Page 1 / 2   >   >>
mendyk 10/27/2017 | 11:11:43 AM
Re: Watch out Agree about when and not if regarding telecom automation. But the bigger question may be, who?
Phil_Britt 10/27/2017 | 8:16:06 AM
Re: Watch out Even though "automation is hard" and may take longer than expected, it continues to become more pervasive throughout industries, not just telecom. So the question is "when" not "if."
Duh! 10/26/2017 | 11:14:59 AM
Re: Perverse disincentives Opex reduction is a sure bet for the C-suite. If you take out some number of heads - loaded with health care, pensions (the unions haven't let go of those), OT, etc. plus strike risk - you know what it's going to do to your income and cash flow statements over the next few years.

If you create a new service, you're betting that its value proposition is as good as you think it is, that you've priced it right, that your competition isn't going to respond, that its margins will compensate for revenues lost by cannibalizing other services, and that your team is going to execute. If you're smart, you also factor in lots of confirmation bias on all the above.

Of course, you need some of both. But if your main objective is to keep raising the dividend to keep your share price up, which business case is going to be easier to buy into?
mendyk 10/26/2017 | 10:41:54 AM
Re: Perverse disincentives The walking off the bridge onto land part would be getting acquired by one of the Websters. Brought to you by AT&T, an Alphabet company.
Dissertationcorp 10/26/2017 | 8:24:01 AM
Re: Perverse disincentives This is really niuve we need help to make sure that we have some solutions in our life styles
Joe Stanganelli 10/26/2017 | 7:05:09 AM
Re: Perverse disincentives Playing it safe by staying on a disintegrating bridge. It's nice to have a companion in stretching analogies to torturous limits. ;)

Taking it yet further: For all the hype of digital transformation tech as we know it presently, the real winners are going to be those who innovate yet a third option that is better than what we have now and renders it moot by just walking off the bridge safely to land -- leaving everyone else to their morbidly no-win choice.
Joe Stanganelli 10/26/2017 | 6:54:09 AM
Re: Perverse disincentives @Sterling: Excellent point/reminder -- and it reminds me of a corollary effect: That when you save your organization as a whole -- including other departments -- $X, then the leaders of those other departments may get credited for coming in under budget, while you as the innovating department leader stand to get reprimanded if your CAPEX is too high.

Or, as it is put much more succinctly: (link)
yarn 10/25/2017 | 4:33:08 PM
Re: Perverse disincentives The same arguments are applied to ignore other difficult challegences such as climate change. The power of ignorence is strong as there are few issues that can't be ignored for a very long time. Many will just go away, but others exacerbate and become more costly to solve later. Without automation few people would be able to afford a car and there wouldn't be a case for building a national highway system, gas stations and massive oil production. But there would be less global warming...

Hm, perhaps there are 6 reasons to ignore autmation:-)
Sterling Perrin 10/25/2017 | 2:06:11 PM
Re: Perverse disincentives Brooks,

The other side of the NFV coin is something that generates revenue - then everybody seems to buy-in bc revenues increase and budgets increase. The CTL comments help explain why capex/opex saving use cases go nowhere but new revenue use cases move forward. There is a place for automation in revenue-generation use cases. In the report, we cite SD-WAN as a prime example of that.

brooks7 10/25/2017 | 2:05:57 PM
Re: Perverse disincentives Duh!,

Easier said than done.  Reducing Opex does not mean that there is a project approved.  It means opex was reduced.  Here we are talking about something where one would think that whole departments will disapear over time.  Something more like:  Reduce operational headcount by 50% in 2 years.  People look up and ask...Will I have a job?


Page 1 / 2   >   >>