Reading the OSS/BSS Vendor Landscape

As the first-quarter reporting cycle gets underway, we continue to see a mixed picture for OSS/BSS vendor results.

Ericsson, which has rejiggered its reporting structure once again (now lumping OSS/BSS in with cloud, NFV/SDN, telecom core and IP routing) posted March quarter IT and cloud revenue down 3% year-on-year (down 7% at constant currency), with 7% growth in services offset by a 14% decline in products. The compares with a 7% revenue decline for the division in 2016 with services revenue up 1% and products down 16%.

By comparison, Nokia’s Applications & Analytics unit posted flat sales in the March quarter -- a marked improvement from the 13% decline in 2016. Nokia said the unit showed "significant, even if early, signs of improvement" with robust new orders, particularly in BSS, driven by demand for new charging models. However, Nokia notes Applications & Analytics' profitability has room for improvement.

As discussed in Heavy Reading's latest report, OSS/BSS Vendor Landscape: Industry Outlook & Company Analysis, the B/OSS market declined around 6% in 2016, to circa $17 billion. In the report, we estimate the market should be broadly flat in 2017. Beyond 2017, growth in the market is likely to depend on operator appetite to invest in digital transformation, new entrants (e.g., MVNOs) looking to launch telecom services on third-party infrastructure, and the financial health of the traditional CSP industry per se.

OSS/BSS Vendor Landscape evaluates the size of the addressable market, based on a bottom-up analysis of the top 50 vendors, and assesses the distribution of market share. It examines the revenue progression in 2016 for the 16 companies for which we were able to gather reliable data and makes a forecast for 2017 based on the outlook statements from six companies brave enough to make a prediction.

The report investigates the average revenue per employee across the 50 companies and assesses the profitability of the 13 companies for which we were able to gather data. We also look at M&A activity in the sector over the last 12 years. In addition the report provides an extensive comparison of the product offerings of 45 vendors across three main categories: fulfillment, assurance and BSS. Finally, the report contains detailed profiles on 19 vendors.

The B/OSS market is likely to undergo significant change in the coming years, driven by the move to network virtualization and, more broadly, by the transformation of CSPs into digital service providers. Whether these forces lead to a consolidation around a handful of full-suite providers or a proliferation of best-of-breed vendors remains to be seen. However, modernization of B/OSS will be key to the automation of network and customer operations, as well as the increase in openness and agility that CSPs need to compete as we approach the 2020s.

— James Crawshaw, Senior Analyst, OSS/BSS Transformation, Heavy Reading

[email protected] 8/28/2017 | 7:26:17 AM
OSS BSS OSS BSS might be the most organized and institutionalized of every vertical application, yet that doesn't imply that it doesn't have to change. Indeed, OSS/BSS is very nearly changing to underscore the client encounter that spotlights on the nature of experience (QoE) of the client.

Client encounter: Where XML-driven OSS and administration meet

By method for foundation, operations frameworks have generally been separated from organize administration frameworks, with OSS BSS dealing with the operations work force and the business action and system administration frameworks dealing with the gadgets. A specific strain or rivalry has dependably existed between their missions, yet the two met up in the territory of administration.
ricardocsouza 5/16/2017 | 10:22:39 AM
Re: Customers of yesterday are Competitors of Today I would say that somehow I understand and respect your opinion, believing that it was built mostly on your previous experiences, maybe, but give me space to disagree with you. "Rigid" is definately out of their vocabulary (and technically speaking, not presented in their respective architecture). Regardless of being a lock vendor solution or best of breed, CSP (or any other nickname or force of expression using "DSP") may always consider many factors before deciding about in-house, open sourced, etc. It is not that simple as you mentioned at all (the provocation: CPS somehow shares some responsabilities with strong vendors when they decide to bring them onboard. CSP surely has the full visilibity about your own business goals, maybe you do not have the proper market and tech expertise from people coming from Vendors). About point A, Sir SeniorSt42306, try to read technical white papers about the top 5 vendors (as published in the text) and you will certainly found that they are offering agility, flexibility, openness, basically replacing the word "rebuild, customize" by "Configure", that means, they are bringing all their expertise, blueprints and technology to a reality where business alignment is real, indeed. APIs, Microservices, SDKs, Flexible frameworks, non-proprietary protocols, etc. All of them ingredients of most of their solutions (by the way, they are at this level and Gartner quadrants for some good reason, isnt it?). About point B, I believe that considering what I previously exposed, there is no reason to support this point. It is not necessary to wait for n + 1 version or vendors quarters to implement business rules or important features. Let's agree with one subject. The knowledge is not totally inside CSP and it is safe and sound to consider what vendors have to say about features. Do the vendors have to absorb all features requested by any CPS? Is it safe to neglect the Vendor's experience and appraisal of what CPS wants? Try to think of a Vendor now, regardless of being big, small, very small, or even a CPS by itself, priorization does not mean strategically?
Finally, "now" does not mean "mercy of vendors", not in the current days. Maybe "now" means to understand the power and value of a context of interaction and working in more in predictive way than reactive, improve customer experience, build revenue sources and act as an enabler in the creation of a positive network effect.
If your comment was published 10 years ago, I could agree with you.
SeniorSt42306 5/5/2017 | 7:02:37 AM
Customers of yesterday are Competitors of Today when it comes to OSS/BSS - the CSP have taken a stride over the huge, rigid OSS/BSS vendors. Companies like Telenor and Axiata group have come up with their own arm of developers who are building the open source or customized stack. And this works . Why ? 


(A) They are tailor made / customized for themselves rather than getting their needs aligned to business and product roadmap of vendors 


(B) DSP have replaced CSP. The CSP dont have to wait for version n+1 - after few quarters. Typically the feature ask from CSP used to be collated and then examined by vendors. They used to evaluate and prioritize based on whole set of requirements from different customers, markets, other stakeholders. And if lucky the feature was out as release in next quarter .but thats a very optimist view. 

Now CSP have become DSP which means what they want is "now" .. if the product development is in house they dont have to wait for mercy of vendors. 


OSS/BSS vendors must understand this and bring about more agility and more futuristic and more modular products. Also have a SI partner which can customize and manage the services to best. 
Sign In