Not open to proprietary debate

Kristian Kerr says partners need to make their choice between open and proprietary technology

The channel hasn't seen the kind of dramatic change it is experiencing now for more than 20 years, with mobile, cloud, big data and social business technologies shifting from being nice to have to being mission-critical. And customers are having to rethink how they build and manage their networks.

In doing so, we're seeing customers gradually move towards more dynamic, automated, software-based and virtualised networking environments – something IDC has called the third platform.

In helping customers, channel partners are increasingly focused on designing networks that can cope with fast-accelerating trends such as mobile and big data by using technologies based on open architectures and open ecosystems.

Surprisingly, there are still two camps in the open versus proprietary debate: those companies that believe the future of the network lies in openness, and those that think a proprietary approach has a deserved place in networking.

There are also many who consider the debate to be long finished, because surely everyone knows customers prioritise open standards already. And this is true: customers do, by and large, want openness.

In turn, vendors have rushed to sign up to an "open" agenda but, unfortunately, we are still far from a truly open industry.

Instead, the issue has evolved to become far more complicated than a simple binary divide between open and closed. Today's industry debate can therefore be more accurately categorised as being between open and fully interoperable, and ostensibly open yet still proprietary.

While this might seem like a small difference, the answer to the interoperability question will have a major impact on how networks and businesses function and evolve in the longer term.

Channel partners in favour of the open and interoperable approach believe that, in order to match strategy with need for enterprises, customers need freedom to choose offerings that match their specific business needs, without being limited to a single vendor.

These partners believe the best way to keep customers happy is to provide best-of-breed tech, and for this to happen they need genuine interoperability. This gives customers the ability to introduce specific products and components as their needs evolve.

Sitting in the second camp is the open-yet-proprietary approach, which requires organisations to stick to one equipment provider. Advocates will tell you that this approach has considerable advantages.

However, with the demands placed on core enterprise infrastructure growing all the time – and innovations in the way networks are deployed, configured and controlled – a locked-in approach is increasingly seen as dated and restrictive rather than efficient.

It's also viewed as unsustainable; proponents of closed systems are building not only their own services businesses but increasingly their own clouds. This brings partners into direct competition with their hardware and software vendors, which can never be ideal for the channel.

In competition one wins and one loses; in partnership both should win.

I'm firmly committed to an open, interoperable future as part of a wider networking approach that meets current needs but provides flexibility over the longer term.

Closed systems and pre-built stacks also remove innovation from partners, and importantly, the ability to differentiate and create recurring revenue streams.

Software-defined networking (SDN), network function virtualisation (NFV), and open architecture and open ecosystems are integral to forward-thinking channel strategy.

Growing network complexity and the move to greater use of virtualisation mean it is simply no longer feasible to rely on a single vendor to deliver an end-to-end solution that fits every customer requirement for service agility and scalability.

Carriers, service providers and others have already invested heavily in software, and partners need to be competent in physical, virtual and hybrid solutions in order to meet customer needs.

While some vendors will probably choose the path of least resistance and continue to push closed networking approaches for as long as they can, customers – who look for business outcomes – will ultimately define the market.

History shows us that when it comes to outcomes, open and best of breed succeed in the long term and so, with customers facing unprecedented pressure on their networks, I expect to see ever more partners committing themselves to genuine openness in 2015.

Kristian Kerr is EMEA partner director at Brocade