With economic growth outpacing global averages and digital ambitions underpinning visions for the future, the GCC finds itself in yet another period of accelerated development and exciting transformation. Amid worldwide economic slowdown the position is enviable, but rapid advancement brings its own set of risks and the key to mitigating them could well lie in a good old-fashioned value: sharing.
As the GCC continues to grow, so too will the demand for vital infrastructure such as roads, telecom networks, hospitals, and schools, but getting it right requires a careful balancing act. Invest too much, too fast and inefficiencies will start to emerge, and costs will soar.
Herein lies the first of two somewhat controversial suggestions: instead of working in silos and getting caught in an endless cycle of capital expenditure to develop new, proprietary infrastructure, corporate heavyweights across key sectors should instead shake hands and share. In doing so, they can reduce capital expenditure per user, resulting in higher returns and more infrastructure investments overall.
Take telecoms for example. A report from Ericsson forecasts that 5G will account for 73 percent of all mobile subscriptions in the GCC by 2026 – the second highest 5G market penetration in the world. Yet no matter how high the demand soars, if every telecoms operator creates its own fibre, supply will eventually exceed it, resulting in overcapacity and unnecessary spending, with costs passed down to disgruntled consumers. Some may in fact be forced to reassess whether they can afford the service it at all.
By contrast, for operators who share, the scenario could be win-win. The company behind the existing fibre would benefit from additional income, the outlay for the operator utilising the extra capacity would be far lower than the cost of starting from scratch, and the infrastructure would be optimised, with cost savings for end users too.
However, while there are benefits to be gained for stakeholders across the board, care must be taken to ensure that sharing does not come at the expense of innovation and healthy competition. While infrastructure sharing between companies will deliver important cost reductions, efforts must be made to ensure that industry advancement and customer experience do not decline too.
But first let’s take a step back; for a corporate world that thrives on competition and closely guarded secrets, the prospect of joining forces in the first place may be hard to swallow, and this raises a question that sparks an equally uncomfortable discussion. That is, if companies are unwilling to take the leap, should government step in and give them a push? In other words, should infrastructure sharing be introduced by government mandate?
If compulsory infrastructure sharing sounds controversial, then the second issue up for discussion is even more so, and it relates to the sacred topic of data privacy. Continuing the theme of sharing, there is a compelling argument for encouraging or even mandating organisations across essential sectors to share customer data in the name of efficiency and optimisation.
The premise goes like this: Any government authority tasked with approving infrastructure investments needs to first understand the utilisation of the infrastructure that already exists, and that requires a level of insight that only data can provide.
The case of the Nordic banking market is an interesting example of infrastructure sharing at a national level. Major banks in the region have formed a central payment infrastructure initiative to cope with modern payment infrastructure requiring scale, scope, and speed at a lower cost along the payments value chain.
Healthcare is another arena where data can be critical not just in developing infrastructure, but in enhancing patient care. For example, understanding the who, what, when, where, and why of every single hospital patient would contribute significantly towards infrastructure optimisation.
Still, data is not a silver bullet and organisations across industries can pursue optimisation without it –albeit to a lesser degree. What’s more, there are valid reservations over improper use of patient data, and companies, governments, and individuals would be remiss to overlook the risks.
There is no escaping the fact: collecting and using data involves a serious privacy trade-off for service users, but benefits such as cheaper healthcare and improved, personalised service would likely lead many to conclude that relinquishing a little control was worth the while.
Privacy debates have been raging for years, but here’s where we enter new territory – and where the ground underfoot becomes a little stickier. Using customer data to improve a service is one thing but sharing that data with an entirely different beneficiary in an entirely different sector is another. Yet that could be exactly what we need.
Imagine a world where telecoms operators share data with the fire service about the number of active devices and their locations within a burning building. Or a transport authority communicates with a hospital about a road traffic victim – blood type and all. In the simplest of terms, it is data sharing in pursuit of public good, but it requires access to citizen data that is almost unbridled, and willingness among all stakeholders to share it.
For individuals and organisations alike, it is a big ask – while government access to data will undoubtedly benefit society in some respects, exactly how citizen information is analysed and acted upon is entirely at the state’s discretion.
In the telecom space and digital ecosystem, reluctance on these fronts can be overcome with relative ease at the local level. Already, many companies and authorities are required to share key data with government.
The real problem is the global players that operate squarely within society but on the periphery of national rules and regulations – the Facebooks and Googles of this world that retain their iron grip on data at all costs. For countries to truly optimise their most vital infrastructure, it is these giants of the tech world that need to be brought on board – or else dealt with robustly, for those brave enough to take a firm stance.
In fact, whether it is sharing fibre or divulging data, building the sustainable infrastructure of the future requires some serious courage on multiple fronts, and fundamental changes that will inevitably change the status quo. Right now, there is no clear answer when it comes to the best way ahead, just questions – and lots of them.
But in a world of inefficiencies and finite resources, it is increasingly hard to deny that a little sharing could go a long way. Of course, the devil will be in the detail, but what matters now is getting the dialogue rolling – or else risk being left out of the conversation altogether.