2011 RA Survey Report White Paper

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

1/20


Foreword I am pleased to present the TM Forum Revenue Assurance Survey 2011. Thanks to all of the Service Provider respondents to the Survey, and special thanks to the Revenue Assurance Team of Swisscom for the significant role they played in initiating and producing the excellent survey questions, as well as for the able help of the TM Forum Revenue Assurance Group (led by Gadi Solotorevsky of cVidya), This group is the most mature and continually productive of the TM Forum’s Revenue Management Initiative, with significant representation from all types of TM Forum members.

Steve Cotton Head of Revenue Management

Management Summary

Overview At the beginning of the first decade of the new millennium, one would have been hard pressed to find any mention of Revenue Assurance in the telecommunications industry sector. Needless to say, that decade saw many upheavals, all of which put unprecedented pressure on Communications Services Providers (CSPs) to significantly increase the scrutiny paid to every element of their enterprise. As competition and changing consumer spending eroded Average Revenue per User (ARPU), it became imperative that every bit of revenue earned be assured to be accurately accounted for and available to be converted to cash. Out of this imperative rose the Revenue Assurance discipline.

This survey gives a view into the state of the practice of Revenue Assurance as we start our second decade, and it does have a story to tell. The TM Forum’s Revenue Assurance Solution Suite (RASS), as the most comprehensive and widely-adopted set of Best Practices and Standards in the industry, will undoubtedly play a key role in how this decade’s story unfolds. The newest addition to the Suite is preliminary work to assess the impact of Revenue Assurance upon the enterprise in which it is situated. There is a very interesting Catalyst Project staged for Management World 2011 in Dublin, and you should be sure to attend and also be sure to visit Forumville to see the Catalyst live. In addition, heightened emphasis on pro-active approaches is forthcoming, which tracks with the trends toward that approach reflected in some of the survey results.

Results Survey Participants

The survey respondents were represented two-thirds from Europe/Middle East/Africa, one-sixth Australia/Asia-Pacific, and one-sixth Americas. They were predominantly (80+ %) serving greater than one million customers. They spanned a broad base of services, with considerable representation from cable and other television service providers.


2/20

Revenue Assurance Organization

The vast majority (90+ %) operate separate Revenue Assurance departments, with most (87%) being housed in the Finance functional area of the enterprise. Reflective of the recent emergence of Revenue Assurance, the vast majority (90+ %) of the respondents’ Revenue Assurance activities have been in place less than 10 years, with Asia/Europe/USA/Canada in place for six years or more and Africa/Middle East/Asia-Pacific/Latin America in place less than five years. Most (70 have staff levels less than 10, but almost half (43%) utilize “virtual” Revenue Assurance teams, a practice that will probably increase. The longer Revenue Assurance departments exist the more the weights of their approach change from a reactive towards a more active and proactive approach. In addition, more than the majority (50+ %) use the TM Forum Revenue Assurance Maturity Model (RAMM) to assess and continually improve their RA activities.

Revenue Assurance Collaboration

Well over half (60%) indicated that they maintain their Revenue Assurance department separate from their Risk Management department, and most (83%) maintain separation from their Fraud Management department. However, despite the typical separation between Revenue Assurance and Fraud Management departments, in most of the cases (73%) they report to the same entity in the organization. That being said, there was indication of middling collaboration between Revenue Assurance and Fraud Management (rated 3.4 out of 5), Internal Audit (3.2/5), and Risk Management (3.0/5). Some of this is undoubtedly due to a strong tradition of purposeful independence and concern for integrity of results that these other functions bring from their historical practices. Furthermore, a distinct minority (20%) indicate to outsource some of their Revenue Assurance activities.

Proactive Revenue Assurance Methods

The majority of respondents (73%) strongly agree that proactive Revenue Assurance methods are important. 63% also agree that proactive methods are more important than reactive ones. However, opinions are divided whether proactive methods are more important than active ones. That is to be said, that regardless the level of importance of each approach, an effective Revenue Assurance strategy will always consist of a specific mix of proactive, active and reactive methods.

Revenue Assurance Goals & KPIs

The survey concluded with questions about Revenue Assurance goals and the use and application of KPIs. In 17% of the respondent companies also other departments are measured by their contribution to RA goals. Increasing the sharing of RA goals between all the departments is considered to positively affect the effectivity of RA activities.

Among the respondents, 25% indicate to use the TM Forum Revenue Assurance Standard KPIs (RASK). All of the respondents use revenue leakage KPIs for their reporting, 42% also report overcharging KPIs. 33% also have KPIs to measure benefits of proactive methods (e.g. prevented leakage or number of clearings performed). The planned Addendum F of the RASS is expected to offer another valuable tool for RA practitioners to estimate and report benefits of their proactive activities.

Finally, the survey confirmed the utility of the newest addition to the Revenue Assurance Solution Suite in the area of effectiveness assessment, in that less than a third (29%) of the respondents use the metric of Cost of Revenue Assurance versus Revenue Discovered. This brings to light a recent development among the mature (as measured by the RAMM) organizations, wherein their traditional method for establishing their departmental budget was based on discovered leakage “paying for” the department. The conundrum now facing these mature operations is that their efficiency in reducing leakage leaves less of that source of “funding” for their going-forward operations. The soon to be released Addendum F of the RASS, as demonstrated in the upcoming Catalyst, followed by revisions to the Addendum as a result of Catalyst findings, will be a valuable tool for Revenue Assurance practitioners going forward.


3/20

Results

Introduction

Survey Background

This survey originates from a work shop session at the TM Forum Team Action Week 2010 (TAW 2010) in Lisbon. In this work shop, the attending service providers exchanged information and shared opinions about a broad range of RA topics and practices. In order to receive more information from other service providers, the TM Forum RA Group decided to put some of the questions in an anonymous survey. After TAW 2010, with support of the RA team of Swisscom a questionnaire covering all the topics of interest was developed.

Survey Design & Data Collection This survey was published as an online questionnaire and was launched via the TMF Online Community, the Revenue Assurance Professionals Group on LinkedIn and word-of-mouth recommendation. The survey was designed as anonymous survey, which means that the participating service providers entered the data anonymously. However, some profile information was gathered in order to be able to offer readers interested in this survey a generalized overview of the participating companies.

Survey Structure

This survey report is largely structured according to the topics covered in the survey questionnaire. The results are divided in five sections:

Survey Participants

Revenue Assurance Organization

Revenue Assurance Collaboration

Proactive Revenue Assurance Methods

Revenue Assurance Goals and KPIs

Note: Not all of the survey questions were mandatory. Thus, not all of the survey questions were answered by all respondent companies. To take this into account, each graph published in this report indicates the number of responses on which statistics are drawn, e. g. (24 Respondents).


4/20

Survey Participants Geographical Distribution

This survey reached a surprisingly wide geographical coverage. 30 service providers (SP) around the world participated in this survey. 24 indicated their geographical location. More than a third of the participating SPs are located in Europe (9 of 24), followed by 6 SPs from Africa & Middle East and 3 SPs from Asia. Even SPs from Latin America (2), Australia/Pacific (1) and from USA/Canada (1) took part in this survey.

Geographical Distribution (24 Respondents)

Annual Revenues in USD

67% generate more than 1’000 Million USD per year. 38% even generate more than 5’000 Million. USD. 24% report annual revenues between 250 and 1’000 Million, while 10% indicate revenues lower than 250 Million.

Annual Revenues (in Million USD) (21 Respondents)

Number of Employees

86% employ at least 1000 people. The biggest part (41%), employ between 1’000 and 5’000 people. 28% even report staff figures higher than 10’000.

Number of Employees (22 Respondents)

27%

14%

5%

41%

9%

5%

(6)

(3)

(1)

(9)

(2)(1)

Africa &Middle East

Asia Australia &Pacific

Europe LatinAmerica

USA/Canada

5% 5%

24%29%

38%

(1) (1)

(5)

(6)

(8)

< 50 50 to 250 250 to 1000 1'000 to 5'000 > 5'000

14%

41%

18%23%

5%

(3)

(9)

(4)(5)

(1)

< 1'000 1'000 to 5'000 5'000 to 10'000 10'000 to 20'000 > 20'000


5/20

Number of Subscribers

Most of the respondents have rather large subscriber bases (between 1 and more than 10 Million). 50% indicate to have more than 10 Million subscribers. 27% of the respondents report subscriber bases between 1 and 5 Million.

Number of Subscribers in Mio. (22 Respondents)

Market Segments

41% indicate to serve all market segments from retail over small, medium and large businesses till wholesale. The other 59% indicate to operate only in one market segment, whereas the majority of these operate in the retail segment with 7 nominations. From this overview it can be said, that the RA scope for each company may vary between one and four segments.

Market Segments (22 Respondents)

Products/Services Offered

The respondent companies offer a broad product portfolio. Multiple nominations were possible for this question. With scores over 70%, the most mentioned products were: Wireless Voice, Internet Services, Value Added Services, Interconnection, International and Roaming and Data Services. On average, each respondent company has 6 different product types on offer. Based on the replies it can be said, that the RA scope for each company may vary between a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 10 products.

Products/Services Offered (22 Respondents)

9% 9%

27%

50%

5%

(2) (2)

(6)

(1)

(11)

< 0.5 0.5 to 1 1.0 to 5 5.0 to 10 > 10

41%

32%

14%9%

5%

(9)

(7)

(1)

(3)(2)

All segments Retail Small & MediumBusinesses

LargeBusinesses

Wholesale

55%

82% 82%

36%

77%73%

77%73%

27%

5%

(12)

(18) (18)

(8)

(17)(16)

(17)(16)

(6)

(1)

WirelineVoice

WirelessVoice

InternetServices

TelevisionServices

ValueAdded

Services

Intercon-nection

Interna-tional &Roaming

Data Cable Satellite


6/20

Market Share

72 % have more than 35% market share in their operating region. 48% indicate to have average market share between 35 and 65%. One respondent even has a market share above 90%. More than 50% of the respondents also report to have 3 to 5 major competitors in their market. This may indicate that the majority of them operate in an oligopoly market environment.

Market Share (21 Respondents)

Market Saturation

82% operate in highly saturated markets. 50% even assess their market saturation as very high. In more saturated markets Revenue Assurance may be deployed as a revenue optimizing or revenue maximizing instrument.

Market Saturation (22 Respondents)

24%

48%

19%

5%5%

(1)

(5)

(10)

(4)

(1)

< 10% 10 to 35% 35 to 65% 65 to 90% > 90%

9% 9%

32%

50%

(0)

(2) (2)

(7)

(11)

Very lowsaturation

Low saturation Mediumsaturation

High saturation Very highsaturation


7/20

Revenue Assurance Organization Existence of a Separate RA Department

In almost all of the respondent companies a separate RA department exists. This result shows that within SPs revenue assurance is nowadays recognised as a clearly distinct function which justifies a separate organizational entity. In the two companies who indicate that no separate RA department exists, the RA function is located in the finance department.

Existence of a Separate RA Department (30 Respondents)

Position of RA Dept. within the Organization

87% report that the RA department is located in the Finance department. This result shows the strong connection of revenue assurance to finance related topics. Other places stated by respondents are: IT department, internal audit, internal control, and an inter-divisional department (Finance, IT and Customer Operations).

Position of RA Dept. within the Organization (30 Respondents)

Average Years of Experience of RA Departments

This survey assumes that longer existence of RA departments expresses more experience in RA. 74% indicate that the RA function exists between 4 to 9 years. 10% even have more than 9 years experience in RA. Only 17% indicate to have less than three years experience. Interestingly new RA departments are being created these days. Out of these 5 (17%) departments 3 (10%) were established in the last year.

Years RA Department exists within the Organization (30 Respondents)

93%

7%

(2)

(28)

No Yes

87%

13%

(26)

(4)

Finance Department Other

17%

37% 37%

10%

(5)

(11) (11)

(3)

0-3 years 4-6 years 7-9 years > 9 years


8/20

Average Years of Experience of RA Dept. compared to Geographical Region

The overall average of experience is 5.9 years. On average, RA departments in Asia/Europe/USA/Canada have six or more year’s experience, while Africa/Middle East/Asia-Pacific/Latin America has less than five years.

Average Years of Experience of RA Departments compared to Geographical Region (22 Respondents)

Number of People Working in RA Dept.

70% have staff levels less than 10 FTE (Full Time Equivalent). However, we also see some examples of large RA teams of over 50 FTE.

Number of People Working in RA Dept. (30 Respondents)

Existence of Virtual RA Team

43% report to have a virtual RA team in place within the organization. RA virtual teams are organizationally and/or geographically dispersed working units who primarily perform RA tasks, e.g. monitoring of RA tools in a technical department.

Existence of Virtual RA Team (30 Respondents)

(3)

7.7

(6)

4.5 (1)

2.5

(9)

6.2

(2)

2.5

(1)

6.0

Africa &Middle East

Asia Australia &Pacif ic

Europe Latin America USA/Canada

27%

43%

7%

13%10%

(8)

(13)

(2)

(4)(3)

<5 5-10 11-20 20-50 > 50

57%

43%

(17)

(13)

No Yes


9/20

Number of People Working in Virtual RA Team

Out of the 13 respondents who operate a virtual team, 11 indicated the number of people working in such teams. 73% of these teams are staffed with 10 or less FTE.

Number of People (in FTE) Working in Virtual RA Team (11 Respondents)

Distribution of RA Resources to RA Modes (proactive, active, reactive)

On average the respondent companies allocate 39% of their FTE resources to reactive RA, 36% to active RA and 25% to proactive RA.

Distribution of RA Resources to RA Modes (22 Respondents)

Distribution of RA Resources to RA Modes compared to Years of Experience of RA Dept.

When we take into account the RA departments’ years of experience it shows up that the longer the departments exist, the more the weights change from reactive RA towards a more active and proactive approach. This observation corresponds with the TMF RA Maturity Model (RAMM) which states that experienced RA departments get more into a proactive mode when achieving higher maturity levels.

Distribution of RA Resources to RA Modes compared to Years of Experience (22 Respondents)

55%

18%

27%

(6)

(2)

(3)

<5 05-10 >10

39%36%

25%

Reactive RA Active RA Proactive RA

57%44% 35%

15%

25%34%

37%50%

(7)

28%

(9)

22%

(3)

35%

(3)

18%

0-3 4-6 7-9 > 9Years of Experience of RA Departments

Reactive RA Active RA Proactive RA


10/20

Percentage of Total Company Revenue Covered by RA Activities (RA Coverage)

65% indicate to cover more than 60% of total company revenue. 15% even estimate to cover more than 90%. The remaining 35% report coverage rates below 60%. From these results it can be argued that setting clear priorities with respect to the RA scope is a key capability of a head of RA. The available resources have to be effectively allocated to the most critical fields of RA interest.

Percentage of Total Company Revenue Covered by RA Activities (26 Respondents)

RA Coverage Compared to Years of Experience of RA Dept.

Contrary to the expectation that RA coverage steadily raises with a RA departments’ years of experience, the figures show a less evident picture. RA Coverage levels sharply improve from the first (0-3) to the second column (4-6). In the third (7-9) and fifth (>9) column coverage levels start to worsen. One explanation for this unexpected decline may be the fact that with more experience the RA scope and activities may also increase. This may result in a more critical assessment of overall coverage levels.

RA Coverage compared to Years of Experience of RA Dept. (26 Respondents)

Use of TMF Revenue Assurance maturity model (RAMM)

53% indicate to use the TM Forum revenue assurance maturity model (RAMM). The RAMM can be used as a reference guide to assess and continually improve RA activities.

Use of TM Forum Revenue Assurance maturity model (RAMM) (30 Respondents)

12%

23%

50%

15%(3)

(6)

(13)

(4)

0-30% 30-60% 60-90% 90-100%

22%33%

75%

10%

22%60%

44%

(4)

25%

(3)

67%

(10)

30%

(9)11%

0-3 4-6 7-9 > 9Years of Experience of RA Departments

0-30% 30-60% 60-90% 90-100%

47%53%

(14)

(16)

Don't use the TMF RAMM Use the TMF RAMM


11/20

Use of the TM Forum RAMM Compared to Years of Experience of RA Dept.

The more experience RA departments have, the more they tend to seek advice and guidance in best practice standards like the Revenue Assurance Maturity Model (RAMM). Whereas in the first and second column average use is around 40%, figures sharply increase up to 64% in the third column (7-9) and further up to 100% in the fourth (>9).

Use of TM Forum RAMM Compared to Years of Experience of RA Dept. (30 Respondents)

Assessment of Overall Maturity

50% report to be already in a managed or optimizing maturity stage with their RA activities. 27% assess their maturity level as defined. The remaining 23% indicate to be on an initial or repeatable level.

Assessment of Overall Maturity (30 Respondents)

Assessment of Overall Maturity Compared to Years of Experience of RA Dept.

The figures show a similar picture as for RA coverage. RA maturity levels respectably improve from the first (0-3) to the second column (4-6) and start to worsen in the third (7-9) and fourth (>9) column. The same explanation as for RA coverage may hold. With more experience the RA scope and activities may increase. Furthermore, most of the RA departments with more than 7 years experience are using the RAMM. This could result in a more critical assessment of overall maturity, as the RAMM takes into account different dimensions upon which maturity levels are calculated

(Organization, People, Influence, Tools, and Process).

Assessment of Overall Maturity Compared to Years of Experience of RA Department (30 Respondents)

(3)

100%

40% 36%

64%

(5)

60%

(11)

64%

(11)

36%

0-3 4-6 7-9 > 9Years of Experience of RA departments

Use the TMF RAMM Don't use the TMF RAMM

10%13%

27%

40%

10%

(3)(4)

(8)

(12)

(3)

Initial Repeatable Defined Managed Optimizing

20% 18%

20%

9%

18%

20%

36%

18%

33%

45% 27%

(5)

40%

(3)

67%

(11)18%

(11)9%

0-3 4-6 7-9 > 9Y f E i f RA D t t

Initial Repeatable Defined Managed Optimizing


12/20

Reasons for Initiating Revenue Assurance

The most common answer to the question: “what were the reasons for initiating Revenue Assurance in your company?” was “Stronger awareness of Top Management due to enhanced market pressure.” following by “Increasing complexity of IT and business models”. Surprisingly, only 10% state stronger regulations like e.g. SOX as a decisive cause.

Reasons for Initiating Revenue Assurance (30 Respondents)

20% 20%

43%

10%

33%

27%(6) (6)

(13)

(3)

(10)

(8)

Major leakagecase(s).

An initialproject

Strongeraw arenessof Top Mgmt.

Strongerregulations(e.g. SOX).

Increasingcomplexity ofIT & business

Otherreasons


13/20

Revenue Assurance Collaboration Existence of a Separate Risk Mgmt. Dept.

60% indicate that in addition to the RA Department a separate Risk Mgmt Department exists.

Existence of a Separate Risk Mgmt. Dept. (30 Respondents)

Existence of a Separate Fraud Mgmt. Dept.

83% report that they maintain a separate Fraud Management Department in addition to the RA Dept.

Existence of a Separate Fraud Mgmt. Dept. (30 Respondents)

Do the RA and Fraud Mgmt. Dept. Report to the same Entity?

Despite the separation between RA and Fraud Management departments, in most of the cases (73%) they report to the same entity in the organization. Due to the relatedness of the two disciplines both departments are typically located close to each other.

Do the RA and Fraud Mgmt. Dept. Report to the same Entity? (30 Respondents)

40%

60%

(12)

(18)

No Yes

17%

83%

(5)

(25)

No Yes

27%

73%

(8)

(22)

No Yes


14/20

Collaboration between RA and Fraud Mgmt, Internal Audit and Risk Management

The respondents were asked to assess the collaboration level between RA and Fraud Mgmt, Internal Audit and Risk Mgmt. Results show an indication of middling collaboration between Revenue Assurance and Fraud Management (average rate 3.4 out of 5), Internal Audit (3.2/5), and Risk Management (3.0/5). Some of this is possibly due to a strong tradition of purposeful independence and concern for integrity of results that these other functions bring from their historical practices.

Collaboration between RA and Fraud Mgmt, Internal Audit and Risk Management

Outsourcing of RA Activities

83% perform all of their RA activities in house, 17% outsource some RA functions or tasks to third parties, like e.g. RA system administration and operations, and RA tasks for Roaming and MVNO.

Outsourcing of RA Activities (30 Respondents)

Strongly Disagree Somew hat Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Somew hat Agree Strongly Agree

(10)34%

(10)33%

(12)40%

(3)10%

(5)17%

(2)7%

(5)17%

(3)10%

(5)17%

(4)14%

(4)13%

(3)10%

(10)33%

(5)17%

(8)28%

15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Strong collaborationbetw een RA and Fraud

exists;Ø = 3.4

(30 Respondents)

Strong collaborationbetw een RA and Internal

Audit;Ø = 3.2

(30 Respondents)

Strong collaborationbetw een RA and Risk

exists;Ø = 3.0

(29 Respondents)

< Number of Respones >

83%

17%

(25)

(5)

No Yes


15/20

Proactive Revenue Assurance Methods Relative Importance of Specific Proactive RA Methods

The respondents identified as the 3 most important proactive RA methods, “Proactive Control implementation” (30%), “Participation in projects/projects review” (26%), and “Revenue assurance Risk assessment” (23%)

Relative Importance of Specific Proactive RA Methods: Distribution of 100 points. (18 Respondents)

Assessment and Comparison of different RA Modes (reactive, active, proactive)

73% strongly agree that proactive methods are important. Furthermore, the level of importance of proactive methods versus active and reactive ones was compared. Results show, that less than the majority (46%) see proactive methods as more important than active ones, but 63% agree that proactive methods are more important than reactive ones. That is to say, that an effective RA approach will always consist of a mixture of reactive, active and proactive methods.

Assessment and Comparison of different RA Modes (26 Respondents)

23%

30%

26%

13%

8%

0%

100%

Other Proactive Methods

Assurance of Price Changes.

Participation in Projects / Project Review s

Proactive Control Implementation

Revenue Assurance Risk Assessments

Strongly Disagree Somew hat Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Somew hat Agree Strongly Agree

(10)38%

(4)15%

(7)27%

(2)8%

(19)73%

(9)35%

(2)8%

(5)19%

(3)12%

(2)8%

(2)8%

(6)23%

(1)4%

(6)23%

12 9 6 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Proactive methodsare important; Ø = 4.5

Proactive methods aremore important thanactive ones; Ø = 3.1

Proactive methods aremore important than

reactive ones; Ø = 3.7

<- Number of Responses ->


16/20

RA Goals & KPIs Are other departments measured by RA goals?

In 17% of the respondents, RA goals are shared by other departments. Sharing and measuring other departments by RA goals may positively influence the collaboration that RA gets, and subsequently improve overall benefits for the company.

Are other departments measured by RA goals? (23 Respondents)

Use of the TM Forum Revenue Assurance Standard KPIs (RASK)

75% indicate that they have not adopted the TM Forum Revenue Assurance Standard KPIs (RASK). One explanation might be that respondents may consider it more convenient or flexible to define their own company-specific KPIs than to adopt a predefined KPI set. However, applying a common set of KPIs (like the RASK) may be advantageous for doing benchmarks with other companies. Nevertheless, the RASK is used by 25%.

Use of the TM Forum Revenue Assurance Standard KPIs (RASK) (24 Respondents)

KPIs used by RA Departments and reported to CFO or Chief Risk Officer (CRO)?

From a predefined list of KPIs the respondents indicated which KPIs they use for their RA reporting. With scores between 83% and 100% the revenue leakage KPIs are the most adopted. 42% of the respondents also take account of overcharging in their reporting. Another 29% also measure the effectiveness of their RA Dept. by calculating a ratio between the costs of the RA department and discovered revenue leakage.

KPIs used by RA Departments and reported to CFO or CRO (24 Respondents)

17%

83%

(19)

(4)

No Yes

75%

25%

(18)

(6)

Don't use the TMF RASK Use the TMF RASK

Revenue Leakage KPIs Overcharging KPIs RA Eff iciency KPI Other KPIs

100%92%

83%

42%

29%

8%

29%21%

(24)(22)

(20)

(10)

(7)

(2)

(7)(5)

DiscoveredRevenueLeakage

RecoveredRevenue

RevenueLoss

DiscoveredOver-

charging

RefundedOver-

charging

Over-charging

Profit

Cost of RADept. vs. Dis-

coveredR

Other KPIs used


17/20

Use of KPIs to Measure Benefits of Proactive Methods

33% of the respondents use quantitative methods (KPIs) to show the benefits of their proactive RA activities (e.g. prevented leakage or number of clearings performed). The planned Addendum F of the RASS is expected to offer another valuable tool for RA practitioners to estimate and report the benefits of their proactive activities.

Are KPIs to measure benefits of proactive Revenue Assurance methods used? (24 Respondents)

67%

33%

(16)

(8)

No Yes


18/20

TM Forum Revenue Assurance Definitions and Standards

Definition of Revenue Assurance1

TM Forum Definition of Revenue Assurance: “Date quality and process improvement methods that improve profits, revenues and cash flows without influencing demand.”

Revenue Assurance Modes2

Reactive RA: doing something as a response to existing leakages, for example a project to identify and resolve the causes of actual revenue loss.

Active Revenue Assurance: doing something to address problems as they occur, for example by monitoring of problems in real-time. This approach is designed to initiate corrective responses prior to any revenue loss takes place. Proactive Revenue Assurance: acting in anticipation, by implementing controls and other measures to prevent problems from occurring. TM Forum Revenue Assurance Standard KPIs – RASK3

1 Source: TM Forum, Revenue Assurance Overview – TR131, Release 2.0, August 2008, S. 12.

2 Source: TM Forum, Revenue Assurance Guidebook – GB941, Release 2.0, November 2009, S. 16.

3 Source: TM Forum, Revenue Assurance Guidebook – GB941, Release 2.0, November 2009, S. 19.


19/20

TM Forum Revenue Assurance Maturity Model – RAMM4

4 Source: TM Forum, Revenue Assurance Maturity Model – GB941-B, Release 1.1, November 2009, S. 20.


20/20

Contact Information

Thomas Lüthi Business Analyst Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd [email protected] Tel. +41 58-223 30 11

Dr. Gadi Solotorevsky CTO cVidya Networks, Inc. [email protected] Tel. +972-52-5565218

Steve Cotton Head of Revenue Management TM Forum [email protected] Tel. +1 646 546 2084

mailto:[email protected]�



Documents

2011 RA Survey Report White Paper