A Journey to NaaS

Recently, many enterprises have realized the importance of NaaS (Network as a Service) and are eager to understand how easy it is to make the shift and what risks are involved during migration. In this blog, we will discuss a couple of paths to NaaS.

In the simplest terms, there are two roads to take on the NaaS journey: the Big Bang Approach and the Staggered/Phased Approach. 

Big Bang Approach: As the name suggests, a “Big Bang” transition moves an enterprise to NaaS in one go within a year’s time frame. 

• The Big Bang approach involves enterprises shedding the burden of owning both physical and virtual assets (including licenses) within a short timeframe. They swiftly transition to consuming network services, typically within six to twelve months depending on the scale of network infrastructure and how it is spread across the globe. During this transition, the service provider defines the asset lifecycle journey, service levels, capacity change model, and other relevant aspects. These details are documented and signed off with the customer. The resulting policy and procedure document serves as the foundation for the NaaS contract, which typically spans five years or more. Any subsequent changes such as adjustments to OEM/device specifications can be managed through change requests.

The Staggered Approach (also as the name suggests) takes about two to four years to transition to NaaS across multiple phases. 

• The Staggered Approach to NaaS adoption allows organizations to stagger their adoption based on technology (such as SDWAN, LAN, DDI, Security, or Tools), geographical considerations and/or the contract durations, OEM-defined asset life span, and licenses. Enterprises choose specific domains for NaaS adoption, and the NaaS contract is tailored accordingly, considering contractual and current-state complexities. This approach allows gradual adoption, minimizing risks associated with less visible domains during contracting. The service provider drafts policy and procedure documents specific to each domain or geography, which are then migrated to the NaaS model and replicated for other domains as maturity evolves. Collaboration among stakeholders is crucial to avoid finger-pointing. One way to mitigate challenges is having a single service provider manage all services end-to-end while staggering the NaaS onboarding process. NaaS provides a flexible, cloud-enabled, subscription-based consumption model that aligns with modern enterprise needs.

Let’s consider two enterprises and which journey to NaaS would serve them best.

A.  Organization A: Owns most of the assets on its books and maintains a good asset refresh cycle. Most assets fall well within the OEM-declared asset lifespan. The organization’s contracts are streamlined and centrally managed.

• Assets Ownership: From this standpoint, this Organization is well-prepared for transformation.
• Contracting Process: Centralized contracts mean an easier way to develop the contract document as well as have a less complicated engagement roadmap comprising asset management policies and procedures. However, several considerations need attention:
  • Termination Impact: Existing contracts must be reviewed to understand their termination impact.
  • Title Transfers: The ability and complexity of title transfers should be assessed. For instance, certain monitoring license contracts may not be transferable.
  • Maintenance Ownership: If the title is owned by the organization, the service provider might face challenges in purchasing maintenance.

Recommendation: Given these factors, Organization A – and others like it -- could benefit from the Big Bang approach.  The good news for Organization A, it’s always possible to “pump the transformation breaks” -- it can still adopt a more conservative stance by taking the staggered approach to mitigate risks and minimize disruption. By allowing a longer timeframe within its business case, Organization A can transition to NaaS adoption while minimizing disruptions.

B.  Organization B: 

• Assets Ownership: Has employed a hybrid asset ownership model, with some assets directly owned and others provided on an OPEX basis by third parties.
• Contract Complexity: Drafting a comprehensive NaaS contract all at once is an extensive undertaking for Org. B. Multiple contract documents and stakeholders are involved.
• Immediate Refresh: Several assets require immediate refresh to meet committed Service Levels, which impacts the decision-making process regarding the NaaS contract start date.

Recommendation: Considering these complexities the Big Bang approach is not recommended for Organization B nor for other enterprises in a similar state. For Organization B, I recommend taking the staggered path. This approach provides better control over the transition timeline and effectively manages contractual complexities. By planning upfront and identifying when each track should kick-start, Organization B can achieve complete NaaS adoption within a span of 2 to 4 years.

Hopefully, this little exercise provided a sense of which journey to NaaS would work best for your own enterprise -- based on your current state of service ownership and existing contracts. Because you want the journey to be as pleasant and productive as possible, a service provider like Microland can help you design a seamless execution that prioritizes the end-user experience and assures a transition to NaaS that all involved deem successful.