Looking back at 10 years of On the Line: Telemanagement talks with Henry Dortmans

The enterprise communications sector has lived through some rapid technological changes in the past, particularly with the advent of IP communication and all of the features and functionality that it entails. In the not-so-distant past, we talked about the emergence of the IP PBX and the benefits it would bring to an organization. More recently, unified communications and the integration of mobility to the corporate communications system have become two of the hot button issues. Henry Dortmans' On the Line column, which has graced the pages of Telemanagement for the past 10 years, has provided valuable and actionable insight and advice to enterprise communications professionals on these and other issues. But this summer he took on a new role as president of Datex Management Services, after Datex Billing Services Inc. acquired Angus Dortmans Associates Inc. As Dortmans takes the reins at the telecommunications expense management and consultancy, we thought it appropriate to re-visit some of the more significant management issues and technological advancements that he has come across over the past decade.Telemanagement: What are some of the biggest changes you've seen over the past 10 years in business communications from the end user perspective?Henry Dortmans: Well recently I did a survey of end user challenges, and technology continues to be one of the more important. It's still going to be dealing with that mix of commodities and complexities. All that has changed is there is a different set of technologies, you're still trying to filter the ones that are commodities versus the things that are complicated. And the irony is some people haven't yet figured out how to distinguish between the two. I also think one of the biggest changes over the past 10 years is clearly the people who manage networks and telecommunications are primarily now in the IT department. It sounds like a given, but 10 years ago many organizations just started toying with the idea. Now most decisions are within IT, not administration. Another big change, and this isn't a change at all, there's still nobody who has come up with the right way to manage telecom. There's no set of books on this. Not that there should be, but there's no common way. When you take on the job of managing telecom on behalf of an organization, how are you defining that? Systems? Networks? Hardware? Software? Voice, data, wireless? Planning and Support and Admin? There's no set of books that says this is how you would do it. If you were taking on an accounting role or another "profession", there is a set of guidelines, policies and procedures you could follow. Another one I'd zero in on is the money part of telecom: in 10 years the unit costs have come down dramatically, but for many, the total costs have gone up because we do more electronically. The changes in staffing and the greater focus on the short term rather than the long term is another one of the biggest changes over the past 10 years. We've probably lost the time and effort put into strategy planning. I think many companies now live day to day, month to month and quarter to quarter and especially in telecom it's hard to think longer term. Whereas before, you might have had a five year network plan, rarely you ever see that anymore. Now it's "let's get through this year" and "maybe next year" and "here's our upgrade plan." TM: Is that because of rapid change in technology?HD: No, I think it's the lack of people as a result of layoffs, cutbacks and the focusing on revenue and survival. As well, a lot of skilled and talented telecom people have retired. There's not a lot of people coming out of universities or colleges and going into telecom compared to 20 years ago. So where are the industry leaders attracting people out of school to come into telecom? TM: Now the value of the network increases by how much it's networked. How has this played into evolution of business communications over the past 10 years?HD: The inter-related of parts of networked communications has changed so the value of the network has certainly increased. But if the network is more valuable to the organization, how come the people managing the network are of no more value in the eyes of the company. As much as telecom is still critical, it's still only noticed when something's broken. It's not that there will ever be a chief networking officer or chief telecom officer, but the role is still considered by many executives in private organizations as needed, but it's not strategically valued. TM: Where does IP communications rank in terms of biggest changes over the past 10 years?HD: We started talking IP more than 10 years ago, but five years ago it became more of a reality in terms of there being tangible products or services you could buy that made a difference. The problem we have with it is this: to the business executives who have to pay for it, do they really care?The idea of buying a fridge decades ago was that it replaced ice that melted. So you had something that kept food cold. People weren't selling Freon, they were selling fridges. So with IP what's the benefit is key, not the underlying parts that make it work., What am I going to get out of this? Do I really care? How will it make my customers, my staff or my company better off? And I think that's what this comes down to. Behind most new telecom products and services is IP, but when it comes to explaining it to whoever would pay for it, why would that be the biggest issue? Why the features and why not the benefits? TM: The IP communications system buy, is this a money decision?HD: No. There are two key things: one, this replaces what you have now because it's done in a better, simpler or cheaper way, or secondly it does something entirely new.. Unified communications is good example of this. TM: Is telecom and convergence understood by enterprise or is there still a learning curve?HD: At each end of the spectrum of organization size, that's where there's convergence. The very large and the very small organizations have converged their people. It's that middle ground where there is a mixed bag of convergence understanding. TM: So the mid-market?HD: The mid-market is where an organization has enough people to specialize unlike the small company for example where the networking folks do everything: voice, data or wireless. In the middle, when you have two to eight people in the IT department dealing with networking issues - voice, data and wireless - each person can specialize and this slows the understanding of convergence. What happens in that mid-market is that things tend to happen slower because one change in one person's mind results in too many changes somewhere else. However, I think most enterprise IT people understand that all those people should be working together. TM: The merging of the telecom person and the network person is largely a thing of the past then?HD: Yes. I don't think that's as big an issue as it was in the past. TM: Now you wrote in 2001 about what telecom managers were telling you their biggest challenges were. They gave you answers such as measuring value and costs, controlling costs, matching technology plans with business plans, voice and data network upgrades and expansion, staying current on technology/industry changes and managing time. To me, these are "truths" from 10 years ago, six years ago, today.. HD: You're absolutely right. What's changed? Not much. Dealing with complexity hasn't gone away.TM: Is the process easier now for companies to go about procuring new communications systems? Do companies better understand the process today than 10 years ago?HD: That's a little difficult to answer because as a consultant, I usually only got involved when the process became difficult. But essentially, it's not easier. I just don't think it's changed that much. Recent experience has shown me though that there's a diversity of knowledge regarding how the process works: some know everything about the process, while others need a process established. The other thing you learn from this is the executive, managers and the front line staff within the end user organization all have various levels of understanding. If they're not all on the same page, then there's no reason to start asking suppliers what communication system to use. Thus the confusion over RFI, RFQ, RFP. For years, I've always called the first draft of the formal purchasing document an ‘RFX' until the right people actually worked on it.So the first thing we always try to do is make sure that everyone has the same goals with respect to their roles and responsibilities in the organization, and what they want to accomplish before they went to suppliers and said "we need to upgrade, replace or acquire new communications equipment." TM: Like with death and taxes is this one of those universals truths that will always exist when it comes to enterprise purchases of communications, networks and systems?HD: Pretty much. But there are some organizations that are getting better at this. Because of the IT discipline, the idea of the structured acquisitions, they have the process to get it done with better results for all parties.. They know what they want and they test it with proof of concept before they actually buy. TM: Billing and costs are still an issue?HD: It's still a mess. And it's still considered a pain by most people. It's painful because of the acronyms, because accounts payable and accounting people aren't going - or should be - telecom literate. The issue can be boiled down to finance people not knowing telecom and the telecom folks within IT focusing on either planning or operations, not administration. TM: But this is good for your new business though?HD: It's good for us. I've been talking to a lot of customers and a lot of potential ones and they are still saying that it's a headache. We want to make sure that it's done properly, that managing money has got to be done accurately, that the rates people pay are fair and reasonable, and that the costs they incur are optimal. TM: If the suppliers offered inexpensive rates, then there wouldn't be any choice?HD: Supplier rates for telecom things vary widely. They offer complicated pricing plans that take time and effort to figure out. So it's a case of understanding both ‘supplier rates' and ‘buyer costs'. Not only the cost per unit and the total costs by type, but the rate plan itself. What if there was only one corporate plan? There is no single plan that covers all products and services. And this results in multiple rate plans. And this makes the billing, the payment, the processing, the validation, and trending of spending more and more complicated. TM: There has been consolidation with the big players, but also fragmentation in terms of emergence of smaller players. Does this make it better for the enterprise now?HD: Smaller suppliers, which have niche applications, is good for the end user because the big companies maybe aren't nimble enough to provide that. The good part is the choice, but the hard part is it's hard to distinguish what some vendors are actually selling. And does it make sense for a company to bring in more vendors to deal with. Some sold hardware and software, and then they added professional services. But there are integrators that do professional services. And now integrators that were doing the integration of hardware and software, are now selling hardware and software. TM: Is there real choice for enterprises or is it cookie cutter solutions? HD: I think it has gone beyond picking one over another. It's about how all of the corporate systems are interconnected. So it's not just a technology decision, it becomes more of a business decision in the sense of service related issues, the process between multiple systems. You're looking beyond just the product itself and the features from a technology point of view. Probably from a dollar point of view it's cookie cutter for commodities and the pricing is all generally going to be the same. TM: Is IP really firmly entrenched in the enterprise community or are we only seeing press releases from a few?HD: It would be good to have a handle on how pervasive this is. Has it really in the last five years grown and what is the percentage today versus five years ago? I haven't seen anything that's really concrete on this. There are large organizations which hit a point where their telecom systems were old and they needed to replace them. So they did and they announced that. But then there are others, that have said "We're okay. Our system is three or four years old and we're going to wait another two or three years before upgrading." TM: The small and medium sized business market is quite different from the large enterprise sector. HD: Most of the smaller and many of the medium companies don't get the attention of the suppliers because they aren't big enough. One end user exec said to me recently that he was "working his way down to being a prospect again" with his main supplier. If he was a prospect, then he'd be getting way better service and more attention. He'd be getting better sales proposals for better stuff. And people would take the time to understand what's going on in that company to make his operation run better. TM: The SMB community lacks the attention from the vendors?HD: Now the supplier will argue the SMB market gets a lot of attention because they have whole divisions, and suppliers do at the marketing level and they do at the product rollout level, but at the "show it to me" stage, there is a void. This market needs the attention because every sale involves a salesperson and an implementation team to put the system in. So that's where the end users are probably complaining more now because the adoption rate is going up and they want to install new technologies, but they're not getting the service because the revenue they represent individually, is low.. TM: So to conclude what are some of the big lessons learned over the past 10 years?HD: When people talk about telecom, you have to listen really well because they ask you how to solve the problem or ask you how to make a better decision. And when you ask questions, sometimes they just give you data. I try to roll that up into information - what does that mean? Then you turn that information into knowledge - now I know what that means in relation to key issues to be addressed and am able to put this into perspective of past and present. Now you have to act - make the decision either major or minor. The lesson learned is you should always know at what stage where you are in all of this. How do you turn data into info, info into knowledge, then knowledge into action?Secondly, most things boil down functional quality and technical quality. Something that is "new and improved" in terms of the functional quality means: How will it will make my life better? For the technical quality it means: How it will make my life safer?. These play a large part in making a decision. The more suppliers that say it's simple, the more it's probably complicated. And that's okay, but generally it is more complicated behind the scenes. Drawing a cloud with some boxes and lines doesn't take away the complexity of it. Henry Dortmans is president of Datex Management Services. He can be reached at hdortmans@datex.ca or call him at 905-491-2030.

Looking back at 10 years of On the Line: Telemanagement talks with Henry Dortmans

News | 09/25/2007 11:15 am EDT

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us