For the man in the street, when thinking of convergence, the all too famous line from Absa -- "Today, tomorrow, together" -- might seem to be a simple and fitting thought when trying to explain what convergence is -- there were many, now there is one.
It is, however, much more complex than that, and views from industry leaders and decision-makers differ somewhat. You should look at the specifics relating to your company and area of business to see what convergence really means, because it is different in every case.
Yes, there are areas that overlap and mean the same thing, but, for the most part, the only real overlap is the notion that convergence means a single ICT infrastructure across which multiple communication streams, such as data, voice, and video, can be run. No longer does each of these media need a dedicated transmission infrastructure, but all can be run on a single infrastructure or network.
In most cases people refer to the phenomenon of convergence as VOIP, whereby the traditional voice traffic carried over a normal landline telephone can now be transmitted over IP, be it through fibre-line backbones or wireless connections. The most familiar of this service is Skype, the peer-to peer VOIP network.
?It depends on who you ask. It means different things to different people. For some it means VOIP, for others it means mobility,? says Jeff Jack, manager: technology and operations, at Dimension Data.
According to Jack, convergence basically means a seamless transition to digital form.
Andy Brauer, chief technology executive at Business Connexion, says that the meaning of convergence has been used to death -- voice, video and data over one common platform -- and that it goes much further than that to include broadcast, like Internet protocol television (IPTV).
Orion Telecom director, Jacques du Toit?s, definition of convergence is: ?Integrating voice and data on one system that increases efficiency with no data degradation. Everything is becoming data, input and output, that is true convergence.?
According to Bennie Langenhoven, GM for telecoms at Tellumat, apart from the hype of VOIP, convergence is about getting more returns than just low costs.
But, says Dave Gale, director of business development at Storm Telecom: ?IP is not designed for voice.
?Because from an engineering point of view, IP is designed to be a resilient network for data, and minor delays on data traffic do not impact so much on the business. With voice traffic, delays impact heavily on the service, and delays on voice cannot be afforded.? He also notes that the issue is still bandwidth, and, with both data and voice on a single network, real work will have to be done to ensure that voice traffic is up front in the queue.
Who is responsible for what?
How far up in the ICT infrastructure of a business does convergence go, and who will be driving it? Looking at it from the point of view of an outsider, there are basically two factions in this decision process. These are the techies, who play with new technologies, and management (mostly the CIO), who makes business decisions to ensure that the business runs smoother, adds value, and makes more money.
Says Gale: ?Innovation comes from both the technical developers? side, as well as from the CIO or management side, but executives should start thinking of ?what if? scenarios to enhance the business and customer experience.? He says that convergence and VOIP is usually a knee-jerk reaction, all the way to the top executive level.
Gale says: ?If the developers know the corporate business well, they can go to the CIO and explain the benefits of converged networks and new IP applications to him or her.?
Gale adds some further advice to CIOs leading the convergence initiatives in organizations. He says one should remember that: ?If you want something done by a developer, tell him or her that it cannot be done.?
Gale does, however, believe that CIOs are still afraid to let new technology into the heart of the system. This might just be a normal human condition of fear being an inhibitor, but, then again it could also be justified by the fact that, essentially, you are incorporating technology into the very nerve center of your business that might kill it altogether.
Says Jack: ?You can get it to go as far as you want, but, regarding the impact on the organization in terms of the business plan, it has to add value.?
Jack adds: ?The CIO needs to understand what it is that convergence can do for the company, like how it can increase revenue, and hence the CIO needs to understand what convergence is.?
According to Brauer, convergence goes ?pretty far? into the organization looking at the next generation of networks, which are all based on IP platforms encapsulating all communications.
Langenhoven also believes that it is not only the CIO who will make the decisions on convergence in organizations, but many business drivers and IT managers will have a big role to play as well. He also says that in today?s rat-race, where finances are a large part of business, CFOs will also get involved in the action.
?CIOs should not really be focusing on technology, but must be more involved with the strategic needs of the organization, and up to date with current trends,? adds Langenhoven.
The consensus, however, is that every company out there should be doing some research into convergence technologies, and should maybe put up a lab in the background to play around with convergence a bit. It will also take input from the lower end IT specialists up to executive level to implement a convergence solution.
What should CIOs be doing?
?CIOs should be asking themselves what the core issues are in their business. Is it storing data or transferring it, for instance, and what do I need to do to enhance and enable communications? Therefore CIOs should look at what IP applications are available or what IP applications could be developed to help them do their work better,? says Gale.
Jack says: ?The CIO needs to start building a blueprint of the organization based on a converged infrastructure. The crux is flexibility, and how a converged infrastructure will allow users to become more flexible and add value.?
Brauer says: ?From a CIO perspective you cannot do convergence for convergence?s sake. You need a very strong business case, and your strategy must be closely aligned with clear objectives.?
According to Brauer, CIOs must look at the multiple toolsets and how these work together. He notes that the most common voice over data can be costly if not implemented correctly. He says CIOs need to look at the long-term sustainability and benefits, because technology evolves fast.
Brauer describes convergence more as a convergence between IT and business than technology, and says the technology is only an enabler to turn data into information, information into knowledge and then that knowledge into intelligence. ?You need to get these layers to integrate to have success,? he says.
Du Toit says CIOs need to also remember to look at the softer issues, such as interpersonal issues of who will be taking over who?s job, when data and voice integrate.
Du Toit also says that it is critical that the CIO look at the compatibility of hardware, and warns that CIOs should not buy any new technology within the first year of embarking on a convergence roadmap. ?Understand what labor and personnel issues there are, and sort these out first,? he notes.
Langenhoven suggests that, for now, organizations need to make sure that their infrastructure is upgradeable and backwards-compatible. ?Right now organizations need to look for hybrid type communication solutions rather than just pure IP solutions, because the quality of service in terms of VOIP is not yet up to scratch.?
Pros & cons
According to industry players, the first benefit of convergence and a single IP infrastructure is the reduction in cost. Yes, money will always remain a factor in IT, and in any aspect of a business, for that matter.
The idea behind the cost savings is, less infrastructure - meaning less expenditure, not requiring as many skilled resources -- saving on labor costs, and, in terms of VOIP, the reduction or elimination of call costs.
?One of the real values of an underlying IP network is that it can help you to virtualize,? says Jack. He believes that real value lies in the fact that convergence can allow the virtualization of service-orientated architectures and decouple the media (data, voice or video) from the bearer, so that it is no longer tightly bound.
To identify pros and cons, another issue to consider is the performance of the system. Says Jack: ?It relies on the architecture of your system, whether it can accommodate the traffic, and if it has the intelligence to see what is real-time data, which is most critical to your day-to-day operations.?
Brauer says that, apart from cost reductions, the integration of future applications to enhance service delivery to customers is where the real benefits of convergence are going to be.
Langenhoven says: ?It is still early days, and cost is the only benefit at present, but you can save costs now, with 10 and 15-year old systems, if you manage them right. In future, integration and convergence with the ERP and CRM systems will reveal great increases in sales and customer satisfaction.?
The answer to management of complex systems lies in effective risk mitigation.
Security is said to remain an issue. Jack says one should be aware that security is not new or unique, it is just additional.
Du Toit agrees that security is an issue, and says that this will have a huge impact in the VOIP arena. ?Voice is not that secure,? he says. According to Du Toit, antispam and voice security will have to be beefed up considerably.
Du Toit further notes that the cost of bandwidth is still an issue of concern locally, because it remains very high. He says that this directly impacts on the quality of service (QoS) of VOIP, and people realize the risk here only after burning their fingers.
On the issue of cost Du Toit mentions capital expenditure as an issue. He believes that in two years time that cost will be a fraction of the conservative cost of today. ?I believe the cost will be 15 percent to 30 percent of what it is currently,? he says.
Should users wait?
As usual there is no easy answer. The answer lies with the decision-makers in each individual company, looking at what money it has, and weighing up the potential value add and increased revenue a converged network will bring them.
Solution architect at Oracle, Frank Heitmuller, also believes that the current con is the cost of bandwidth, because it takes a lot of bandwidth to be able to run a true converged set-up. He also adds that, with convergence you will also have no private life left, as communication will reach anywhere, any time proportions. It is a con people frequently forget.
Traditional telecoms infrastructures, networks and systems are believed to be very robust, but restrictive in terms of fault tolerance. Many believe that, although the IP system is less robust, for now, it can have much more failure and fault tolerance built in, making it more flexible and safe. The key here, however, is effective management, and slack administrators will not do it justice.
Gale believes that users should always keep the traditional telecoms network as a back-up, so that when the IP system fails you can immediately revert to the telecoms backbone to regain some functionality and services -- at least voice calls.
Jack also points out that reliability is a huge factor in setting up a converged infrastructure, and also notes that the single point of failure is one of the biggest concerns for those wishing to embark on the convergence route.
Legal issues and the Convergence Bill
Insiders believe that legislation was, and, in a way, still is, the most hampering factor in the uptake and development of convergence within the local business arena. The Telecommunications and Broadcasting Acts are still the major authoritative prescription, which will, hopefully soon, be replaced by the Convergence Bill -- currently being discussed in Parliament.
Gale believes the two most critical issues with regard to the Convergence Bill are those of Wholesale and Interconnect. He says the Bill needs to clearly identify the interface between network providers and service providers, and that there should be fair play between Wholesale and Retail.
Licensing is a contentious issue, and determining who will be required to get what licence to provide whatever service is an overall debate and one which the regulator -- the Independent Communications Authority of SA (Icasa) -- and government need to sort out soon. Icasa has recently noted that Application Service Providers will not be licensed.
Jack says: ?The Convergence Bill will definitely have an impact on corporate business, but convergence is a journey and cannot be too strictly regulated at present.? He believes, like many others in the field, that convergence is not concrete, and that it will evolve.
?In three years time nobody will say, OK, I am now converged. Convergence will evolve and will have new meaning,? states Jack.
Jack notes, however, that in 24 months to 36 months, most companies will be converged in terms of having the necessary infrastructure in place, but then the real game of value-added services will emerge.
Brauer adds that convergence is also not just about technology anymore. ?Legal, economic, and business implications play a role, and you need to take all of these into account when looking to converge.? He believes that next year is going to be the take-up year of convergence.
Heitmuller believes that regulation was necessary for a while, but it is almost too late now, because technology is already dictating where convergence is going. He cites MTN?s service of broadcasting TV over cell phones, and the question if MTN should be licensed as a broadcaster or a network provider, for example.
Heitmuller says: ?The Convergence Bill should not be a control mechanism. The technology utilization should be.?
Director for new business development at Internet Solutions (IS), Hillel Shrock, says: ?There is a shift in the market, and we are experiencing a radical change, which will relate to many different views on convergence and the legal issues surrounding it. I do not think that these issues will be resolved by an act of Parliament.?
Shrock believes that it is highly unlikely that we will receive specific definitions and certainty from the Convergence Bill. He says: ?The Bill must leave space open for innovation and adaptation, because there are going to be more applications that will develop.?
?We should not be left behind because of legislation again, as we have been in the past years,? Shrock adds.
The bottom line is basically that convergence is definitely a subject on CIO?s diaries, but that it is still early days in its development -- especially in terms of the possibilities in application development. It is also clear that there could be numerous benefits in the future, but that cost reduction is currently the only real pro.
Regarding legislation, there are many views, but it seems that the ultimate decision still lies with Parliament. When this will happen is still a guess.
Lastly, it is apparent that most industry players believe that, although the technology infrastructure is important, the convergence of IT and business objectives and strategy development should be given priority before spending money on the wrong infrastructure.