| |
|
 |
|
| |
By Mario DeSousa
The explosion of social media, the cloud, and smarter mobile devices has introduced a need for handling more data than ever before. Big Data is a very popular subject, and a lot of interesting technologies are being created to deal with it. One of the most interesting areas of development has been around data persistence. The most important trend: the raise of the “dumb database”. A successful Big Data application has to be designed in such a way that its storage infrastructure is focused on one thing, and only one thing: Persist and Retrieve data.
Popular enterprise RDBMS (Relational Database Management Systems) like Oracle and SQL Server come packed with a number of features that do a lot more than simply persist and retrieve data. They provide the ability to implement logic in different forms (stored procedures, functions, triggers, and elaborate constraints). The power of these tools is almost enough to build an entire application in the database itself.
Another powerful feature includes the query optimizer, and all the different artifacts that support it: indexes of many types, materialized views, statistics, etc. Query optimizers will find the best approach to retrieve the data for a specific SQL query, without the query itself indicating how to retrieve the data… only what data is needed. Query optimizers aren’t perfect, and for certain scenarios RDBMS also offer a capability known as “query hints”. These allow a developer to actually tell the RDBMS how to fetch the data. The use of query hints normally requires additional testing and maintenance, since overriding the default query optimizer will mean that the system will not adapt its retrieval strategy as data grows. It also requires very specialized developers and DBAs, with many years of experience in the RDBMS.
The approach for dealing with Big Data is very different: All the features mentioned above go out the door. Major No-SQL systems that are designed to deal with Big Data simply offer the basic features to save some data, and then retrieve it at a later time. There are normally two indexes to retrieve data in an efficient manner. Anything beyond that is not supported out of the box. There is no concept of a stored procedure or a function, and so on. In exchange for the loss of all these features, No-SQL systems allow unlimited scalability by leveraging inexpensive hardware and by replicating data to avoid any loss in case of hardware failure.
This will sound very scary to anyone who has worked with RDBMS for years, and has come to rely on all these features (I know it was scary to me!).
But, there is good news: There are good alternatives to many of these features. If implemented properly, they will further enhance the ability of your application to scale to Big Data dimensions. In addition, the switch to a No-SQL database does not have to be an all-or nothing proposition and can be done over time.
Some suggestions for dealing with the lost features that you normally get from an RDBMS:
• Functions, stored procedures and triggers: These should be implemented in the application server, and should be written in a modern object-oriented language. Trust me, most of the logic that they implement belongs there anyway. This move will improve performance and scalability (no more trips to the database just to execute some logic that happened to be implemented there). You will also be able to apply modern agile practices like TDD (Test-Drive-Development) and automated testing. These will improve code quality and reusability.
• Lack of SQL language: Depending on the No-SQL technology that you are using and the language in which you develop your application, you are likely to find yourself writing 3GL code to access your data. This is not a lot worse than having to annotate SQL with hints, or having to write stored procedures with cursors… which you are likely to do for very large data sets anyways.
o One bright side is that many languages are starting to embed a domain-specific language that will feel like SQL and can help reduce the amount of code necessary to retrieve data from NoSQL systems. For example, Microsoft .NET supports LINQ (Language-Integrated Query) which can be used with RavenDB.
Some final suggestions to transition from a purely RDBMS application to No-SQL:
• Start by moving any logic from the database to the application. You essentially want to end up with a schema that only contains data objects like tables and indexes.
• Move complex constraint validations to the application layer. The only type of constraints you want to keep in the database are Primary Keys, Unique Keys, and Foreign Keys*.
• If you use sequential identities in your RDBMS tables, consider changing your keys to use GUIDs. The conversion is not straight-forward, but retrieving an identity from a centralized database server is expensive when you are planning to insert millions of transactions across distributed application servers.**
• When you are at the point of only leveraging a “bare-minimum” RDBMS, you will be in a good place to start moving tables to a No-SQL system. Start with high-volume tables.
o Be aware that No-SQL databases normally don’t have a pre-defined schema where columns and their data types are declared in advance. This can be seen as a new feature if you have records that can look different from one another. But a pre-defined schema can help detect errors as soon as a record is being inserted into the database, and detecting errors earlier is always a good thing. Your development team should be aware of prior schemas as your application evolves, and they should code the application to be backwards-compatible to allow older records to be used.
o It is ok to stop at a point where the largest tables have been moved, and you still have smaller tables in the RDBMS. You will be able to enjoy the benefits of a highly-scalable database for those tables, and the remaining nice features of an RDBMS (like Foreign-Key constraints, query optimizer) for lower volume objects (this strategy known as Polyglot persistence).
* I would also recommend using constraints to validate “Enumerator” columns: The kind that has a pre-defined list of possible values. So if you have a “Color” column, check that the value is “Yellow”, “Red”, “Blue”, etc.
** Yes, there are smart strategies to distribute the generation of these. But they normally have limitations or introduce operational challenges. GUIDs are becoming a standard as identifiers in the cloud for this reason.
|
| |
|
Tuesday, May 15th, 2012 |
 |
| |
|
| |
|
 |
|
| |
Referring to a very recently blog posted here (“If at first you don’t succeed”), we all know what, inevitably, comes next. This is particularly true in the Financial Services industry, where the giants of the field (be they commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds or others) have historically shown a dogged appetite to not only try, try and try again but, on the rare occasions where even that doesn’t work, to regroup and try some more.
The fact that, far from giving up structured products in the wake of the recent crash, new ideas and vehicles continue to proliferate at the current rate suggests that we might do better to worry less about regulatory prohibition and more about management oversight going forward. This is not to give up the ghost, but it is to be pragmatic. Lehman happened not because of mistakes themselves, but because of a lack of awareness that they were being made. To suggest otherwise implies suicide, which is silly. By the time anyone realized the barn door was open, the horses were long gone.
The market crash, for all the fingers pointed at faulty mortgage-backed securities, really has its roots in a paradigm shift in the FS industry’s approach to credit risk which, in the early 2000s (with, in particular, the invention of the Credit Default Swaps) moved from being actuarially-based to becoming market priced. The actuarial system, with its historical roots, fed the risk-averse commercial banking sector (small profits for lowered risks); market-pricing (and its ability to deliver inflated profits for shifting risk) – particularly as characterized by the invention of Value at Risk — fuelled the startling rise in the influence of investment banking. The outcome, besides the crash, has changed the nature of both domains.
But that’s another story. To our point, it’s probably now inevitable, and the current move to collateralize trade debt referenced in the earlier blog alludes to this, that both the use of structured products to further extend available investment vehicles and furthermore, one way or another to shift debt off banks’ balance sheets represents a runaway train. The challenge isn’t how to stop the train, but how to understand where it’s going. That’s what will, in part, prevent the next Lehmann.
An answer to this is inevitably, better systems and software. What these are is, to many, not yet clear (if it was, they’d have been in place some time ago). But it is emerging. This can be seen through the decisions of both the DTCC (the world’s largest Financial Services clearinghouse) and CETIP (Latin America’s largest derivatives exchange) to deploy MetraTech’s MetraNet.
We are not making the case that Agreements-based Billing will singlehandedly ward off the next financial crisis, but we would contend that the measure of control and clarity the product provides contribute to making the advent of that crisis considerably less likely.
|
| |
|
Monday, April 23rd, 2012 |
| |
| |
|
| |
|
 |
|
| |
We’ve expatiated on the idea of ABB™ across vertical markets, and in some additional detail with regard to what the term means and how such products work, since launching this blog. As you’d expect we would. So it’s nice to hear a fresh voice putting their money where, frankly, our mouth is.
“Future business success in all industries depends on how quickly the end-to-end monetization and partner compensation processes can be addressed whenever business change occurs. MetraTech is one of the few software suppliers that has grasped the complexities of the monetization processes by moving ABB to a solution reality for not just the communications industry, but a host of others including the financial services, conferencing and collaboration, cloud services and transportation services industries.”
No, we didn’t say that. Karl Whitelock, director OSS/BSS strategy at Stratecast | Frost & Sullivan and one of the BSS industries longest serving and most widely respected independent analysts did. Note: independent.
Karl and his team at Frost have just tagged MetraTech as one of their "Global OSS/BSS 10 to Watch" companies in 2012. Stratecast’s annual report recognizes 10 companies that have developed innovative solutions that address business-critical objectives. MetraTech was acknowledged in the stellar line-up for its market savvy and well-defined product offerings.
This is important and provides further proof, if any were needed, that rapidly evolving commercial markets can only be leveraged if the IT infrastructures than can accommodate their new realities are in place. The list of ABB disciples, and users, is growing.
|
| |
|
Wednesday, April 11th, 2012 |
| |
| |
|
| |
|
 |
|
| |
Perhaps not the first thing you think about when you consider your billing system (which, after all, first and foremost exists to generate bills!), but a nevertheless important advantage that the right solution can provide, is clarity. Clarity in the sense of getting a financial birds-eye view of your business; where the money is, where it’s coming from, who’s owed what and by whom, when payments (and receivables) are due.
It goes without saying that this information is always valuable; in some cases (for instance, for clearing houses and exchanges in the Financial Services industry) it’s critical. Over time, many MetraTech customers have commented to us that MetraNet’s ability to deliver clarity had resulted in a case of becoming aware that they didn’t know what they were missing until they had it. In fact, one client remarked how different (and more straightforward) their world would have been in the days immediately after the Lehman crash if they’d access then to the information that MetraNet gives them now.
While it might be too late for that, given banks’ continued appetite for innovation (or put another way, their desire to test the forbearance of regulators), those in Financial Services who aren’t using cutting-edge billing software today might want to look into it before tomorrow, or at least before too long. The news last week that banks are testing a new brand of CDO (this time, for trade finance), likely to circumvent the capital requirements of Basel III, suggests that at a minimum, you can never have too much information.
The new CDOs are, depending on your perspective, either “interesting” or worrying. If securitization can accommodate the heretofore staid world of trade finance (a $10 trillion market annually), there’s the potential for investors to unlock an increasingly problematic market that’s been gridlocked over the past 24 months. Banks themselves, particularly in light of the increased capital requirements resulting from Basel III, are showing little appetite to ease the market themselves.
And the new instruments aren’t fanciful. If corporate exposures can be packaged in a similar fashion to the way credit card debt is already collaterized now, any issues are unlikely to surround the design of products. In fact, JP Morgan is already suggesting it will be on board. No surprise there, either. If banks can transfer exposures off their own balance sheets and onto investors’ – reducing capital requirements in the process, why not?
But therein lies the rub. Regulators are liable to think that they’ve heard that story before. How things play out remains to be seen, though it’s a safe bet that to some degree the banks will get their way. What’s equally clear is the potential of an Agreements-based Billing solution to play the role of insurance policy/road map in a market that, once again, appears to be on the cusp of rapid evolution.
|
| |
|
Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 |
| |
| |
|
| |
|
 |
|
| |
Mobile commerce and other transformative technologies may be the all-singing all-dancing latest offerings from telecoms operators but, according to KPMG’s recent Global Revenue Assurance (RA) report and survey, this comes with an increased risk of fraud and revenue leakage. Revenue leakage is revenue loss due to incorrect pricing, missing transactions, operational inefficiencies, transactions that haven’t been priced, uncollected revenues, etc. Sometimes services are not charged at all or are charged at a loss. An average of industry estimates indicates that losses due to revenue leakage amount to the equivalent of 3 to 8% of total revenues, and sometimes reach as high as 15%.
The KPMG report suggests that almost all telecom operators worldwide (94%) expect revenue leakage to increase somewhat, with almost half (49%) expecting a significant increase. The sheer number of parties involved in m-commerce, outsourcing and necessarily complex networks mean that there is a higher chance of inaccurate data capture and billing and also fraud. Thus, says KPMG, Revenue Assurance and Fraud Management teams ought to have more influence in the new competitive environment than they currently enjoy.
Fraud management and revenue assurance departments are becoming more recognized but are not yet fully entrenched in a business advisory capacity. They ought to have a broader role to play and presence at board level but currently only 21% currently actually report directly to the board.
74% of respondents in the survey believed the transformation to m-commerce, including solutions such as mobile banking, has had a huge impact on telecom operators. But they also recognized that with these innovations have come new revenue streams and the need for changes to billing systems as well as networks; it is here that revenue leakage will be most prevalent.
Revenue streams with the biggest number of payments, such as prepaid or roaming plans, are the key areas of concern. To illustrate, although compared to KPMG’s survey from 2009 the number of operators reporting leakages of over 1% has dropped from 54% to 36%, data for Europe and America report that leakages of over 1% have more than doubled. Significantly, both these regions have witnessed a major increase in prepaid and data services. Conversely, as a percentage of revenue, leakages in Africa and the Middle East are highest as a percentage of revenue; carriers in Asia Pacific have a significantly better experience.
The pressure to find the volume of loss and minimize revenue leakage has never been greater. An agreements-based billing and compensation solution can help customers plug several of the leakage holes. Providing better control over pricing and fees and auditability and precision on how fees are calculated for customers, partners, and suppliers will enable more efficient revenue assurance techniques.
|
| |
|
Sunday, April 1st, 2012 |
| |
| |
|
| |
|
 |
|
| |
Google Wallet’s path to widespread acceptance is instructive, if unexpectedly arduous. Precisely what this demonstrates isn’t yet entirely clear, but some conclusion can be guessed at. We have come to expect the big Internet barons to master complex commercial change via little more than a click of their corporate fingers. As a result, it can be tempting to mistake anything other than instant success for failure. That would be wrong.
What Google Wallet’s story tells us, we think, is that M-commerce will likely become a transformative technology (if that wasn’t the case, would players like Google really be getting involved?) but it won’t happen overnight. This says more about the nature of m-commerce than it does about participants like Google themselves, and it hints at a theme to which we’ve been alluding to for weeks now: It’s not easy.
So, why is Google’s digital wallet struggling? Reports suggest that security concerns, minimal consumer use and few carrier and retail partners willing to either support the new technology or able to master it have all played their part. Put simply, the idea’s there but the infrastructure to exploit it isn’t. Because the ability to execute is uncertain, the motivation to sign up is missing.
But give up? From Google, there’s no evidence of that happening. Instead, the company appears to be looking at different ways to improve the product, including possible revenue shares with key CSP partners. Introduced as an easy way for shoppers to purchase in-store items with a tap or swipe of their mobile phone, Google Wallet initially partnered with Citibank, MasterCard, and Sprint. However, very few handsets were, or are, capable of supporting the offering. That’s set to change. Meantime, rival technologies such as Isis are gearing up to compete.
When you look at the enterprise players involved in m-Commerce – in addition to Google, the likes of Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile Bloomberg, Subway, and American Eagle to name just a few from a broad array of globally recognized brands – it seems a safe bet that the medium isn’t going to go away. Enterprises that see the opportunity, and there will be no shortage, are presently starting an infrastructure enablement stampede. Monetization software like MetraNet is a key part of that.
|
| |
|
Monday, March 26th, 2012 |
| |
| |
|
| |
|
 |
|
| |
The EU mobile payments market is taking off, though it remains less developed than in other regions like APAC. According to Gartner, there were 7.1 million mobile payment users in Western Europe in 2010, compared to 62.8 million in Asia. In Europe, the mobile payment market is more fragmented and significant players such as mobile operators, payment service providers and phone manufacturers are not in agreement over a business model that will allow inter-operable payment solutions. As a result, more m-payment proposals are emerging from other regions.
The EU’s current consultation on digital payments is trying to come up with a framework for mobile and other digital payments to encourage the pace of European developments to pick up. Online shoppers in Europe accounted for 141 million in 2009 and that amount is expected to rise to 190 million by 2014, the Commission estimates.
The three largest UK mobile operators have embarked on a joint venture, Project Oscar, which is a new cashless mobile wallet offering. This, as well as Dutch consortium Travik’s proposal for “Sixpack”, is being put forward for consideration by the EU executive. The UK consortium say the joint venture could offer a “one-stop shop” for mobile advertising, payment, ticketing and other services for the wallets. Rivals with similar prospects are waiting in the wings and international competition is heating up. Consortia in Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Hungary are keen to develop platforms for mobile wallets too.
In considering the proposals, the Commission is watching the development of mobile and online payment systems and plans to integrate the European market. It launched a public consultation on the issue in January. In April, the EU consultation on digital payments closes and in the last quarter 2012/First quarter 2013, the commission will put forward legislative proposal accompanied by impact assessment report.
Travik was actually unveiled in late 2010 but needs regulatory approval from the European Commission. Google, which has its own mobile wallet in the US, is targeting Europe as one of its international markets and a whopping group of twenty American retailers, Wal-Mart and Target included, is developing its own mobile payments system.
The market is already heavily penetrated with players such as Google, which has Citi, MasterCard and Sprint its wallet. Consortium Isis has recently signed up Barclays, Capital One and JPMorgan Chase and, in a different type of offering, PayPal has developed a mobile number and PIN-based system.
The race to market, it seems, may fully unfold over the balance of this year. Once that happens, the proliferation of m-payments is likely to be quick. We are already seeing considerable activity among players preparing the required supporting infrastructure. Monetizing the m-payments opportunity will require an ability to handle complex transactions via easy-to-configure and cost effective IT applications.
|
| |
|
Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 |
| |
| |
|
| |
|
 |
|
| |
A new Accenture study, ‘How CSPs Can Transform Telecom Billing Operations to Support a New, Convergent, Digital Business’, says CSPs are slow to introduce new services, compete effectively and exploit revenue opportunities because their billing systems aren’t up to the job of supporting next generation services. A staggering 92% of CSPs in the survey said that their BSS hinders the launch of new offers.
The study highlights issues and challenges faced by CSPs in Europe, Middle East, Africa, and Latin America (EALA) and points to strategies and priorities required for today’s new world. Intelligent services have soared, customers are more knowledgeable and new entrants are giving CSPs a run for their money with the introduction of content services that use both video and audio streaming.
CSPs are frustrated by three key limitations of their billing systems – billing accuracy, billing for bundled services and capabilities for data services volume processing related to the growth of data traffic. In addition, it is hard to configure legacy systems for new offerings, the report citing a clear need for billing systems that can deliver a single bill for multiple products/services.
Responding to ever new and innovative demands is critical for CSPs who need to bring these new services and products to market very quickly. As a result, Accenture says CSPs must rethink their infrastructures to support the real-time and convergent billing that today’s digital marketplace requires.
Being able to continuously innovate is a major factor in achieving success in an era of rapid change such as we are experiencing today. Billing systems that crumble under the weight of impossible demands will be a key reason for any businesses that fail to thrive or even fail to survive. There is huge potential for growth – but time is running out. CSP pressure to innovate service offerings is resulting in increased contract complexity. Contracts are global, multi-party, and multi-currency. They must also be transparent and easily reconciled. The billing system cannot deviate from business practices and must model the business accurately and correctly as well as allow anomalies to be easily detected. It is these attributes that allow adjacent software systems to do their job.
By embracing a new BSS model, CSPs can become competitive and go to market quickly with more customer-centric innovative tailored offerings.
|
| |
|
Friday, March 9th, 2012 |
| |
| |
|
| |
|
 |
|
| |
Virtual currency has become a multi-billion dollar industry and is the basis for business models like Zynga. Although prevalent in gaming, where users can deploy credits to continue social games or buy virtual goods, Facebook has now witnessed the explosion of a huge virtual currency and payment ecosystem. Virtual commerce is reported to be a $2.2 billion industry that’s projected to grow to $6 billion in under 5 years. With the right platform, developers are reportedly generating over 100x the revenues they were achieving through traditional banner ads.
So what does monetization look like? A virtual currency platform (VCP) needs to allow games, apps, virtual worlds to generate revenue by tapping into their virtual economies. For example, consumers can earn points or other types of virtual currency in exchange for targeted, relevant ad offers including free trials, big-brand discounts and so on. Platforms also partner up with several other companies to deliver direct payment options to their clients, such as credit card payments and mobile transactions, also referred to as micropayments.
Enter the next stage – taking virtual currency offline. Loyalty-based programs from incentive companies offer micro incentives which are inexpensive to distribute and users perceive their value as higher than their actual cost. It costs nothing to drop credits (worth $0.5 each) into a Facebook account and users will typically opt for 50 free credits over $5 off a purchase, demonstrating the irrational preference for virtual currency.
Plink has launched a Facebook Credits-based loyalty program that rewards members for dining and making purchases at restaurants and offline retailers. You register your credit card and when you make purchases at stores it is partnering with, including Taco Bell and Dunkin Donuts, you get Facebook virtual credits deposited to your account.
The financial big boys are on the case too. Visa has led a $40 million investment round in TrialPay and American Express has acquired Sometrics in a $30 million deal. Amex has partnered with the likes of Foursquare, Facebook and Zynga to seize the fast-growing social media market.
But how do you cash in? How do you turn the new breed of Zynga cows into cash? There is no question that offline and online worlds are converging. Traditional bricks-and-mortar merchants are now using social enterprise tools to drive commerce while new forms of social or virtual currency are becoming commonplace.
The right billing and compensation system provides the flexibility to accommodate individualized agreements as well as the web of interrelated billing and compensation agreements that next-generation commerce demands. It also makes it possible to understand such metrics as merchant profitability and to use pricing, incentives, bundling and compensation schemes to drive profitable consumption patterns and sticky services.
The right monetization solution, in short, delivers the means through which those who ultimately manage the virtual currency will be able to milk their Zynga cows!
|
| |
|
Monday, February 27th, 2012 |
| |
| |
|
| |
|
 |
|
| |
In a SaaS billing industry hallmarked by hyperventilating marketers over-pitching products that often support little more than simple subscription business models, the announcement yesterday that MetraTech’s Metanga is to monetize Temenos T24, a groundbreaking Cloud banking offering, threatens to redefine the status quo in more industries than one.
That’s because T24, which operates on a commodity Windows Azure platform, enables microfinance and in so doing empowers the type of community banking organizations that provide a Wall Street alternative that more and more pressure groups (starting with Occupy), not to mention political types, are calling for.
Already a global leader in banking software, with over 1,500 users of its products, Temenos’ microfinance initiative is thus both timely and compelling.
Microfinance is important. It breaks down the glass ceiling that often separates low-income consumers from high-quality financial services, thus providing access to the sort of products that not only produce income for their holders but have, in time, the ability to improve communities themselves. These are the types of products often not widely available to those consumers through traditional outlets. And why Temenos? Supporting microfinance initiatives is consistent with its corporate philosophy of leveraging its technology to beneficial ends.
For all that, the microfinance business model in the Cloud only works with the right monetization platform. With it in place the ability to roll out microfinance markets worldwide quickly follows. This is where Metanga stands apart, delivering an ability to support consumption-based billing rather than only the simple, recurring credit card models common in the SaaS billing market today.
This is prerequisite because, though the monetary amounts involved in microfinance are often small, the complexity and risk profile of transactions remains consistent with or elevated from (in the case of microcredit) their traditional finance counterparts. In essence, microfinance is just that…a fully-fledged financial offering on a smaller unit scale. And that, of course, is why “simple billing” won’t work.
|
| |
|
Friday, February 17th, 2012 |
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
