As energy strategies reach the boardroom, service provider management
should insist on “zero-impact” on services.
The stakes are too high in the competitive zero-sum game they participate
in. Customer satisfaction, reduced churn
and a strong brand are paramount in this environment. By treating energy as a strategic initiative
they will achieve the benefits of lower OPEX, enhance brand and more efficient
end-to-end operations. Tactical energy
initiatives will not get funded if they have a perceivable adverse effect on
consumer and business services. These adverse
effects could be short lived, as during installation, or long term, if, for example,
latency is introduced. Thus, their energy strategy should demand zero
impact on services.
Note the emphasis on “services” instead of “network”. It would be unreasonable to demand zero
impact on the network if you are deploying a new architecture or energy aware
protocol. Yet, with IP (Internet
Protocol) the impact on the network should not cause the perceivable impact on
services.
Is zero-impact unreasonable and wouldn’t “minimal impact” be
a better goal? The challenge here would
be to define what “minimal” means? Would
it mean X amount of video anomalies per 30 minutes? Why not X+1?
Would it mean Y dropped calls/tower/minute? Why not Y+1?
Also, who defines X and Y? Would the CEO, CTO, or CMO define them? Would international standards organizations
set them?
Setting the goal of “Zero
Impact” sends a clear message throughout the organization of what is
expected. Terms such as “sustainability”
and “green” will have clearer meaning.
Green projects that make people feel good but have no financial
justification will fail fast so the real winners can progress. Therefore, telcos and service providers
should demand Zero Impact on services.
Contact: Greg Whelan at gwhelan@greywale.com to discuss.
Click here for an INDEX of Articles and Post
Click here for an INDEX of Articles and Post
