Contributors   |   Messages   |   Polls   |   Resources   |  
Comments
clrmoney
clrmoney
4/7/2017 1:47:44 PM
User Rank
Platinum
Less vendors
they say they should engage in fewer vendors and maybe they should to make it better for them in the long run.

50%
50%
dcawrey
dcawrey
4/8/2017 4:35:58 PM
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Less vendors
This is always a pretty good situation for the vendor, except for the fact that they are constantly getting yelled at!

For telcos, it's probably a bit easier to keep a small amount of vendors. But more complex organizations that have to use all facets of technology to keep the wheels turning have big problems with lock-in. 

50%
50%
mhhf1ve
mhhf1ve
4/7/2017 3:38:38 PM
User Rank
Platinum
lock-in isn't defined...
The problem of lock-in is the "barrier to exit" and transition to another service/product. Does anyone think having multiple vendors is as much of a problem as having a single vendor that makes it nearly impossible to leave for another vendor?

Complexity and security problems arise with almost any setup that's been around for more than a few years, and the management of maintaining aging and diverse systems is just something everyone has to deal with. But if every vendor made it easy to switch to a competitor, would companies use more or fewer vendors?  

 

100%
0%
Co-found75847
Co-found75847
4/14/2017 2:52:19 AM
User Rank
Steel
Re: lock-in isn't defined...
Good question. If it was easy to switch AND there was sufficient viable competitors , why would you need more than one vendor? I feel an algorithm coming on....

50%
50%
srufolo1
srufolo1
4/7/2017 9:33:09 PM
User Rank
Platinum
Vendor Lock-In
Red Hat's Jordan-Smith and Level 3's Richter both make legitimate points, even though they are on opposite sides of the fence regarding vendor lock-in. Richter points out the security issue with multi-vendor systems. I think it's more about choice, as Jordan-Smith points out. No one wants to be stuck in a monogamous relationship with a vendor.

50%
50%
mhhf1ve
mhhf1ve
4/10/2017 1:06:44 PM
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Vendor Lock-In
> "No one wants to be stuck in a monogamous relationship with a vendor."

That makes these businesses sound so disloyal and heartless... :P

50%
50%
dcawrey
dcawrey
4/10/2017 5:44:06 PM
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Vendor Lock-In
@mhhf1ve Well, it is a business, not a non-profit. 

When you deal with lock-in, it really sucks. There could probably be an even better terminology that describes this. 

50%
50%
elizabethv
elizabethv
7/5/2017 8:37:06 AM
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Vendor Lock-In
@dcawrey - without a doubt a business needs to place profit first. It's how they remain operational. And being locked-in with a vendor could mean you aren't able to get the cutting edge technology you might have wanted because the vendor you're locked in with can't provide it. And that's a gamble no doubt. But not taking security seriously, could also significantly harm your relationship with customers. And that too could result in lost revenue. 

50%
50%
srufolo1
srufolo1
4/18/2017 4:59:42 PM
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Vendor Lock-In
@mhhf1ve  Well, as the saying goes: "It's business, not personal."

50%
50%
faryl
faryl
4/12/2017 3:32:23 PM
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Vendor Lock-In
Based on both of their views, it seems like the issue is being able to find a happy medium: A hodgepodge of vendors means increased risk of incompatibilities and having to stay on top of multiple security settings, patches, upgrades, etc. (plus an increased likelihood of compatibility issues each time one component releases an update or fix), and requires a different breadth of expertise/knowledge to implement & maintain. Relying on one or two vendors seems akin to investing money in just two stocks - if one goes south, your entire infrastructure goes south along with it. To continue the metaphor, it seems the best case scenario is would be the ability to diversify enough to offset the risk of focusing on one vendor, while remaining conservative enough that your "portfolio" remains manageable and offers the flexibility to dump one and replace it with another to remain responsive to the current market.

50%
50%
dcawrey
dcawrey
4/15/2017 3:12:56 PM
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Vendor Lock-In
@faryl The scariest thing to me is getting stuck in a vendor contract with terrible support. 

Contracts are built to have specific levels of service. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the actual service is going to be good. This is when lock-in is really a scary thing. You are stuck with the vendor in that situation. 

50%
50%
elizabethv
elizabethv
7/5/2017 8:34:53 AM
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Vendor Lock-In
@srufolo1 - I can see how multiple vendors would lead to a security problem and honestly, I think that aspect needs to be treated with the seriousness it deserves. Sure nobody wants to be trapped to Oracle for 30 years. And I get that. But it might be worse if you get all lackadaisical about security and lose the trust of customers because of it. 

50%
50%
srufolo1
srufolo1
7/5/2017 8:37:02 PM
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Vendor Lock-In
@elizabethv  I would say as long as the one vendor can serve every need of its client, nothing wrong with using one vendor. But if youneed someone with a different expertise, you may have to look elsewhere. I don't see a security concern with using multiple vendors honestly.

50%
50%
elizabethv
elizabethv
7/6/2017 8:44:16 AM
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Vendor Lock-In
@srufolo1 - I suppose that might depend on who the vendors are and what you are using them for. But if one vendor helps with the treatment of highly sensitive information (like what might fall under HIPAA) and another vendor is somehow able to access that informaiton, or worse, accidently make that information available to people who are not supposed to have it, it could potentially be a fairly serious security problem. 

50%
50%
srufolo1
srufolo1
7/6/2017 10:31:02 AM
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Vendor Lock-In
@elizabethv  Oh, I get what you mean now. That's a good point. But that can also happen due to hacking, so nothing is 100 percent secure if you think about it.

50%
50%
dlr5288
dlr5288
7/31/2017 6:52:52 PM
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Vendor Lock-In
Agreed. I don't see the harm in having more than one if that's they way they want to go, but they definitely don't need to!

50%
50%
JohnBarnes
JohnBarnes
4/23/2017 9:04:32 PM
User Rank
Platinum
Vendor Lock-In and Agility
I'm guessing it's institutional memory from a lot of wily old people who were naive, fearless young people a few decades ago. Suppose you're with a great vendor, and you just figure that as you need to add functionality and capability, you'll add with them, because their products are always great -- intuitive, effective, easy to use, do what you need the way you need it done, etc.

But every great company sooner or later stumbles, and suddenly there you are with a functionality or capability you need RIGHT NOW because everyone in your industry is jumping into it and getting on top of it and making money hand over fist, and unfortunately the software for that is where That One Great Vendor stumbled, and worse yet TOGV is not anywhere near catching up.

Like it or not, you go with some other vendor because you can't wait.

If you've always been a single-vendor shop, your whole workforce has to get used to a new way of doing things, new style of interface, make some huge leaps -- and you're already behind.  (I've seen that sort of paralysis and ineffectuality happen at more than one company on consulting gigs, sometimes arriving after they realized they didn't have the resources to make Other Vendor That Works software function, sometimes before as they realized they didn't even know how to shop).

On the other hand, if you're habitually multi-vendor -- meh. TOGV didn't work out, call OVTW and see what they've got. You have plenty of people that know both and are used to kludging between them. So you pick up the foot that made the misstep and put it back on the trail, and you're good to go.

Multi-vendor structures are an investment in agility, and agility=stability.

50%
50%


Latest Articles
Italy's 5G auction could exceed a government target of raising €2.5 billion ($2.9 billion) after attracting interest from companies outside the mobile market.
The emerging-markets operator is focusing on the humdrum business of connectivity and keeping quiet about some of its ill-fated 'digitalization' efforts.
Three UK has picked Huawei over existing radio access network suppliers Nokia and Samsung to build its 5G network.
Vendor says that it's its biggest 5G deal to date.
Verizon skates where the puck is going by waiting for standards-based 5G devices to launch its mobile service in 2019.
On-the-Air Thursdays Digital Audio
Orange has been one of the leading proponents of SDN and NFV. In this Telco Transformation radio show, Orange's John Isch provides some perspective on his company's NFV/SDN journey.
Special Huawei Video
10/16/2017
Huawei Network Transformation Seminar
The adoption of virtualization technology and cloud architectures by telecom network operators is now well underway but there is still a long way to go before the transition to an era of Network Functions Cloudification (NFC) is complete.
Video
The Small Cell Forum's CEO Sue Monahan says that small cells will be crucial for indoor 5G coverage, but challenges around business models, siting ...
People, strategy, a strong technology roadmap and new business processes are the key underpinnings of Telstra's digital transformation, COO Robyn ...
Eric Bozich, vice president of products and marketing at CenturyLink, talks about the challenges and opportunities of integrating Level 3 into ...
Epsilon's Mark Daley, director of digital strategy and business development, talks about digital transformation from a wholesale service provider ...
Bill Walker, CenturyLink's director of network architecture, shares his insights on why training isn't enough for IT employees and traditional ...
All Videos
Telco Transformation
About Us     Contact Us     Help     Register     Twitter     Facebook     RSS
Copyright © 2024 Light Reading, part of Informa Tech,
a division of Informa PLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Terms of Use
in partnership with