Telecommunications

Over the last two decades telecoms companies have seen constant change resulting from market pressures and government regulations, which have required revised strategies and new operational models to be adopted. In the more recent period, fixed line and mobile operators have had some periods of sustained stability, but as new entrants have moved into existing markets, squeezing margins and offering greater competition, not only in products but also in services, all have seen a greater need for change and the adoption of survival strategies. With the wider take up of low- or no-cost Internet Protocol (IP) Solutions and internet-based applications, the market has seen an explosion on a global scale. This change has meant that competition which was previously confined to national or regional levels has now stepped up to an international level.
What has this change meant to traditional telecoms companies? They have had to alter their survival models, often through offering newer products in order to utilize capacity, or developing content through divergence into the media sector. So do they remain traditional telecoms companies, or are they now new age media communicators using solutions such as quad play (Fixed, Mobile, Internet and TV now bundled)? A substantial problem has been the investment in legacy solutions, often large and complex, which were built for business models which many find are no longer appropriate or valid. Hence investment needs to be made either in rationalization of legacy systems, or in comprehensive transformation, or indeed both. In many cases the changes that were made in order to reduce operational costs failed to resolve what was at the heart of the problem, the business model itself. Thus the choice frequently made, to move the company’s non-core operations to near-shore, offshore or to a managed services provider, merely displaced the problem but did not resolve it. To make matters worse, making such changes merely to reduce cost provided no operational improvement, as a model was rarely agreed which included factors of innovation or business improvement. I can recall contracts which called on suppliers to offer a set number of innovations per year, without specifying their context or overall business objectives, often having been set by well-meaning procurement teams or bid writers. Conspicuously absent were strategic innovation, transition and transformation initiatives. These changes were often doomed to failure, since near-shore, off-shore and managed service teams never acquired their skills as part of the live operations.
So the careful identification and selection of an SI partner should be made only where they can clearly provide innovation, strategy, business transition and transformation for an acceptable price, which also meets the client’s business objectives. What is why EGC comes in…