P1 3-simon delaere

transcript

Defining value

in the Future

Internet

Simon Delaere

IBBT-SMIT, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

FinES Workshop, FIA Aalborg, 9 May 2012

About us

IBBT – Interdisciplinary Institute for Broadband Technology – funded by Flemish government, 1000 researchers in # groups across # Flemish universities

IBBT-SMIT: Founded in 1990, based in Brussels, part of IBBT’s Digital Society Department

Specialising in socio-scientific research on media/ICT

Currently some 60+ researchers

Combination of quantitative and qualitative methods for User research

Policy analysis

Business modelling

Main messages

Apples are not pears

It’s not only about numbers

It matters for FI and FinES

4 15/05/2012

1. Apples are not pears

Context matters

Technological determinism vs interdisciplinary approach

Research is about technology, but technology is void without knowing about How it is regulated

How it may be used/how it is actually used

How value can actually be created

Value is a hetereogeneous concept What is invaluable to one is worthless to the next

What is worthless now may be priceless tomorrow

Value creation and capture is a strategic configuration process

The context of value - The example of CR

NO YES Emergence of viable

CR business case?

Cost/complexity of CR

technology

“DO-IT-YOURSELF

WORLD”

Localised “hot-spots”

“POLAR EXPEDITION”

Non-commercial pilots

“BLOSSOMING

GARDENS”

Specialist CR providers

“TYCOONS’

PARTY”

Super-rich telcos’ toy

Level 1

A. Medeisis, S. Delaere (2011). High-Level Scenarios for the Future of Cognitive Radio Business. Paper

presented at PIMRC 2011, 11-14 September 2011, Toronto, Canada

Level 2

Barrie, Delaere & Ballon. Classification of business scenarios for spectrum sensing.

IEEE 21st International Symposium on Personal Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC) 2010,

Istanbul (T), 26-30 Sept. 2010

Level 3

Potential market growth

deployable

network

broadband

Travel/planning

Education

Gaming

Utility/grid monitoring Home analytics

Tele-health

Monitoring & drug

delivery

responder

Security &

VANETs

Mobile

truck &

cash in

transit

Emergency

broadcast

Event management/theme

parks, zoos

Niche, exclusive,

high barriers to entry

Groups,

human-oriented,

management

Government, necessity,

social benefit Consumer, high volume,

Quickly evolving

K. Nolan, V. Gonçalves & M. Sandmann (2011). COST TERRA – WG3 Working Paper: Marlets,

Opportunities, Technologies & Regulation.

Level 4

Tytgat, L., M. Barrie, V. Gonçalves, O. Yaron, I. Moerman, P. Demeester, S. Pollin, P. Ballon, and S. Delaere,

"Techno-economical Viability of Cognitive Solutions for a Factory Scenario", DySPAN, Aachen, Germany, 05/2011

Different BM exercises, different results

16 15/05/2012

2. It’s not only about the numbers

Of course numbers are important

Quantitative evaluation is necessary Cost-efficient research = cost-efficient technologies

Business Case construction is a crucial step

Many FI technologies promise reduction in CAPEX/OPEX, but what do they deliver?

But it is often too early to ask Infrastructure, element cost, uptake unknown

Competition/complementarity with legacy tech unclear

Macro, meso and micro economic factors

And it is still research Does it make sense to ask detailed, confidential exploitation

plans in a STREP?

Cost and revenue are just two strategic considerations

Business Models as configuration of control

and value

The rise of platforms

Platforms are emerging everywhere…

15/05/2012 20

ISSUER MNO

Rising questions Platform dynamics: multi-sided

markets

Dynamic and complex competition processes between large number of platforms or platform wannabes

Importance of technological configurations, interoperability, openness, bundling and adding features

Greater scope for variety of platform and non-platform strategies

Abstract and static conceptions of ‘platforms’ need to be replaced by analysis of changing boundaries of platforms, various levels of integration and control, different types of platform business models

Regulation not equiped for dealing with platorms

Multiple complementary methods

BO IO EU DM ASP WNO

Actor – Actor Interaction (MAA)

Table 6: Actor-Actor Interaction Matrix (MAA)

BO IO EU DM ASP WNO

BO -2 0 0 -2 0

IO 0 0 0 0 -2

EU 3 1 0 0 0

DM 0 4 2 0 0

ASP 0 4 0 2 -2

WNO 6 0 3 0 0

Table 7: Actor-Actor Interaction Matrix (2MAA)

BO IO EU DM ASP WNO

BO -21 0 -14 -20 0

IO 0 0 0 0 -21

EU 5 5 0 -2 0

DM 0 30 4 0 -14

ASP 0 17 0 11 -20

WNO 38 0 5 0 0

V. INITIAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The initial results of using the MACTOR/Matrix framework

are presented in Table 6 and Table 7 in the form of MAA

and 2MAA matrices. On the basis of which, we draw

complete diagrams of convergences and divergences as

shown in the Figure 5. The thickness of the connecting lines

in the graph is proportionate to the number of issues

converged or diverged upon.

Figure 5: First Complete Diagram of Convergences and

Divergences over Objectives

Based on the convergence diagram represented in the

following direct conclusions can be derived:

· There exists a certain degree of synergies among the Infrastructure Owner, 3

rd Party ASP and the

Device Manufacturer because in absence of Network Operators both ASPs and Device Manufacturers can interact freely and directly with the Infrastructure Owner (for revenues and service delivery).

· Synergies between the End Users, the Broadband Operator (BO) and the Wireless Network Operator

(WNO) (as shown in 2MAA) over all the strategic objectives are diluted because of the mediation of the Infrastructure Owner – who interferes with the existing operator-customer relationship by deploying and managing the CONSERN network all by himself.

On the other hand, the Divergence graph shows that the

Network Operators (BO, WNO) and Infrastructure Owner (IO) are in clear divergence with each other: firstly, because of the Operator-Independent strategy employed by the Infrastructure Owner and secondly because of the direct interaction between the Infrastructure Owner and the Device Manufacturer, which in more Operator-Centric models were mediated and managed by the Network Operator. Since we adopt an Operator-Independent strategy, adopting Operator-Centric or 3rd Party-Centric Models can yield entirely different sets of convergences and divergences amongst the actors.

Figure 6: Divergence and Convergence [MAA]

The IO’s role within the network-centric group of

actors: The Infrastructure Owner (IO) which is also the focal actor in an Operator-Independent Business Model of CONSERN deployment will face direct confrontations and disagreements with the network operators (see Figure 6 and Figure 7). In the following we provide a snapshot of foreseeable inter-actor relationships in the CONSERN business ecosystem:

1) IO can directly interact with DMs in order to purchase the legacy and CONSERN enabled devices (previously the Network Operator performed the role of purchasing and pricing).

2) 3rd Party Application Service Providers will find this opportunity beneficial for improving and re-inventing their present value of service offerings and closely collaborate with IOs (previously ASPs were dependent on the operators for service provisioning).

3) IOs can mediate the interaction between the end users and the ASPs both in terms of network and revenue sharing (thereby eliminating the presence of Network Operators)

4) IOs will be more independent and selective in choosing the data-plans and mobile connectivity from WNO and BO, hence the Network Operators will find themselves secluded off the mainstream access to the network as well as the revenues both from end users and ASPs.

Focal Actor – Convergence & Divergence

Ecosystem Convergence & Divergence

WNO – BO: converge and diverge on all issues IO – (WNO+BO): diverge because of Operator Independent Business Model involved. IO-ASP-DM : Strongly converge and support OI BM ASP-(WNO+BM) : ASP diverge and would like to operate independently

Casey, T.R., & Töyli, J. Mobile voice diffusion and service competition: A system dynamic

analysis of regulatory policy. Telecommunications Policy (2011), doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2011.07.002

SIMBU – Business Model Simulation

15/05/2012

3. It matters for FI and FinES

FI-PPP needs business assessment

Ambitious programmes linking FI underlying infrastructure to concrete application domains

Both generic enablers and resulting applications need to be tested for business impact

IBBT’s role IBBT chairs Exploitation and Business Modelling working

group within FI-PPP (through CONCORD)

Established 22 February 2012

Objectives provide internal (FI-PPP) and external (FP7-CIP) insights into

Future Internet exploitation plans and business models; and,

support the FI-PPP projects’ individual exploitation and business modelling efforts.

First F2F meeting at this moment

FI-PPP EBM

First EBM WG White Paper in draft

FI-PPP Technical and Business Architecture FI-PPP Core Platform: Technical and Business Architecture

FI-PPP Use Cases: Technical and Business Architecture

FI-PPP: Unified Business Architecture

Innovative Business Models for FI-PPP Services and Applications FI-PPP Use Case Example(s) and Business Models

The Business Challenges and Opportunities

Lessons Learned and Best Practices from External Cases

Innovative Business Models e.g. X as a Service models; Smart Cities/Region models, SME application stores, etc.

Societal Benefits and Economic Impact of the FI-PPP FI-PPP Core Platform and Domain Usage Areas Benefits and Impact

FI-PPP Market Opportunities

Generic Benefits of the Future Internet

15/05/2012 29

How about the value of enterprise solutions?

Future Internet may open new roads to value for

enterprises, both competing and collaborating

Value can be created by

Infrastructure

Platforms

IBBT is working on all these topics

PPP concept changes very concept of value

15/05/2012 30

Methodologies need adaptation

15/05/2012 31

Wrap-up

Apples are not pears

It’s not only about numbers

It matters for FI and FinES

15/05/2012 32

https://www.linkedin.com/e/fpf/14529507

http://www.twitter.com/minosrex

IBBT-SMIT Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Pleinlaan 9 – 1050 Brussels Belgium

+32 2 629 16 22 t

simon.delaere@vub.ac.be e