Showing posts sorted by relevance for query innovation. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query innovation. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday, April 10, 2017

Telefonica's innovation framework

I have received many requests over the last months to explain in more details our innovation process. Now that our innovation methodology is a widely commented Harvard Business Review Case Study, I thought it was a good time to shed some light on how a large telco such as Telefonica can innovate in a fast paced environment.
Innovation is not only a decision, it's a process, a methodology. In our case we have different teams looking after external innovation, through business ventures and venture capital and internal looking after networks, data, and moonshots. The teams that I support, focusing on networks innovation are adapting the lean elephant methodology to invent tomorrow's mobile, fixed and TV networks.

Ideation

The process starts with directed ideation, informed by our corporate customer segmentation, customer sentiment studies and selected themes. An innovation call centered around specific themes such as "imagine tomorrow's TV" or "Artificial intelligence and networks QoE" is launched across the group, with local briefings including our selection parameters. A jury is convened to review the hundreds of ideas and shortlist the most interesting. The selected intrapreneurs have a month to prepare a formal pitch for their ideas. They are assisted by customer experience specialists who help them refine the problem they seek to resolve, its applicability and market appeal.

Feasibility

After the pitch and selection, the intrapreneurs are transitioned to the innovation team full time and given a few weeks to create a feasibility plan and preliminary resource budget for prototyping. Once ready, the successful applicants present the plan in details to the jury.

Prototyping

The lucky few that pass this gate are given 3 to 8 months to prototype their project, together with commensurate resource. At this stage, the project must have strong internal sponsorship, with verticals or markets within Telefonica who are committing to take the prototype in their labs for functional testing. The resulting prototype, together with the value proposition and addressable market are reviewed before passing to the next phase.

Market trial

The prototype is then hardened and deployed in a commercial network for friendly and limited A/B testing and refinement. This phase can last 2 to 6 months, with increasing number of users and sophistication in measurement of the value proposition's effectiveness. During this phase as well, a full product / service business case is finalized, using the data collected during the market trial.

Productization and transfer


The project meets customer needs? It is innovative and provides differentiation? It is profitable and Telefonica has an unfair advantage in solving real market problems? These are some of the tough questions the intrapreneur and his team must be able to answer before the solution can be productized and eventually transferred to one of our verticals or to create a new one.


This process has been the source of Telefonica's early advances in IoT, big data, smart cities... It has also killed, merged, pivoted and spun off hundreds of projects. The network innovations teams I support are aiming at radically changing networks topology, deployment and value chain using software defined networks, virtualization, containerization and lambda computing all the way to the edge of our networks. We are developers, network hackers, user experience experts, computer scientists, devops engineers,....

The next months will see some exciting announcements on this. Stay tuned.

You can catch me and we can chat about it at the upcoming NFV world congress or TM Forum live.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Innovation and transformation, micro segments and strands

When I first met the CEO of Telefonica Research and Development, David Del Val, he asked me what I thought of the direction the industry was taking. I have not been shy on this blog and other public forum about my opinion on operators' lack of innovation and transformation. My comments went something like that:
"I think that in a time very soon, I don´t know if it´s going to be in 3 years, 5 or 10, voice will be free, texts will be free, data will be free or as close to a monthly utility price as you can think. Already, countries are writing access to broadband in their citizens´ fundamental rights. Most operators are talking about innovation and new services, but let´s face it, they have had a pretty poor track record. MMS was to be the killer app for GPRS/EDGE, push to talk for 3G,video calling for HSPA, VoLTE for 4G... There is no shame in being an operator of a very good, solid, inexpensive connectivity service. Some companies are very successful doing that and there will be more in the future. But you don't need hundreds of thousands of people for that. If operators' ambition is to "monetize", "launch new services", "open new revenue streams", "innovate", they have to transform first. And it's gonna hurt."

At that point, I wasn't sure I had made the best first impression, but as you know now, that discussion ended up turning into a full time collaboration
The industry is undergoing changes that will accelerate and break companies that are not adaptable or capable of rethinking their approach. 
4G wasn’t designed as a video network capable of doing other things like browsing and voice; the telecoms industry designed 4G to be a multipurpose mobile broadband network, capable of carrying VoIP, browsing, messaging, … but really, it wasn’t so hard to see that video would be the dominant part of traffic and cost and growing. I don´t have a crystal ball but I had identified publicly the problem more than 7 years ago.

The industry’s failure to realize this has led us in a situation where we have not engaged video providers early enough to create a mutually profitable business model. The result is traffic is increasing dramatically across all networks, while revenues are stagnating or decreasing because video services are mostly encrypted. At the same time, our traditional revenues from voice and messaging are eroded by other providers. 

As the industry is gearing up towards 5G and we start swimming in massive MIMO, beam-forming, edge computing, millimeter wave, IoT, drone and autonomous vehicles, I think it is wise to understand what it will take to really deliver on these promises.

Agile, lean, smart, open, software-defined, self organizing, autoscalable, virtualized, deep learning, DevOps, orchestrated, open-source... my head hurts from all the trappings of 2016´s trendy telco hipster lingo. 
This is not going to get better in 2017.

The pressure to generate new revenues and to decrease costs drastically will dramatically increase on operators. There are opportunities to create new revenue streams (fintech, premium video, IoT…) or reduce costs (SDN, NFV, DevOps, Open source…) but they require initial investments that are unsure from a business case perspective because they are unproven. We are only starting to see operators who have made these investments over the last 3 years announcing results now. These investments are hard to make for any operator, because they are not following our traditional model. Operators for the last 20 years have been conditioned to work in standards to invent the future collectively and then buy technology solutions from large vendors. The key for that model was not innovation, it was sustainability, interoperability.
The internet has broken that model.
·      
I think that operators who want to be more than a bit pipe provider need to create unique experiences for consumers, enterprises, verticals and things. Unique experiences can only be generated from context (understanding the customer, his desire, intent, capacity, limitations...), adaptation (we don't need slices, we need strands) and control (end to end performance, QoS and QoE per strand). Micro segmentation has technical, but more importantly operational and organizational impacts.

Operators can't hope to control, adapt, contextualize and innovate if they can't control their network. Today, many have progressively vacated the field of engineering to be network administrators, writing RFPs to select vendors, or better, mandate integrators to select and deploy solutions. The result is networks that are very undifferentiated, where a potential "innovation" from one can be rolled out by another with a purchase order, where a change in a tariff, a new enterprise customer on-boarding, a new service takes years to deploy, hundreds of people, and millions of euros. 

Most operators can't launch a service if it has less than 10 million people addressable market, or it won't make the business case, right off the bat.

There are solutions, though, but they are tough medicine. You can't really rip the rewards of SDN or NFV if you don't control their implementation. It's useless to have a programmable network, if you can't program. Large integrators and vendors have made the effort to retool, hire and train. Operators must do the same unless they want to be MVNOs on their own networks. 

Innovation is trying. Projects can fail, technology evolves, but transformation is sustainable.


Monday, November 18, 2019

Announcing Edge computing and hybrid clouds workshops

After working 5 years on edge computing and potentially being one of the only analysts having evaluated, then developed and deployed the technology in a telco networks, I am happy to announce immediate availability of the following workshops:

Hybrid and edge computing strategy
  • Hybrid cloud and Edge computing opportunity 
  • Demand for hybrid and edge services (internal and external)
  • Wholesale or retail business?
  • Edge strategies: what, where, when, how?
  • Hyperscalers strategies, positions, risks and opportunities
  • Operators strategies
  • Conclusions and recommendations

Edge computing Technology
  • Technological trends
  • SDN, NFV, container, lifecycle management
  • Open source, ONF, TIP, Akraino, MobiledgeX, Ori
  • Networks disaggregation, Open RAN, Open OLT
  • Edge computing: Build or buy?
  • Nokia, Ericsson, Huawei
  • Dell, Intel, …
  • Open compute, CORD
  • Conclusions and recommendations

Innovation and transformation processes
  • Innovation process and methodology 
  • How to jumpstart technological and commercial innovation
  • Labs, skills, headcount and budget
  • How to transition from innovation to commercial deployment
  • How to scale up sustainably
Drop me a line if you are interested.

Sunday, February 23, 2020

Telco growth: my objectives, vision, tactics, doctrine at Telefonica




As mentioned in my previous post, telco transformation through innovation and connectivity control requires a strong framework to guide the decision-making process. Here is a list of objectives, vision, strategies, tactics and doctrines that guided me through my time at Telefonica. I believe they can be adapted to many operators’ situation and organization to generate value through successful launch of new connectivity products.

Objectives:

  • Fast creation of new products and services by systematically leveraging economies of scale, reusing modular technical solutions and automation.
  • Creation of a toolbox of technological tools, operating models, best practices, documentation, blueprints, tests and certified solutions...
  • Deliver complete products, not just technology, but also operating model, suppliers value chain and devops teams...
  • Facilitate the transition from innovation to business
  • Systematically evaluate new technologies, suppliers in the laboratory and in the field
  • Fulfill our ambition to transform the industry


Vision:

Create a sustainable commercial growth factory for the company through the systematic research, implementation of services and products that achieve strategic, tactical, commercial, and technological advantages based on the network such as infrastructure or connectivity as a service.

Strategies:

  • Explore and classify services, market trends, competitive and direct and indirect movements and their technological evolution to identify risks and opportunities to create/destroy value for the company based on the network as infrastructure or connectivity as a service.
  • Creation or integration of network and IT technologies to disaggregate and control the cost structure of the purchase, implementation and deployment of connectivity functions and services.
  • Choice and implementation of disruptive connectivity services, products or businesses by designing the E2E value chain
  • Transfer of technological parts, services, products to commercial teams ready for production
  • Systematic identification of differential competitive advantages for the company and strategies to achieve their implementation
  • Implementation of innovative work and development methodologies, especially aimed at creating a DevOps/continuous development/continuous testing model for network technologies and connectivity services


Tactics:

  • Systematic disaggregation of high-level commercial systems and products of network and IT integration to identify manufacturers, intermediaries, sources of savings and their organizational and process impact
  •  Systematic prioritization of open source for MVPs, to learn the state of the art, limitations and development and integration needs
  • Projects, products, technology parts delivered with operating model, manufacturers / integrators / ecosystem developers
  • Identification and implementation of critical paths to deliver to the customer as fast as possible (MVPs, early prototypes deployed in commercial networks)


Doctrine:

  • Customer first
    • Development of services, projects, products with priority to the voice of the customer and the business over technology
  • One size does NOT fit all
    • Resist the model of trying to implement the same technology, solution, manufacturer for all parts of the network and all situations. Specification, design and development of technological and commercial solutions that are infinitely modular. Nothing monolithic, so that we can adapt the solutions to the realities of each market / segment
  • Always open
    • Technological development based on open models (APIs, standard and published interfaces, ...)
    • Open Source, wherever possible
    • Multi manufacturer and no lock-in by design
  • Modular, serverless when possible > micro services > containers > VMs > VNFs > PNF
  • Availability, generosity, active collaboration with commercial teams, third parties and transparency of communication
  • Systematic use from the design of
    • Data science
    • UX
    • Security
  • Agility, speed and results
  • Planning, development, iteration, continuous deliveries
  • Hypotheses, design, development, testing, ... Repeat
  • Pivot fast
  • Take calculated risks
  • Stop activities that fail to meet objectives
  • Organizational flexibility for team members to have diverse and multi-project responsibilities, and can also change during the life cycle of each project
  • Self-management and organizational structures with minimal hierarchy
  • Simple and cheap
  • Systematic simplification of legacy
  • Good enough, cheap > >  over engineered and expensive
  • DevOps
  • Continuous development



If you would like more details, feel free to reach out, I have developed an innovation / transformation workshop to put in practice some of these strategies.
Also available:

Monday, May 11, 2020

Why Telcos need Open Core Surgery


 (This article was initially published in Light Reading)

At Mobile World Congress, TIP (the Telecom Infra Project, an industry forum created by Facebook and a number of leading telco operators and IT vendors), announced the creation of a new project group called Open Core Network. Details have starting to emerge last week, with a webinar.
The ambitious target of the group is to define and develop an open and disaggregated 4G Evolved Packet Core and 5G Core for wireless, wired, Wi-Fi on a variety of use cases.

We have seen in the recent past that various attempts to open up the telco cloud ecosystem and value chain have had contrasted results.
  • Telco clouds, based on VNFs and Openstack-like virtualization layer have mostly failed to reach critical mass in deployment and usability.
  •  ETSI-defined orchestration efforts based on open source projects such as OSM (Open Source Mano) and ONAP (Open Network Automation Platform) have been a work in progress and have equally, to date, failed to become automated telco networks app stores.
  • TIP has been successful with the definition, launch and deployment of Open RAN. We have recently seen announcements from Altiostar, Nokia and Cisco in Rakuten's network, as well as from Mavenir in Idea and DISH networks.


As we know, these efforts are aimed at disrupting the current telecom infrastructure provider cost structure by disaggregating traditional networks.
First by separating hardware from software, so that the solutions can be deployed in white boxes - Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) hardware - rather than costly proprietary ones.
Second by breaking telecom functions into software elements that can be deployed, managed and sourced independently from each other. This is key in the sense that it allows new vendors to enter the ecosystem, who can specialize in specific elements rather than end-to-end solutions. This increases competition and allow a more flexible sourcing strategy, with either best-of-breed vendors for each elements or selection of vendors for fit-for-purpose use cases deployments. The key to enable this scenario is an architecture that is accepted by all, with well-defined software elements functions and more importantly, open, standard, rigid interfaces that guarantee that one vendor can be substituted by another without undue integration effort.

5G is supposed to be the first telco cloud network that is natively virtualized, software-defined, elastic and automated at scale. This can be achieved today by deploying a single vendor solution from one of the dominant telco vendors. Things start to complicate vastly if one wants to deploy a multi-vendor network. Since the standards are not quite finalized on some of the elements and behaviour of a 5G network and operators are announcing and launching 5G networks nonetheless, vendors have to fill the gaps with proprietary implementations, and extensions to the standards to make their end-to-end solution automated, software defined and elastic.

One last bastion of telco proprietary implementation is the Core network. The Core network is basically the brain of the telco network. All the consumer data is stored there, all the charging systems reside there, all the elements to decide where traffic should go and how it should be treated live in the Core. This brain is very complex and composed of a number of elements that have, until now, usually been sold and deployed from single vendors. This has long been a trojan horse for dominant telco vendors to control a network. It is also a self-perpetuating decision, as the evolution from one standard version to another or from one generation to another is much more cost effective as an upgrade of the current vendor's solution as opposed to a rip and replace by a new vendor. 
With 5G, the traditional vendors had a few different architectural options for Core deployment and they mostly elected a non-standalone (NSA) version, which can only be deployed as an upgrade to the 4G EPC. It essentially guarantees that a current 4G Core deployment will evolve to 5G with the same vendor, perpetuating the control over the network. This does not only affect the Core network, it also affects the Radio Access Network (RAN), as its implementation, in the early stage of 5G is dependent on an harmonious interworking with the Core. As a result, many traditional Core vendors who are also RAN vendors have created a situation where the only practical and economical way for an operator to launch 5G fast is to deploy Core and RAN from that same vendor. This situation perpetuates the oligopoly in telco supply chain, which reduces innovation and increase costs.

TIP's Open Core is an attempt to create a Core network for 4G and 5G that will be open, composed of software elements that will be provided by independent vendors, all using the same open interfaces to allow low-touch integration and increase the rate of innovation. If the group follows the same path as Open RAN, it could become a major disruption in telco networks, enabling for the first time in decades the possible deployment of a full telco network from a rich ecosystem of vendors and an innovation pace in sync with what we have seen from the hyperscaler world.


Thursday, February 20, 2020

Telco relevance and growth

I am often asked what I think are the necessary steps for network operators to return to growth. This is usually a detailed discussion, but at a high level, I think a key to operators' profitability is in creating network services that are differentiated.
I have seen so much value being created for consumers and enterprises at Telefonica when we started retaking control of the connectivity, that I think there are some universal lessons to be learned there.

Curating experiences

Creating differentiated network services doesn't necessarily mean looking at hyper futuristic scenarios that entail autonomous drones or remote surgery. While these are likely to occur in the next 10 to 20 years, there is plenty today that can be done to better user experiences.
For instance, uploading large files or editing graphics files in the cloud is still slow and clumsy. Also, broadband networks' advertised speed has become meaningless for most consumers. How can you have a 600mbps connection and still suffer from pixelated video stream or a lagging gaming session? There are hundreds of these unsatisfactory experiences that could benefit from better connectivity.

These nonoptimal experiences can be where operators can start creating value and differentiating themselves. Afterall, operators own their networks; since they do not rely on the open internet for transport, they should presumably be able to control the traffic and user experience at a granular level? A better connectivity experience is not always synonymous with more speed, in most case it means a control debit, latency and volume.

Accepting this, means that you have to recognize that the diktat of "one size fits all" is over for your network. You cannot create a connectivity product that is essentially the same for everyone, whether they are a teenage gamer, an avid video streaming fan, an architect office, a dentist or a bank branch. They all have different needs, capabilities, price elasticity and you can't really believe that your network will be able to meet all their needs simultaneously without more control. Growth is unlikely to come in the future for everyone paying the same price for the same service. There are pockets of hyper profitability to extract, but they need a granular control of the connectivity.

"Vanilla" connectivity for all will not grow in terms of revenue per user with more general speed.

Being able to create differentiated experience for each segment  means certainly being able to identify and measure them. That's the easy part.  Operators mostly have a good, granular grasp on their market segments. The hard part is finding out what these segments want / need and are willing to pay. The traditional approach is to proceed by creating a value proposition, based on a technology advance, test it in market studies, focus groups, limited trials and trials at scale before national launch.

While this might work well for services that are universal and apply to a large part of the population, identifying the micro segments that are willing to pay more for a differentiated connectivity experience requires a more granular approach. Creating experiences that delight the customers is usually not the result of a marketing genius that had it all planned in advance. In my experience, creating, identifying and nurturing this value comes from the contact with the client, letting them experience the service. There are usually many unintended consequences when one starts playing with connectivity. Many of successful telco services are the fruit of such unintended consequences (texting was initially a signalling protocol for instance).

Programmable networks

One way to create and curate such experiences is to increase your control on the connectivity. This means disaggregate, virtualize and software-define the elements of your access (virtualize the OLT and the RAN, built a programmable SDN layer).
You should accept that you can't a priori really understand what your customers will value without testing it. There will be a lot of unintended consequences (positive and negative). It is therefore necessary to create a series of hypothesis that you will systematically test with the customer to validate or discard them. These tests must happen "in the wild" with real customers, because there are invariably also many unintended consequences in deploying in live networks with real population compared to in a lab with "friends and family" users.
In average, you might need to test 50-60 variants to find 2 or 3 successful services. In telecom-years, that's about 100 years at today's development / testing cycles. But if you have a programmable networks, and know how to program, these variants can be created and tested at software speed.

Therefore, you need to test often and pivot fast and you need to be able to test with small, medium and large samples. The key for this is to build an end to end CI/CD lab that is able to coarsely reproduce your network setup from the core, the access and transport perspective. It needs to be software defined with open interfaces, so that you can permutate, swap and configure new elements on-demand.

Since current networks and elements are so complex and proprietary, you need to identify greenfields and islands of wilderness in your connectivity where you will be able to experiment in isolation without disrupting your core customer base. At Telefonica, these uncharted connectivity fields were rural networks and edge computing, in other networks, AI-augmented networks operation, network slicing or 5G could be perfect experimentation grounds.

Pluridisciplinary teams

Another learning is that not integrating user / customer feedback at every stage of the elaboration of the service is deadly. It is necessary that UX designers be part of the process from the inception and throughout. They might not be as heavily involved in some phases (development) than others (inception, beta, trial...) so they can be shared across projects.
Increasingly, data science, security and privacy good practices need to be considered also throughout the projects pivot points. In many cases, it is difficult, expensive or impossible to retrofit them if they were not part of the original design.
Products and services do not necessarily need large teams to take off the ground and create value, but they do need dedication and focus. Resist the temptation to have the core team work cross-project. What you gain by identifying possible synergies, you lose in velocity. Rather have small dedicated teams with core members and specialists that are lent from project to project for periods of time.
Foster internal competition. Evaluate often and be ready to pivot or kill projects.

Paradoxically, when you find a successful service, in many organization, the phase in which these projects are most likely to die is when transitioning to the products and business teams. The key is possibly for these not to transition. I have long advocated that it is easier for an operator to launch 5G as a separate company than as an evolution. But it is impractical for many operators to consider starting a parallel organization for network transformation.These innovations, if they are to transform the way the networks and services are managed must be accompanied by a continuous training process and a constant resource rotation between innovative and live projects. Therefore transformation and innovation is not the work of a dedicated team, but of the whole workforce and everyone has opportunity to participate in innovation projects, from inception to delivery.


Beyond the "how", the teams need a clear framework to guide them in their daily decision making. The "what" needs to be oriented by a vision, strategies, tactics and a doctrine that will explore in a subsequent post.

Please share your experience with transformation and innovation projects in the telco world. We all grow by sharing. "A rising tide lifts all boats".

Interested in how these principles were applied to the creation of the Open RAN market? contact me for a copy of the report "xRAN 2020".

Wednesday, July 8, 2020

The Lean Telco

As alluded to in my previous posts, I have tweaked the Lean Startup methodology and the Wardley Map model to create value in a telco environment.

Value is a subjective topic but in a Telco context, my efforts have been aimed at creating sustainable growth strategies. Very simply, sustainable growth comes from sustainable differentiation, which stems from the creation and evolution of technological, commercial and operational characteristics that become difficult, expensive and time consuming to emulate from your competition.

Sustainable growth comes from sustainable cost reduction and revenue growth (Duh!).

Sustainable cost reduction can be achieved through drastic cost structure changes. In 2020 Telco, it can be attained through the implementation of a cloud native architecture and principles, underpinned by strategies of network disaggregation, extensive use of open APIs and open network topologies; SDN and control / user plane separation and systematic automation. While these goals are challenging by themselves, particularly in a brownfield legacy telco environment, they are the bare necessary changes for survival. The challenges associated with the organization, skill sets and methodologies to evaluate, test, deploy, purchase and maintain these technologies are even larger.
Every telco is extremely skilled at managing technological and operational risk, through iterative, waterfall evaluation and tests, resulting in deployment of high availability and capacity networks. This methodology has also led to lengthy evaluation periods and deployments. Most vendor will recognize that the sales cycles in telco are over 2 years long and that making any change in a commercial network takes several million of dollar or euros. This has led to an oligopoly where only a handful of specialized vendors are able to sustain economically these drastic processes.
Lately, telcos have been trying to diversify the pool of vendors to increase competition and innovation by promoting open source and open API projects such as open RAN.
While these projects have shown interesting progress, the real cost reduction comes from the change in methodology and processes to take advantage of these more nimble vendors offering.

What I am proposing with Lean Telco is a methodological framework for identifying, evaluating, testing, sourcing, deploying telco products and services that will provide sustainable differentiation with drastically different cost structure than the incumbent versions.
Once you have successfully changed the cost structure of evaluating, buying, deploying and managing telco infrastructure and capacity, you can survive as a high capacity, low overhead provider of connectivity. But if you want to strive and grow, you need to attack the revenue part of the equation. Actually, one would argue should start with growth objectives, and look at cost structure as an optimization challenge.

Growing revenue sustainably, in a telco environment comes from either having more people using your existing services, or using more of them, connect new people or create new services. I have prototyped, tested and launched projects in each of these categories in my last role at Telefonica.

  1. Having more people use your existing products is difficult for telcos, because those products (residential and enterprise mobility, internet, telephony, TV...) are poorly differentiated, since they rely on the same technology from the same vendors. As a result most telcos end up trying to deploy first (5G, SDWAN...) or to claim a performance advantage, usually derived from a superior spectrum or infrastructure investment. The only real differentiation ends up being pricing. This is very expensive and not sustainable.
  2. Having your customers using more of your service does not necessarily lead to more revenue, as bundles and unlimited plans are periodically rolled out to counter internet hyperscalers offering who rely on a different cost structure and revenue model. Again, since these services are mostly the same from one operator to another, differentiation comes from bundling and pricing. This is not sustainable.
  3. Connecting new people / clients is a worthy endeavour, but the last unconnected live mostly in rural, low density areas and selling services to new corporate clients usually mean competing against public cloud offering that are more cost effective and flexible than what most telcos can offer. There are possibility of growth there, but it requires breaking out from the current telco technological framework and a willingness to assemble new value chains.
  4. Creating new services is certainly where there is the most value, if we look at the growth of telephony over internet, video streaming services, social media and social messaging, SDWAN, cloud security... it is also the area with the most uncertainty and risk.

Telcos are not well equipped to manage the risk and uncertainty inherent in the discovery and creation of new services. The methodologies, organization and processes they use is to deliver with absolute certainty a product or utility with zero default to a mass market without variation. This model works well for mature, disciplined technology and vendors, not at all for exploration and innovation.
Too often, some Telcos build an extremely detailed plan, with contingencies. They budget it, staff it, resource it to execute it within a given timeframe, only to discover that the client didn't really want / need / value what was proposed (cf. push to talk, IMS/VoLTE, RCS, private networks...).

Just like in Lean Startup, the methodology I propose allows the progressive liberation of resource and funds as commercial uncertainty is shed by direct client interaction, testing and feedback. In a typical telco environment, the client interaction is at the very end of the process, here we are going to intersperse it throughout the development process to allow pivots, or early termination if the hypothesis are not met.

Trained, mentored and helped by many, I have adapted a few methodologies to enable Telcos to identify, validate, and deploy new services in an agile and cost effective fashion. I call it the Lean Telco Methodology.

How do I create a Lean Telco?
I use Wadley Maps for situational awareness and create a topographical representation of the current environment, which in my area of interest range from telco network virtualization (NFV), orchestration (MANO), cloud native distribution and orchestration (K8, micro service) and hybrid cloud / edge computing (telco private stacks, AWS outpost, MS Azure edge, Google Anthos...). This is not a map until we apply the level of maturity (Genesis / handmade, Custom / solution, Product, Utility) to each of them, as well as their direction and barriers on the horizontal axis. On the vertical axis, instead of using Wardley's traditional visibility method, I use technology stacks such as access, transport, core network, OSS /BSS, orchestration... The purpose of the map is not to be precise or even right, it is to share and compare comprehension of the environment, the players, their direction, velocity and the barriers. This visualization enables a level of shared understanding necessary to strategic discussions and gameplay around permutations and what-if? scenarios.


Once identified priorities and areas of risks / opportunities to investigate, I use the Lean UX framework and Lean Startup methodology to systematically identify potential current problems needing solving, unmet customer needs, unsatisfactory experiences and potential new products / services that customer wouldn't even know or have an opinion about. A series of workshop is usually best to crystalize the ideas. Once identified, they need to be refined into customer centric objectives. Contrary to popular belief, customer centricity is not necessarily going to ask prospective customers about what they think. Most wouldn't have any idea about what to do with 5G, augmented reality or a private network if you asked them. This is where lean UX and empathetic composite models are useful.

Each idea is reviewed by a jury and graded, the jury will define which ideas can make it to the next stage. The ideas are shaped and staffed as independent projects, with dedicated resource, budget and time box. Each project lead has the overall responsibility for moving the project to the next phase and to deliver the results of the current phase to justify additional resource and budget for the next one.
At a high level, the phases are:

  • Ideation - ($5k-10k /1 - 3 months) -the idea is shaped into a project, with central opportunities, areas of innovation, right to play for the company, sustainable differentiating factor, commercial high level opportunity and cost / timing for the next phase.
  • Prototyping - ($20k - 50k / 2 - 6 months) - In this phase a prototype is built, that might or might not incorporate any development or use of technology for the target invention. The idea is just to emulate the resolution of the problem and put it into customers hands as early as possible to identify whether the objectives, assumptions are framed properly and whether the client would value the resolution.
  • Beta - ($300k - $600k / 3 - 6 months) -  once the central problems are identified, and we know the client values their resolution, it is time to create a MVP to prove that it is technically, commercially, organizationally possible to solve that problem and that the value created exceeds the costs.
  • Product - ($1m - $3m / 3 - 6 months) - In this phase, once proven that the solution is possible, it is necessary to prove that the solution will scale and will be deployable with a mature operational and commercial model.
  • Growth - (TBD) This is the phase where the project needs to be commercially and economically sustainable.

Each phase require client interactions, in the form of actual tests in conditions as close as possible to commercial network. Within each phase, we decompose the project into customer centric objectives. Each objective into hypothesis. Each hypothesis into series of experiments that will validate or invalidate the hypothesis. It helps to set clear expectations and success criteria for each of these.
Wardley maps helps again, within each phase understanding what tasks, experiments are more suited for pioneers, settlers or town planners and indeed whether the project lead can adopt this mental posture in this phase or whether someone else needs to take the lead.

The result is a portfolio of new revenue making projects, that are systematically validated by customer feedback, capacity and propensity to pay; together with a robust operational and commercial model. Each project is periodically reviewed and graded, all projects must pass a gate review before the next phase and liberation of funds, which allow a nimble, measured, progressive investment plan, as risks and uncertainty decrease throughout the life of the project.

Monday, June 1, 2026

Innovating and Monetizing in Telecom: The Lean Telco

 


As alluded to in my previous posts, I have integrated the Lean Startup methodology, the design thinking framework and the Wardley Map model to create value in a telco environment.

Value is a subjective topic but in a Telco context, my efforts have been aimed at creating sustainable growth strategies. Very simply, sustainable growth comes from sustainable differentiation, which stems from the creation and evolution of technological, commercial and operational characteristics that become difficult, expensive and time consuming to emulate from your competition.

Sustainable growth comes from sustainable cost reduction and revenue growth (Duh!).

Sustainable cost reduction can be achieved through drastic cost structure changes. In 2026 Telco, it can be attained through the implementation of a cloud native architecture and principles, underpinned by strategies of network disaggregation, extensive use of open APIs and open network topologies; control / user plane separation and systematic automation. While these goals are challenging by themselves, particularly in a brownfield legacy telco environment, they are the bare necessary changes for survival. The challenges associated with the organization, skill sets and methodologies to evaluate, test, deploy, purchase and maintain these technologies are even larger.

Every telco is extremely skilled at managing technological and operational risk, through iterative, waterfall evaluation and tests, resulting in deployment of high availability and capacity networks. This methodology has also led to lengthy evaluation periods and deployments. Most vendor will recognize that the sales cycles in telco are over 2 years long and that making any change in a commercial network takes several million of dollars or euros. This has led to an oligopoly where only a handful of specialized vendors are able to sustain economically these drastic processes.

Lately, telcos have been trying to diversify the pool of vendors to increase competition and innovation by promoting open source and open API projects such as open RAN.

While these projects have shown interesting progress, the real cost reduction comes from the change in methodology and processes to take advantage of these more nimble vendors offering.

What I am proposing with Lean Telco is a methodological framework for identifying, evaluating, testing, sourcing, deploying telco products and services that will provide sustainable differentiation with drastically different cost structure than the incumbent versions.

Once you have successfully changed the cost structure of evaluating, buying, deploying and managing telco infrastructure and capacity, you can survive as a high capacity, low overhead provider of connectivity. But if you want to strive and grow, you need to attack the revenue part of the equation. Actually, one would argue should start with growth objectives, and look at cost structure as an optimization challenge.

Growing revenue sustainably, in a telco environment comes from either having more people using your existing services, or using more of them, connect new people or create new services. I have prototyped, tested and launched projects in each of these categories in my role at Telefonica.

  1. Having more people use your existing products is difficult for telcos, because those products (residential and enterprise mobility, internet, telephony, TV...) are poorly differentiated, since they rely on the same technology from the same vendors. As a result most telcos end up trying to deploy first (5G, SDWAN...) or to claim a performance advantage, usually derived from a superior spectrum or infrastructure investment. The only real differentiation ends up being pricing. This is very expensive and not sustainable.
  2. Having your customers using more of your service does not necessarily lead to more revenue, as bundles and unlimited plans are periodically rolled out to counter internet hyperscalers offering who rely on a different cost structure and revenue model. Again, since these services are mostly the same from one operator to another, differentiation comes from bundling and pricing. This is not sustainable.
  3. Connecting new people / clients is a worthy endeavour, but the last unconnected live mostly in rural, low density areas and selling services to new corporate clients usually mean competing against public cloud offering that are more cost effective and flexible than what most telcos can offer. There are possibility of growth there, but it requires breaking out from the current telco technological framework and a willingness to assemble new value chains.
  4. Creating new services is certainly where there is the most value, if we look at the growth of telephony over internet, video streaming services, social media and social messaging, SDWAN, cloud security, SASE, AIaaS... it is also the area with the most uncertainty and risk.

Telcos are not well equipped to manage the risk and uncertainty inherent in the discovery and creation of new services. The methodologies, organization and processes they use is to deliver with absolute certainty a product or utility with zero default to a mass market without variation. This model works well for mature, disciplined technology and vendors, not at all for exploration and innovation.

Too often, some Telcos build an extremely detailed plan, with contingencies. They budget it, staff it, resource it to execute it within a given timeframe, only to discover that the client didn't really want / need / value what was proposed (cf. push to talk, IMS/VoLTE, RCS, private networks...).

Just like in Lean Startup, the methodology I propose allows the progressive liberation of resource and funds as commercial uncertainty is shed by direct client interaction, testing and feedback. In a typical telco environment, the client interaction is at the very end of the process, here we are going to intersperse it throughout the development process to allow pivots, or early termination if the hypothesis are not met.

Trained, mentored and helped by many, I have adapted a few methodologies to enable Telcos to identify, validate, and deploy new services in an agile and cost effective fashion. I call it the Lean Telco Methodology.

How do I create a Lean Telco?

I use Wadley Maps for situational awareness and create a topographical representation of the current environment, which in my area of interest range from AI (sovereign, factories, grid, agentic, physical...), telco network cloud, orchestration, cloud native distribution and orchestration (K8, micro services) and hybrid cloud / edge computing (telco private stacks, AWS outpost, MS Azure, AI grid...). This is not a map until we apply the level of maturity (Genesis / handmade, Custom / solution, Product, Utility) to each of them, as well as their direction and barriers on the horizontal axis. On the vertical axis, instead of using Wardley's traditional visibility method, I use technology stacks such as access, transport, core network, OSS /BSS, orchestration... The purpose of the map is not to be precise or even right, it is to share and compare understanding of the environment, the players, their direction, velocity and the barriers. This visualization enables a level of shared understanding necessary to strategic discussions and gameplay around permutations and what-if? scenarios.

Once identified priorities and areas of risks / opportunities to investigate, I use the Lean UX framework and Lean Startup methodology to systematically identify potential current problems needing solving, unmet customer needs, unsatisfactory experiences and potential new products / services that customer wouldn't even know or have an opinion about. A series of workshop is usually best to crystalize the ideas. Once identified, they need to be refined into customer centric objectives. Design thinking frameworks help, but contrary to popular belief, customer centricity is not necessarily going to ask prospective customers about what they think. Most wouldn't have any idea about what to do with 6G, physical AI or a token exchange if you asked them. This is where lean UX and empathetic composite models are useful.

Each idea is reviewed by a jury and graded, the jury defines which ideas can make it to the next stage. The ideas are shaped and staffed as independent projects, with dedicated resource, budget and time box. Each project lead has the overall responsibility for moving the project to the next phase and to deliver the results of the current phase to justify additional resource and budget for the next one.

At a high level, the phases are:

  • Ideation - ($5k-10k /1 - 3 months) -the idea is shaped into a project, with central opportunities, areas of innovation, right to play for the company, sustainable differentiating factor, commercial high level opportunity and cost / timing for the next phase.
  • Prototyping - ($20k - 50k / 2 - 6 months) - In this phase a prototype is built, that might or might not incorporate any development or use of technology for the target invention. The idea is just to emulate the resolution of the problem and put it into customers hands as early as possible to identify whether the objectives, assumptions are framed properly and whether the client would value the resolution.
  • Beta - ($300k - $600k / 3 - 6 months) -  once the central problems are identified, and we know the client values their resolution, it is time to create a MVP to prove that it is technically, commercially, organizationally possible to solve that problem and that the value created exceeds the costs.
  • Product - ($1m - $3m / 3 - 6 months) - In this phase, once proven that the solution is possible, it is necessary to prove that the solution will scale and will be deployable with a mature operational and commercial model.
  • Growth - (TBD) This is the phase where the project needs to be commercially and economically sustainable.

Each phase require client interactions, in the form of actual tests in conditions as close as possible to commercial network. Within each phase, we decompose the project into customer centric objectives. Each objective into hypothesis. Each hypothesis into series of experiments that will validate or invalidate the hypothesis. It helps to set clear expectations and success criteria for each of these.Wardley maps helps again, within each phase understanding what tasks, experiments are more suited for pioneers, settlers or town planners and indeed whether the project lead can adopt this mental posture in this phase or whether someone else needs to take the lead.

The result is a portfolio of new revenue making projects, that are systematically validated by customer feedback, capacity and propensity to pay; together with a robust operational and commercial model. Each project is periodically reviewed and graded, all projects must pass a gate review before the next phase and liberation of funds, which allow a nimble, measured, progressive investment plan, as risks and uncertainty decrease throughout the life of the project.