you have is a concept. The difference here is that the concept is proven to have worked in other countries, having said that there is no guarantee that such concept will work in another country with a different business culture and a very different business climate.
To be able to establish a new country operations you need (1) get customers fast (2)generate good profit immediately (3)expand rapidly (4)use new operations to spring board to other relevant markets. So what's the secret recipe in getting it right? Well, it’s very simple. It's called sales... sales... sales... The minimum viable product in this particular company is really very early stage, like in there is no product at all and no product prototype... all there is a concept and a promise of delivery.
To achieve success you need to gain trust of your potential customers, enough trust to sign a multi-million Euro contract without knowing what they are buying. Once you receive the order make sure you build a team that can deliver the promise. The delivery do not have to perfect in the first run, failures are accepted in the beginning since it is a learning process to fully understand the customer requirement. The key is constant communication and collaboration with the customer to reduce if not eliminate failure points and deliver flawlessly.
But wait a minute... How do you exactly do that? What do you need to establish the country operations? The answer is you only need 2 part time people, one finding the problem and the other looking for a solution. It is possible to get up to the point where contract is signed or order is received with only 1 brilliant person. And don't forget to that face to face contact accelerates the process and increase the probability of success. Why? Because decision making is highly influenced by emotions and perceptions.
Ok then to the second question "Is lean start-up the most cost effective way of starting up a successful company?" it's coming on the next blog.
During the panel discussions there were 3 questions that strike a cord on me and did not get a clear answer from the panel members. (1)How can you apply lean start-up in large companies? (2)Is lean start-up the most cost effective way of starting up a successful company? (3)Does outsourcing innovation work? Pity that there were no meaningful answers provided on this questions, well, answers were provided but not concrete enough nor definitive enough.
Having practiced lean start-up since '98 and have been exposed to the early lean start-up practices in a telecom operator way back in the mid '90s I can shed light into the questions above. My observations are very limited to the telecom sector so I can not claim that it can translate across multiple industries.
Onwards to the question of "How can you apply lean start-up in large companies?" Actually this is not a new concept, the practice of lean start-up principles has been around for decades and it’s been called good management practice. Several fads have come and go but the good old management practice remains the same. So how do you exactly implement lean start-up principles in large organisations? To answer that let me tell you a story.
While managing business development for a large firm (1B$ in revenue) I was responsible in developing business and establishing operations in new territories. The process of establish this new operations is similar to starting up a new company. The limitations are the same (1)Budget is very limited (2)You need to get funding (3)No existing customer (4)All you have is a concept. The difference here is that the concept is proven to have worked in other countries, having said that there is no guarantee that such concept will work in another country with a different business culture and a very different business climate.
To be able to establish a new country operations you need (1) get customers fast (2)generate good profit immediately (3)expand rapidly (4)use new operations to spring board to other relevant markets. So what's the secret recipe in getting it right? Well, it’s very simple. It's called sales... sales... sales... The minimum viable product in this particular company is really very early stage, like in there is no product at all and no product prototype... all there is a concept and a promise of delivery.
To achieve success you need to gain trust of your potential customers, enough trust to sign a multi-million Euro contract without knowing what they are buying. Once you receive the order make sure you build a team that can deliver the promise. The delivery do not have to perfect in the first run, failures are accepted in the beginning since it is a learning process to fully understand the customer requirement. The key is constant communication and collaboration with the customer to reduce if not eliminate failure points and deliver flawlessly.
But wait a minute... How do you exactly do that? What do you need to establish the country operations? The answer is you only need 2 part time people, one finding the problem and the other looking for a solution. It is possible to get up to the point where contract is signed or order is received with only 1 brilliant person. And don't forget to that face to face contact accelerates the process and increase the probability of success. Why? Because decision making is highly influenced by emotions and perceptions.
Ok then to the second question "Is lean start-up the most cost effective way of starting up a successful company?" it's coming on the next blog.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Creating a Captivating, Exciting, Powerful and Provocative Presentation
AmanziTel was selected to Oresund Top 10, making AmanziTel one of the 10 most promising companies in Denmark and Sweden. How did we get here? Innovative thinking and the desire to change our market landscape forever with the view of expanding to vertical markets in the future. The selection was made by CONNECT Denmark and CONNECT Skåne, where they evaluate companies both young and mature for inclusion to Oresund Top 10. The selected 10 companies will make a presentation in front an audience of venture capital firms and other investors with the aim of securing grants.
I am preparing my presentation and so far it took me 2 days to get a first draft. I wanted to make the presentation very different from all other presentations that investors have seen in the past. It's a tall order since in an ordinary day a VC reviews about 10 different presentations that makes it around 250 presentations a year so how do you make a presentation that is different from all others. If its not possible how do you create a presentation that won't bore an audience such as a group of VCs who probably heard almost every type of business cases.
I wanted the presentation to be exciting, powerful, provocative and captivating with the aim to convince VCs to part with their millions and give it to my cause. I have enlisted the help of the world's most renown presenters, experts in public speaking, checked with industry colleagues, friends and acquaintances. I got some similar advice, some contrasting tips and pointers. Tomorrow I got to do the presentation to the first set of local VCs and gather their feedback.
I have spoken in front of a huge audience before (tens of thousands), I have met with VCs before, I have presented in front of business leaders, politicians, famous people, industry peers and most of all customers. Does that qualify me in creating a good presentation for Oresund Top 10? The answer is NO, not until I know who the audience are, their current emotional state at that particular moment. This I will only know once I am standing in front of them.
Can't I not research before hand? Yes, I can. On the contrary a person's emotional state at a particular moment affects and guides his or her decision making at that moment. So to be achieve my goals for this presentation I should seduce them :-) and NO that does not include me or an accomplice doing a strip tease... It has to be something better. Got any ideas? Please feel free to let me know.
I am preparing my presentation and so far it took me 2 days to get a first draft. I wanted to make the presentation very different from all other presentations that investors have seen in the past. It's a tall order since in an ordinary day a VC reviews about 10 different presentations that makes it around 250 presentations a year so how do you make a presentation that is different from all others. If its not possible how do you create a presentation that won't bore an audience such as a group of VCs who probably heard almost every type of business cases.
I wanted the presentation to be exciting, powerful, provocative and captivating with the aim to convince VCs to part with their millions and give it to my cause. I have enlisted the help of the world's most renown presenters, experts in public speaking, checked with industry colleagues, friends and acquaintances. I got some similar advice, some contrasting tips and pointers. Tomorrow I got to do the presentation to the first set of local VCs and gather their feedback.
I have spoken in front of a huge audience before (tens of thousands), I have met with VCs before, I have presented in front of business leaders, politicians, famous people, industry peers and most of all customers. Does that qualify me in creating a good presentation for Oresund Top 10? The answer is NO, not until I know who the audience are, their current emotional state at that particular moment. This I will only know once I am standing in front of them.
Can't I not research before hand? Yes, I can. On the contrary a person's emotional state at a particular moment affects and guides his or her decision making at that moment. So to be achieve my goals for this presentation I should seduce them :-) and NO that does not include me or an accomplice doing a strip tease... It has to be something better. Got any ideas? Please feel free to let me know.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Should Telecom Operators Trust Open Source?
I had numerous discussions about the use of open source software, especially with various network operators, in the telecoms market. The main issue is that most telecom operators feel that there is no serious effort put in place in creating open source software or any software distributed freely. How true is this?
When it comes to the mobile phone platforms such as Google's Android, most operators are quick to accept since it comes from Google (a huge company) but when it comes to network infrastructure, most operators doubt the reliability of open source software. I would assume most in telecoms are too young to remember how open source started long before computers are available in 1911 and in terms of software it started in 1969 when AT&T employees developed UNIX. Open Source software started in Telecoms, it was called open systems then, perhaps a refresher in history is good to have follow this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source to get an idea on history of open source.
There are companies such as AmanziTel that uses open source platform from well respected organizations like the Eclipse foundation (www.eclipse.org) this means that the software components used are truly tested and proven in various industries, they are mature and stable and is supported by some of world's best technology companies (IBM, HP, Google, Intel, Nokia, Ericsson, etc). This also means that the cost of development is a lot less since several software components already exist, why re-invent the wheel when you can invent the next "big thing".
Now on the question of trust, as a telecom operator would you trust a tried and proven platform used in various industries and supported by the world's most innovative companies or would you rather trust an establish company and its teams of internal developers? Trust is of course a personal thing. Most of us trust the people behind the product and not the product itself.
When it comes to the mobile phone platforms such as Google's Android, most operators are quick to accept since it comes from Google (a huge company) but when it comes to network infrastructure, most operators doubt the reliability of open source software. I would assume most in telecoms are too young to remember how open source started long before computers are available in 1911 and in terms of software it started in 1969 when AT&T employees developed UNIX. Open Source software started in Telecoms, it was called open systems then, perhaps a refresher in history is good to have follow this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source to get an idea on history of open source.
There are companies such as AmanziTel that uses open source platform from well respected organizations like the Eclipse foundation (www.eclipse.org) this means that the software components used are truly tested and proven in various industries, they are mature and stable and is supported by some of world's best technology companies (IBM, HP, Google, Intel, Nokia, Ericsson, etc). This also means that the cost of development is a lot less since several software components already exist, why re-invent the wheel when you can invent the next "big thing".
Now on the question of trust, as a telecom operator would you trust a tried and proven platform used in various industries and supported by the world's most innovative companies or would you rather trust an establish company and its teams of internal developers? Trust is of course a personal thing. Most of us trust the people behind the product and not the product itself.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Why We Choose to Open Source Our Software and Platform...
I have been constantly asked the same questions lately, why did we choose to open source our software and platform? The answer is as simple as we are revolutionizing the network management and optimisation sector... although that is not what you want to know, isn't it?
Let's look at the telecoms market, are there any open source network management and optimisation platform currently available? Not really, there are a few bits and pieces here and there but no complete solution available as open source.
Will it ever become a trend? Will it be acceptable by network professionals? The answer to that... is... what do you think? Will you use our open source platforms and solutions? Considering there is ZERO CAPEX and very low TCO.
Now look at Telecoms in general, open source software is becoming the hottest thing in telecoms. Think Google's Android, think of the various mobile OS based on Linux... think of the software that runs on several hardware... So YES, open source is now in telecoms. Open Source actually started in Telecoms back in '69, it was called Open System then...
Now back to our own set of reasoning. In the past we pioneered automatic frequency planning and now technology have move on so rapidly that 2G is now primitive. So we decided if we wanted to give something new to the telecoms market (as we did in the past) we should give something that will stay longer and be used wider than an AFP and at the same time solve the issues most companies face today with proprietary software. How do we do that?
It is very simple... a complete change of mind set and thinking coupled with a hybrid business model. Here's the reason why we went open source
* give total freedom to users who can create their own applications on our platform
* ensure that customer specific processes and applications remain with the customer; it's their intellectual property after all
* allow other entities to benefit from our platform, especially independent telecom professionals and small engineering services companies
* low total cost of ownership (TCO) since there is no CAPEX and support/upgrade services are much lower
There are a few more reasons but if I tell you then we will have to hire you :-)
Let's look at the telecoms market, are there any open source network management and optimisation platform currently available? Not really, there are a few bits and pieces here and there but no complete solution available as open source.
Will it ever become a trend? Will it be acceptable by network professionals? The answer to that... is... what do you think? Will you use our open source platforms and solutions? Considering there is ZERO CAPEX and very low TCO.
Now look at Telecoms in general, open source software is becoming the hottest thing in telecoms. Think Google's Android, think of the various mobile OS based on Linux... think of the software that runs on several hardware... So YES, open source is now in telecoms. Open Source actually started in Telecoms back in '69, it was called Open System then...
Now back to our own set of reasoning. In the past we pioneered automatic frequency planning and now technology have move on so rapidly that 2G is now primitive. So we decided if we wanted to give something new to the telecoms market (as we did in the past) we should give something that will stay longer and be used wider than an AFP and at the same time solve the issues most companies face today with proprietary software. How do we do that?
It is very simple... a complete change of mind set and thinking coupled with a hybrid business model. Here's the reason why we went open source
* give total freedom to users who can create their own applications on our platform
* ensure that customer specific processes and applications remain with the customer; it's their intellectual property after all
* allow other entities to benefit from our platform, especially independent telecom professionals and small engineering services companies
* low total cost of ownership (TCO) since there is no CAPEX and support/upgrade services are much lower
There are a few more reasons but if I tell you then we will have to hire you :-)
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Changing my blog
Wednesday morning was the first time this autumn that the temperature outside went below freezing, winter just arrived. The sun is shining; it’s a beautiful day so I decided to cycle to work. After a few minutes on the bike I am almost regretting going by bike… the wind chill is far below freezing, my ears are frozen and my running shoes are stiff and icy…. The only consolation I get is the beautiful autumn colours exposed by the bright sunlight.
While having a brain freeze I decided to change my blog to make it a simple brain dump about my work. I will write something that transpired, that I thought or thinking, expose what I feel about what’s going on every week. This means there will be entries about managing a start-up, releasing products, arguments and imaginations.
This week was a very tough week my sleeping average went down from 4 hours to 3 hours. There’s a huge RFQ that I just completed, actually almost an impossible scope but doable and profitable given the right management approach and excellent strategy. I missed the LTE seminar in London yesterday (apologies to Abbey, CEO of AWTG).
Put out a public release of AWE to selected users, the platform is downloadable on the AmanziTel Wiki and is free. I also got to test which applications works and which doesn’t, so after first publishing the release 3 new versions have been made. Why are we giving away our software for free and what’s up with so many releases happening in a matter of weeks? Did I not learn from previous experiences in software development?
While having a brain freeze I decided to change my blog to make it a simple brain dump about my work. I will write something that transpired, that I thought or thinking, expose what I feel about what’s going on every week. This means there will be entries about managing a start-up, releasing products, arguments and imaginations.
This week was a very tough week my sleeping average went down from 4 hours to 3 hours. There’s a huge RFQ that I just completed, actually almost an impossible scope but doable and profitable given the right management approach and excellent strategy. I missed the LTE seminar in London yesterday (apologies to Abbey, CEO of AWTG).
Put out a public release of AWE to selected users, the platform is downloadable on the AmanziTel Wiki and is free. I also got to test which applications works and which doesn’t, so after first publishing the release 3 new versions have been made. Why are we giving away our software for free and what’s up with so many releases happening in a matter of weeks? Did I not learn from previous experiences in software development?
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Is Open Source the ANSWER?
Having written my thoughts on what the issues are today concerning existing proprietary software and platforms, you might ask what the solutions in solving these issues are. Is open source technology the ANSWER?
NO, open source is not the only answer. Open source as defined by the Open Source Initiative and gives users freedom to do what they want on a piece of code but more importantly collaborate to improve the code so that in return more people are able to use it as a complete software. There of course multiple foundations and communities supporting open source such as the Eclipse Foundation , the Free Software Foundation , the Apache Software Foundation and a lot more. However in some cases these communities does not agree with each other regarding the definition of open source which is evident in the non-compatibility of their OSI approved open source licenses.
To truly address the issues concerning proprietary software, part of the ANSWER lies within the organisation who provides the platform or software. YES, you need open source licensing to deliver total freedom to users and it should also be fully supported with an enterprise level of support and not only form the user community. Just imagine how bad it is for a company acquiring a piece of software for free, implements it in their business and then later can't get support to address any problems or mistakes they might have created.
Furthermore as user requirements evolve, the platform should be very agile to be always in the forefront of technology advancement. In this sense part of the ANSWER is through collaboration between organisations and community contributions to ensure that evolution and revolution are captured and implemented as innovations during the platform's lifecycle.
NO, open source is not the only answer. Open source as defined by the Open Source Initiative and gives users freedom to do what they want on a piece of code but more importantly collaborate to improve the code so that in return more people are able to use it as a complete software. There of course multiple foundations and communities supporting open source such as the Eclipse Foundation , the Free Software Foundation , the Apache Software Foundation and a lot more. However in some cases these communities does not agree with each other regarding the definition of open source which is evident in the non-compatibility of their OSI approved open source licenses.
To truly address the issues concerning proprietary software, part of the ANSWER lies within the organisation who provides the platform or software. YES, you need open source licensing to deliver total freedom to users and it should also be fully supported with an enterprise level of support and not only form the user community. Just imagine how bad it is for a company acquiring a piece of software for free, implements it in their business and then later can't get support to address any problems or mistakes they might have created.
Furthermore as user requirements evolve, the platform should be very agile to be always in the forefront of technology advancement. In this sense part of the ANSWER is through collaboration between organisations and community contributions to ensure that evolution and revolution are captured and implemented as innovations during the platform's lifecycle.
Friday, October 2, 2009
What are the most common issues with existing software vendors
As a professional, an employee, a business owner we all have at some point in our work used software. For enterprise software we (or the IT department) in most cases have to purchase it from a software vendor. So in your experience what are the issues in purchasing enterprise software? I have listed my personal bad experience below:
* High CAPEX and very high TCO (total cost of ownership)
* Vendor lock-in
* Only around 10% of the features and functionalities are actually used
* Users can not integrate their data and way of working to the platform
* Lack of customisability resulting to unused software
* Lack of flexibility and scalability
* Software becomes outdated once requirement changes
* High CAPEX and very high TCO (total cost of ownership)
* Vendor lock-in
* Only around 10% of the features and functionalities are actually used
* Users can not integrate their data and way of working to the platform
* Lack of customisability resulting to unused software
* Lack of flexibility and scalability
* Software becomes outdated once requirement changes
Monday, April 13, 2009
Green energy in Telecoms? Its possible!
In the past 2 years, a few mobile operators started to use renewable energy sources to power base stations. However the percentage of base stations out there is still too small. Operators and Vendors should work hand-in-hand to increase the usage of green-energy in their radio base stations. There are of course limitations, like in very cold places up north where in winter everything else is frozen.
Recently GSMA aims to use renewable energy sources to power up to 120,000 in 2012. It’s a big number but considering the current size of mobile networks, it can only compare to powering radio base stations in a single country such as Germany or France. NSN committed to having renewable energy sources as preferred power source on its radio base stations by 2011.
It’s all good, this movement to use green energy to power radio base station compared to consuming 20,000 litres of diesel fuel per year for every base station not connected to the power grid. The first step is to use renewable energy source in remote areas instead of diesel generator. This would mean wind or solar power in places where the climate is nice and warm. For the colder areas of the Nordic, perhaps its time to explore the use of snow as energy source, http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/international/2009/04/12/lah.japan.snow.as.energy.cnn which are in use in some parts of the world.
I encourage mobile network operators to extend the use of renewable energy sources to base stations connected to the power grid. These have the advantage of using green energy and at the same time sell excess energy generated back to the grid. Just imagine being “green” and making extra revenue at the same time… wouldn’t that be a win-win solution?
Recently GSMA aims to use renewable energy sources to power up to 120,000 in 2012. It’s a big number but considering the current size of mobile networks, it can only compare to powering radio base stations in a single country such as Germany or France. NSN committed to having renewable energy sources as preferred power source on its radio base stations by 2011.
It’s all good, this movement to use green energy to power radio base station compared to consuming 20,000 litres of diesel fuel per year for every base station not connected to the power grid. The first step is to use renewable energy source in remote areas instead of diesel generator. This would mean wind or solar power in places where the climate is nice and warm. For the colder areas of the Nordic, perhaps its time to explore the use of snow as energy source, http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/international/2009/04/12/lah.japan.snow.as.energy.cnn which are in use in some parts of the world.
I encourage mobile network operators to extend the use of renewable energy sources to base stations connected to the power grid. These have the advantage of using green energy and at the same time sell excess energy generated back to the grid. Just imagine being “green” and making extra revenue at the same time… wouldn’t that be a win-win solution?
Friday, April 10, 2009
Paperless office - helping save the planet
I am an advocate of paperless office for 15 years and counting. As the years pass and Global Warming debates heated up, the dream of a paperless office remains a dream to many. Although there have been a lot of effort spent by corporations to introduce paperless offices it somehow doesn't work. Why?
The difficulty until today is that the use of printed materials is an essential part of our working environment since printing press was invented. No matter how much companies try to promote a paperless office there are still items to be printed and we still read a lot of printed materials. It seems that everyone still relies on paper for everything we do at work. Most people still prefers reading a printed materials compared to a monitor display, accountants and book keepers still rely on printed receipts as proof of payment, bills are still sent on paper... and the list goes on.
We all know by now that the use of paper is not at all good for the environment, its not as bad as burning fossil fuel but a little adds up to a greater volume. Furthermore the accountants know that if we avoid printing something we save large amounts in office supplies (pen, paper, clips, staples, glue, etc). So why are we so reliant in printed materials? How can we contribute into making paperless office a reality?
This should be a simple stage approach not a complete overnight change since we can't change our culture and identity overnight. Let's start with the small things such as flight tickets and boarding pass. Electronic tickets has been around for 10 years but we still print the electronic ticket to bring it to the airport for check-in. So how about not printing that ticket and simply check-in online. By doing so we save a few leaves of paper and hassle at the airport. How about the boarding pass? Well today you can use your frequent flyer as identification for boarding, if you don't have one you can use your mobile phone. Mobile phone? Yes! When you check-in online have your boarding pass sent to your mobile phone and then you use your
mobile phone to check in. Its not yet available on all airports but its on the plans. Using your mobile phone to check in also validates the mantra of single device for multiple applications. Just imagine what if you only need your mobile for almost everything you do that requires identification. It is now possible...
Now back to the office, perhaps we can all refrain from printing anything we can view on our computer screen, the display technology has advanced so far that you can customise all your reading requirements in a high definition environment.
How about in meetings? Do you really need to write down everything in a piece of paper? Richard Branson might not agree with me but we can practice the art of remembering what was discussed and agreed during a meeting and saving the environment at the same time. There's nothing wrong in using your memory once in a while, you might find out that it is good for your personal development too.
The new paperless revolution has set-in, are you a part of it? Are you helping save the planet for the future generation? Or do you still live in the past.
The difficulty until today is that the use of printed materials is an essential part of our working environment since printing press was invented. No matter how much companies try to promote a paperless office there are still items to be printed and we still read a lot of printed materials. It seems that everyone still relies on paper for everything we do at work. Most people still prefers reading a printed materials compared to a monitor display, accountants and book keepers still rely on printed receipts as proof of payment, bills are still sent on paper... and the list goes on.
We all know by now that the use of paper is not at all good for the environment, its not as bad as burning fossil fuel but a little adds up to a greater volume. Furthermore the accountants know that if we avoid printing something we save large amounts in office supplies (pen, paper, clips, staples, glue, etc). So why are we so reliant in printed materials? How can we contribute into making paperless office a reality?
This should be a simple stage approach not a complete overnight change since we can't change our culture and identity overnight. Let's start with the small things such as flight tickets and boarding pass. Electronic tickets has been around for 10 years but we still print the electronic ticket to bring it to the airport for check-in. So how about not printing that ticket and simply check-in online. By doing so we save a few leaves of paper and hassle at the airport. How about the boarding pass? Well today you can use your frequent flyer as identification for boarding, if you don't have one you can use your mobile phone. Mobile phone? Yes! When you check-in online have your boarding pass sent to your mobile phone and then you use your
mobile phone to check in. Its not yet available on all airports but its on the plans. Using your mobile phone to check in also validates the mantra of single device for multiple applications. Just imagine what if you only need your mobile for almost everything you do that requires identification. It is now possible...
Now back to the office, perhaps we can all refrain from printing anything we can view on our computer screen, the display technology has advanced so far that you can customise all your reading requirements in a high definition environment.
How about in meetings? Do you really need to write down everything in a piece of paper? Richard Branson might not agree with me but we can practice the art of remembering what was discussed and agreed during a meeting and saving the environment at the same time. There's nothing wrong in using your memory once in a while, you might find out that it is good for your personal development too.
The new paperless revolution has set-in, are you a part of it? Are you helping save the planet for the future generation? Or do you still live in the past.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Is the mobile telecom sector ready for open source?
I have often been asked "Is there a place for open source in the Mobile Telecoms industry". My ready made answer is always "YES".
Now let's take a closure look, in the consumer electronics market, open source software is widely used while in the handset market we now see open source operating systems being implemented in the latest "multi-media" handsets... think of Google's Android OS. So that easily answers the question, doesn't it?
How about the all important infrastructure side of mobile telecoms, the holy grail of most network operators and system vendors? The answer is again yes, however, today the usage of open source software in most of system vendor's equipment is not promoted. To find check the components of a network infrastructure and most likely you will find a hardware using an open source software. The use of open source software makes most of the software-dependent hardware to be sold at lower prices compared to when using a proprietary software.
The planning, management and optimisation parts of a mobile network are the areas where there is no open source presence or little penetration if any. Proprietary software makers dominate this sphere where software and applications are priced sky-high and in most cases more expensive than the hardware infrastructure needed to run them, justifiably so. The question then is why is that no open source solution exist? Actually you will be surprised that there are. For example the use of Linux OS and mySQL in several software application. What is missing is a complete solution or tool that is truly open source.
This is changing with the introduction of network management and due diligence applications that are truly open source. Further more decision support systems and analysis software covering planning, management and optimisation tasks that are truly open source are on its way to the market. A new era has begun, the age of free software :-)
Now let's take a closure look, in the consumer electronics market, open source software is widely used while in the handset market we now see open source operating systems being implemented in the latest "multi-media" handsets... think of Google's Android OS. So that easily answers the question, doesn't it?
How about the all important infrastructure side of mobile telecoms, the holy grail of most network operators and system vendors? The answer is again yes, however, today the usage of open source software in most of system vendor's equipment is not promoted. To find check the components of a network infrastructure and most likely you will find a hardware using an open source software. The use of open source software makes most of the software-dependent hardware to be sold at lower prices compared to when using a proprietary software.
The planning, management and optimisation parts of a mobile network are the areas where there is no open source presence or little penetration if any. Proprietary software makers dominate this sphere where software and applications are priced sky-high and in most cases more expensive than the hardware infrastructure needed to run them, justifiably so. The question then is why is that no open source solution exist? Actually you will be surprised that there are. For example the use of Linux OS and mySQL in several software application. What is missing is a complete solution or tool that is truly open source.
This is changing with the introduction of network management and due diligence applications that are truly open source. Further more decision support systems and analysis software covering planning, management and optimisation tasks that are truly open source are on its way to the market. A new era has begun, the age of free software :-)
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Do we need 4G?
The hottest topic today in the telecoms world is 4G. Several operators have publicly announce their plans to roll-out LTE in the next years while most are now implementing HSPA. On another side there's WiMAX, claimed by some quarters as real 4G. Both have their pros and cons but let's not be a party to that debate. Instead let's ask ourselves do we need 4G and its benefits of high speed data?
Look at at this way in some parts of the world they are just starting to implement 3G (UMTS) networks. Moving to 4G is being driven by the need to have something new, something better. Is it consumer driven? Absolutely not! So what is it then? I believe it is vendor driven. Any system vendor out there today will always go out their way to find the next big thing, the product that will bring in more revenue. It doesn't matter that consumer adaptation is slow, it just needs the right services, further marketing and promotion.
So going back to the question do we really need 4G. For the sake of the world's financial health, yes we do! Implementing 4G requires new talents, new developments and new investment.. this mean an additional driver to boost the world's economy... Its good for you an me :-)
Look at at this way in some parts of the world they are just starting to implement 3G (UMTS) networks. Moving to 4G is being driven by the need to have something new, something better. Is it consumer driven? Absolutely not! So what is it then? I believe it is vendor driven. Any system vendor out there today will always go out their way to find the next big thing, the product that will bring in more revenue. It doesn't matter that consumer adaptation is slow, it just needs the right services, further marketing and promotion.
So going back to the question do we really need 4G. For the sake of the world's financial health, yes we do! Implementing 4G requires new talents, new developments and new investment.. this mean an additional driver to boost the world's economy... Its good for you an me :-)
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Responsible Mobile Network Operations. Is there such a phrase?
A study on usage of mobile phones recently reported that more than 4.1B subscription exist with the highest growth seen in less developed economies, compared to 1B subscriptions in 2002. This proves the point that people in general values mobility and freedom, at least in communications. Compared to fix network where there are around 1.2B subscription, mobile usage have increased dramatically in the last 6 years. On this increase wealth is created by both mobile network operators and vendors (maybe not Nortel who recently filed for bankruptcy).
Mobile operators and vendors are cashing in this current boom and there's no let down in the foreseeable future. The real winner of course are the rural and poorer areas of the world where for generations have never experienced the benefits of technology. Suddenly all this areas can access mobile telecommunications, just imagine how much their lives have change. The question is it a change for the better or is it a change to that loses their cultural identity.
Progress is a good thing and with the help of mobile telecommunications the advancement is accelerated to a very fast pace. However do mobile operators or system vendors contribute their share to improve the way of life in this poorer parts of the world? Or do they explore the money making opportunities and exploit it? Each mobile operator has their own corporate culture, the challenge is who would provide more help to poor communities compared to the financial benefits they reap.
I understand that business is business however business can also be socially responsible. Who is up to the challenge?
Mobile operators and vendors are cashing in this current boom and there's no let down in the foreseeable future. The real winner of course are the rural and poorer areas of the world where for generations have never experienced the benefits of technology. Suddenly all this areas can access mobile telecommunications, just imagine how much their lives have change. The question is it a change for the better or is it a change to that loses their cultural identity.
Progress is a good thing and with the help of mobile telecommunications the advancement is accelerated to a very fast pace. However do mobile operators or system vendors contribute their share to improve the way of life in this poorer parts of the world? Or do they explore the money making opportunities and exploit it? Each mobile operator has their own corporate culture, the challenge is who would provide more help to poor communities compared to the financial benefits they reap.
I understand that business is business however business can also be socially responsible. Who is up to the challenge?
Friday, February 20, 2009
How come real m-commerce is not widespread in the developed world?
It's the time of the year again when everyone in telecoms gather in the sunny part of Europe to witness the advancement within the sector. I am observing what is happening in Barcelona this year at the mobile world congress, where announcement for faster data rates, new corporate strategies, open source based handset OS, more new handsets and improvement in technology (4G) is making big waves. All of this are good and promising especially for the developed western world where despite the financial crisis mobile vendors and operators encourage more spending.
There is a sector of course that was once promising back in the turn of the century but is now stagnated, m-commerce. When the first m-commerce applications came about the service received numerous citations from the GSMA. But now it seems that at least in the developed world m-commerce has been relegated to media downloads (ringtone, pics, etc) but not the real financial application. In less developed economies m-commerce has a different meaning, it means real-world financial transactions. In certain parts of the world the service is money mover for the unbanked, in other parts it is the means of payment. But why not in the developed economies?
My observations resulted to one main conclusion. The financial sector in the developed countries are so stable that there is hardly a need for real-world m-commerce such as m-banking and m-payments. However I have not seen any operator in the developed world that have good m-commerce service to offer. Is it because they have not even bother to try? Is it too difficult? Is regulation to blame?
Consider this, would you as a user be better off for having a single device that can do multiple things than have 10 devices do 10 things? The easy answer is of course you prefer to have a single device, which is the direction where all handsets have taken. A modern mobile phone today is also a camera, is also an MP3 player, is also an FM radio, is also an identification mechanism (airline boarding card, etc), is also mobile computer, is also a personal assistant, and the list goes on and on.... So why not explore the benefits of m-commerce in the developed world?
Would you as a user be happier if you know you can render financial transactions with your mobile phone which you carry all the time? Say go to buy a burger and pay with your mobile phone or even to the extreme of buying a car and paying with your mobile phone? Issues of security arises of course, but take into consideration your credit card, how secure is it? The requirement in the credit card business for security is possession and knowledge. In that sense a mobile phone is much more secure with multiple levels of authentication and protection. Would you as a user be more satisfied if the level of security is higher than what your credit card can give but provide the same flexibility and ease of use?
The biggest problem I think is the lack of innovative thinking in the developed world to make real m-commerce a viable service. Now what if and what if one day you wake up and suddenly you have a single device that can truly do everything for you... Welcome to the future!
There is a sector of course that was once promising back in the turn of the century but is now stagnated, m-commerce. When the first m-commerce applications came about the service received numerous citations from the GSMA. But now it seems that at least in the developed world m-commerce has been relegated to media downloads (ringtone, pics, etc) but not the real financial application. In less developed economies m-commerce has a different meaning, it means real-world financial transactions. In certain parts of the world the service is money mover for the unbanked, in other parts it is the means of payment. But why not in the developed economies?
My observations resulted to one main conclusion. The financial sector in the developed countries are so stable that there is hardly a need for real-world m-commerce such as m-banking and m-payments. However I have not seen any operator in the developed world that have good m-commerce service to offer. Is it because they have not even bother to try? Is it too difficult? Is regulation to blame?
Consider this, would you as a user be better off for having a single device that can do multiple things than have 10 devices do 10 things? The easy answer is of course you prefer to have a single device, which is the direction where all handsets have taken. A modern mobile phone today is also a camera, is also an MP3 player, is also an FM radio, is also an identification mechanism (airline boarding card, etc), is also mobile computer, is also a personal assistant, and the list goes on and on.... So why not explore the benefits of m-commerce in the developed world?
Would you as a user be happier if you know you can render financial transactions with your mobile phone which you carry all the time? Say go to buy a burger and pay with your mobile phone or even to the extreme of buying a car and paying with your mobile phone? Issues of security arises of course, but take into consideration your credit card, how secure is it? The requirement in the credit card business for security is possession and knowledge. In that sense a mobile phone is much more secure with multiple levels of authentication and protection. Would you as a user be more satisfied if the level of security is higher than what your credit card can give but provide the same flexibility and ease of use?
The biggest problem I think is the lack of innovative thinking in the developed world to make real m-commerce a viable service. Now what if and what if one day you wake up and suddenly you have a single device that can truly do everything for you... Welcome to the future!
Thursday, February 19, 2009
How effective are accreditation organisation for independent consultants?
Recently I have been in contact and in detailed discussion with an accreditation body for independent consultants. After so much deliberations I am still a bit as doubtful as I was in the beginning of the discussion. Such accreditation organisation helps aspiring consultants to join the management consulting industry by providing a platform for independent consultants start their business and provide them a vehicle of which to start their practice. This is of course helpful to retiring executives who have a small network of contact in various industries and are looking for further work, or executives who are frustrated with their current employment and seeking to do something else.
The rewards in the consulting industry is immense but the risk are high as well as any other current management consultant know. Now my dilemma in joining such accreditation organisation and paying the fees they require to enter is based on the fact that I am already in the management consulting world for the past 10 years and so far my main experience is that most independent consultants secure assignments based on their talents and merits and not based on which organisation accredited them. I might be wrong and I would appreciate if someone out there can correct me.
In operating a consulting business the risk and rewards are high, the question is do you as a consultant remain a one-man band or do you venture to the crowd and let your voice be heard or do you take cover under a promising umbrella on a cloudy day?
The rewards in the consulting industry is immense but the risk are high as well as any other current management consultant know. Now my dilemma in joining such accreditation organisation and paying the fees they require to enter is based on the fact that I am already in the management consulting world for the past 10 years and so far my main experience is that most independent consultants secure assignments based on their talents and merits and not based on which organisation accredited them. I might be wrong and I would appreciate if someone out there can correct me.
In operating a consulting business the risk and rewards are high, the question is do you as a consultant remain a one-man band or do you venture to the crowd and let your voice be heard or do you take cover under a promising umbrella on a cloudy day?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Are leaders born or made?
I had the opportunity to observe children while they are at play. Somehow I notice that the most involved child seems to lead the other children compared to the most dominant one. This begs the question at least to me; are leaders born with the trait or are they made?
I tend to lean on the fact that leadership is both personality and training. In the business world we tend to categorise leaders with the qualities we learned about leadership in both formal and informal education, furthermore by experience. They say when the going gets tough the tough gets going. During times of depression and financial difficulties true leaders emerge and take their business to greater heights.
Having said that, what sets leaders apart in what they do? I have gathered a list responsibilities a leader have in terms of the business world during the years:
- set and achieve goals
- innovate and market
- solve problems and make decisions
- set priorities
- focus and concentrate
- set an example
- perform and get results
Do you agree with the list?
I tend to lean on the fact that leadership is both personality and training. In the business world we tend to categorise leaders with the qualities we learned about leadership in both formal and informal education, furthermore by experience. They say when the going gets tough the tough gets going. During times of depression and financial difficulties true leaders emerge and take their business to greater heights.
Having said that, what sets leaders apart in what they do? I have gathered a list responsibilities a leader have in terms of the business world during the years:
- set and achieve goals
- innovate and market
- solve problems and make decisions
- set priorities
- focus and concentrate
- set an example
- perform and get results
Do you agree with the list?
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Speaking in public, its frightening
I was at the Copenhagen airport the other week on my way to Greece and notice a group of students and teachers. One student was asking something from a teacher but she has a very soft voice, my guess is she is shy, so the teacher said in a loud voice, speak up young lady...
Speak-up... that phrase has stuck into my mind ever since. Come to think of it not a lot of us can confidently speak in public. We all have our inhibitions, some form of shyness especially when it comes in being heard in public. It is indeed frightening to speak in public, specially when you deliver a speech that everyone in the audience will listen to.
I have my fair share of learning how to speak in public confidently. One very good tip I received while growing up was that to speak in public confidently you should have a purpose, a reason to speak. So to be understood you need to speak about something, something your listeners will be interested in. No wonder all those politicians can elicit a lot of emotions when they speak in public.
Come to think of it, public speaking actually brings out some of a person's leadership qualities... To stand out, speak and be heard. Now did anybody watch the inauguration of US president Obama, that's speaking in public to you and me.
Speak-up... that phrase has stuck into my mind ever since. Come to think of it not a lot of us can confidently speak in public. We all have our inhibitions, some form of shyness especially when it comes in being heard in public. It is indeed frightening to speak in public, specially when you deliver a speech that everyone in the audience will listen to.
I have my fair share of learning how to speak in public confidently. One very good tip I received while growing up was that to speak in public confidently you should have a purpose, a reason to speak. So to be understood you need to speak about something, something your listeners will be interested in. No wonder all those politicians can elicit a lot of emotions when they speak in public.
Come to think of it, public speaking actually brings out some of a person's leadership qualities... To stand out, speak and be heard. Now did anybody watch the inauguration of US president Obama, that's speaking in public to you and me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)