First out of the gate, and now in the back of the pack.

There are two interesting developments this week on the evolution of the strategies of companies that I have been tracking.

The first, is the new favorite to bash (I have been critical since early last year) Research in Motion (RIM), the company that brought us the previously game changing Blackberry line of devices.

The second, is that Sprint has essentially abandoned WiMAX and is now committing  to LTE.  I will expand on this in a future post.

For RIM, a summary:

• The barely made their most pessimistic sales targets (with sales down over 21% year over year)
• Resignation of former co-chief executive Jim Balsillie (is this then a co-resignation?, who is going to staff the innovation committee?)
• Stepping down of the chief technology officer David Yacht (I though the co-CEOs were the brain trust
• Dan Dodge, former head of QNX Software is the new CTO (hmmm, do we really think that an operating system is going to restore luster in a crowed OS market?)

Remember, when the current CEO stepped into place, he made the impression that the previous leadership was really doing the right things, and that it was a function of marketing that was causing the loss of sales and market share (this message sent the stock tumbling).

Well, the newish CEO, Thorsten Heins, says now that the company would now focus corporate blackberry environments, their previous area of dominance and where they were first out of the gate.  This was initially taken as a sign that the company was going to abandon the consumer market, but I doubt that was the intent (although it ultimately may be the reality).

Can RIM salvage their once corporate dominance in securely managing mobile devices to move from their now nearly back of the pack position?

If RIM is going to focus on the corporate marketplace it is probably too late – unless they can rapidly turn their Blackberry Enterprise Server system to real management of non-RIM devices.  The trend to “bring your own device” (see, IBM) is strong and therefore the corporate marketplace may be dominated by consumer-based decision making.  In addition, there are established and startup companies that are specializing in enabling IT departments to manage this consumer purchased, but integrated into the corporate environment devices (see, Wikipedia, notice that RIM is not even on the list!).

The New Convergence - Can Engineering and Operations Staffs Handle the Change?

There is a new breeze moving though the telecommunications landscape.  It is called convergence.  However, it is not the convergence, or “convergences”, that may first come to mind.  As a review, some previous convergence examples:

• Private Networking Convergence: Move from Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) and Frame Relay into Multi-Protocol Labeled Switching (MPLS)-based Virtual Private Network (VPN) services
• Provider Networking Convergence: The use of MPLS to provide a common “provider” core network to support the all data services
• Service Convergence: Converging voice and video services over Internet Protocol (IP)-based networks

All three of these represent the convergence of technology, but the last one is different in a very specific and critical dimension.  Since the beginning of data networking, the systems used to provide voice services and data services may have shared common network transport (e.g., point-to-point circuits and wavelengths), but differed in planning, engineering, and operations.

Service Convergence of voice and private data networking onto the same IP network infrastructure and required new thinking on the organizations that support voice services.   No longer an independent Time Division Multiplexed (TDM)-based voice backbone, the voice services organization transitioned to making requirements on the converged, and most likely, MPLS-based IP-service network.

However, there is one critical area that did not converge.  The hardware devices that support the voice services are separate and distinct from the data networks.  This includes items like call processing servers, session boarder controllers, and TDM gateways.  What this means is that with the exception of the actual IP bandwidth,  the voice service planning, engineering, and operations teams still have a separate set of devices to lifecycle manage.

Now, another convergence is on the horizon that does convergence one step beyond and that is the actual merging of data networking into the optical transport domain.   Right now, the product roadmaps of companies like ciena, Alcatel-Lucent, Juniper, Cisco, and Infinera show a merging of the functionality of both the DWDM optical layer and the functionality of a core MPLS provider “P” router in one device.

Currently, at a service provider, these (the optical and MPLS layers) are designed, acquired, and engineered independently by separate internal organizations.    This separation also extends into the operations environment (i.e., the Network Operations Centers – NOCs) which generally has separate transport, MPLS/IP, and voice groups.

The figure below shows examples of the kinds of convergence environments that are in progress or emerging.  In the typical “Current Environment”, the MPLS P and PE layers are grouped together and have a separate life-cycle.  Similarly, the Synchronous Optical Networking (SONET), and associated Ethernet interfaces for Ethernet-line (ELINE) services are generally combined with the optical transport layer.

The emerging “Near-term Environment” (and in some cases already implemented and deployed) has Optical Transport Network (OTN) capabilities combined with SONET and Ethernet services integrated with Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing  (DWDM) transport.  Of note, is that for most existing service providers, these types of capabilities are already considered transport and therefore this transition does not cause too much operations organization disruption.  This type of service looks much like provisioned circuits, so the training and concept of operating the system are familiar.

However, the next transition into the “Future Environment” starts network operators down a different path.  The new convergence is the move of the traditional MPLS “P” function, generally a large router providing MPLS-only (e.g., handles Labeled Switched Paths only and does not “route”) capabilities, into the same hardware environment that provides OTN and DWDM transport.  Hardware vendors are banking on merging these capabilities to significantly reduce the hardware costs and improve overall system efficiency.  Generally called integrated optics or compatible optics, the approach is to remove the back-to-back optics costs that are incurred by connecting separate pieces of equipment together (e.g., between the “P” MPLS router and DWDM optical transport).

With this approach there needs to be some interesting changes in engineering.  The IP engineering organization has to directly participate in the specification, testing, and eventual deployment of such an integrated network component.  This complicates the selection of systems.  A real question for equipment vendors is whether this integrated approach requires a too complicated set of organizational issues for service providers.  As I have written previously, engineers love to hug their hardware.  If they are no longer in control, their natural reaction will be to resist the change.

In parallel with changes in engineering, there are needed changes in operations.  In general, the operation of MPLS devices are managed by a “Data” Network Operations Center (NOC), and the transport equipment by a “Transport” NOC.  For many service providers, these may not even be collocated in the same building.   In general, the data network looks at the optical service as an independent resource provided by an internal service provider.  Failures and issues are addressed at the MPLS-layer.  The Transport NOC provides circuit resources and performs maintenance as needed, generally not directly in regard with the users of their service, including the MPLS network.

So, in the new environment, the transport and data network worlds collide as there are significant operations inter-dependencies that need to be reconciled:

• Which team is primary on the equipment?
• What network management system monitors the equipment?
• How do you coordinate maintenance activities?
• Are there training gaps and skill gaps that need to be filled?
• Do you collapse the Data and Transport NOCs?

Even in light of these issues, the convergence train has left the station and its next stop is yet another consolidation of equipment which promises to increase scale, reduce cost, and increase power efficiency.  Engineering and Operations staffs each of their respective services are going to have to get used to this new reality and learn to start sharing the hugging of network hardware.