Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

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 Forums 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 Forums 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 decades 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/AsiaPacific, 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.

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

1/20

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 goingforward 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.
Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

2/20

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).

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

3/20

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)
(9) 41% (6) 27% (3) 14% (1) 5%
Africa & Middle East Asia Australia & Pacific Europe Latin America

(2) 9% (1) 5%
USA/Canada

Annual Revenues in USD 67% generate more than 1000 Million USD per year. 38% even generate more than 5000 Million. USD. 24% report annual revenues between 250 and 1000 Million, while 10% indicate revenues lower than 250 Million.
Annual Revenues (in Million USD)
(21 Respondents)

(8) (6) (5) 24% 29% 38%

(1) 5%
< 50

(1) 5%
50 to 250 250 to 1000 1'000 to 5'000 > 5'000

Number of Employees 86% employ at least 1000 people. The biggest part (41%), employ between 1000 and 5000 people. 28% even report staff figures higher than 10000.
Number of Employees
(22 Respondents)

(9) 41% (5) (4) (3) 14% 18% (1) 5%

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

23%

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

4/20

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)

(11) 50%

(6) 27% (2) 9%

< 0.5

(2) 9%
0.5 to 1 1.0 to 5

(1) 5%
5.0 to 10 > 10

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)

(9) 41% (7) 32% (3) (1) 5%

All segments Retail Small & Medium Businesses Large Businesses

14%

(2) 9%
Wholesale

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)

(18) 82%

(18) 82%

(17) 77%

(16) 73%

(17) 77%

(16) 73%

(12) 55% (8) 36% (6) 27% (1)

5% Wireline Voice Wireless Voice Internet Services Television Services Value Added Services Interconnection International & Roaming Data Cable Satellite

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

5/20

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)

(10) 48%

(5) 24% (1) 5%

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

(4) 19% (1) 5%

> 90%

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)
(11) 50% (7) 32%

(2) (0)
Very low saturation

(2) 9%
Medium saturation High saturation Very high saturation

9%
Low saturation

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

6/20

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)

(28) 93%

(2)
7% No Yes

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)

(26) 87%

(4) 13%
Finance Department Other

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)

(11) 37%

(11) 37%

(5) 17% (3) 10%

0-3 years

4-6 years

7-9 years

> 9 years

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

7/20

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 years experience, while Africa/Middle East/AsiaPacific/Latin America has less than five years.
Average Years of Experience of RA Departments compared to Geographical Region
(22 Respondents)
(3) 7.7 (6) 4.5 (1) 2.5 (9) 6.2 (2) 2.5 (1) 6.0

Africa & Middle East

Asia

Australia & Pacific

Europe

Latin America

USA/Canada

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)

(13) 43% (8) 27% (4) (2) 7%

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

13%

(3) 10%

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)

(17) 57% (13) 43%

No

Yes

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

8/20

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)

(6) 55%

(3) (2) 18% 27%

<5

05-10

>10

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)

39% 36%

25%

Reactive RA

Active RA

Proactive RA

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)
Reactive RA Active RA Proactive RA

(3) 18% 25%

(9) 22% 34%

(7) 28%

(3) 35%

37% 50%

57%

44%

35% 15%
>9

0-3

4-6 7-9 Years of Experience of RA Departments

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

9/20

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)

(13) 50%

(6) 23% (3) 15% 12%

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

(4)

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

(4) 25%

(10) 30%

(9) 11%

(3)

44%

67%

75%

60% 22% 22% 33%

10%
0-3

4-6 7-9 Years of Experience of RA Departments

>9

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)

(16) (14) 47% 53%

Don't use the TMF RAMM

Use the TMF RAMM

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

10/20

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)
Use the TMF RAMM Don't use the TMF RAMM

(5)

(11)

(11) 36%

(3)

60% 64% 100% 64% 40% 36%

0-3

4-6 7-9 Years of Experience of RA departments

>9

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)

(12) 40% (8) 27% (4) (3) 13% 10%

Initial Repeatable Defined Managed

(3) 10%
Optimizing

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, Process). People, Influence, Tools, and

Assessment of Overall Maturity Compared to Years of Experience of RA Department

(30 Respondents)
Initial Repeatable Defined Managed Optimizing

(5)

(11) 9%

(11) 18%

(3)

40% 45% 20% 20% 20%

0-3 Y

27% 18%

67%

36% 9%
4-6 fE i f RA D

18% 33% 18%

7-9 t >9 t

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

11/20

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)
(13) 43% (10) 33% (6) 20% (6) 20% (3) 10%
Major leakage case(s). An initial project Stronger aw areness of Top Mgmt. Stronger regulations (e.g. SOX). Increasing complexity of IT & business Other reasons

(8) 27%

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

12/20

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)
(18) 60% (12) 40%

No

Yes

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)
(25) 83%

(5) 17%

No

Yes

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)
(22) 73%

(8) 27%

No

Yes

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

13/20

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

Strong collaboration betw een RA and Fraud exists; = 3.4 (30 Respondents) Strong collaboration betw een RA and Internal Audit; = 3.2 (30 Respondents) Strong collaboration betw een RA and Risk exists; = 3.0 (29 Respondents) 15

(3) 10%

(5) 17%

(5) 17%

(12) 40%

(5) 17%

(4) 13%

(3) 10%

(10) 33%

(10) 33%

(3) 10%

(4) 14%

(5) 17%

(8) 28%

(10) 34%

(2) 7%

10

5 0 5 < Number of Respones >

10

15

20

25

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)
(25) 83%

(5) 17%

No

Yes

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

14/20

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)
100% 8% 13%

26%
Other Proactive Methods Assurance of Price Changes.

30%

Participation in Projects / Project Review s Proactive Control Implementation Revenue Assurance Risk Assessments

23% 0%

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

Proactive methods are important; = 4.5

(2) (1) (4) 8% 4% 15%

(19) 73%

Proactive methods are more important than active ones; = 3.1

(3) 12%

(5) 19%

(6) 23%

(10) 38%

(2) 8%

Proactive methods are more important than reactive ones; = 3.7

(2) (2) 8% 8%

(6) 23%

(7) 27%

(9) 35%

12

12

15

18

21

24

<- Number of Responses ->

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

15/20

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)

(19) 83%

(4) 17%
No Yes

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)

(18) 75%

(6) 25%

Don't use the TMF RASK

Use the TMF RASK

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)
Revenue Leakage KPIs
(24) 100% (22) 92% (20) 83%

Overcharging KPIs

RA Efficiency KPI

Other KPIs

(10) 42% (7) 29% (2) 8%

Discovered Revenue Leakage Recovered Revenue Revenue Loss Discovered Overcharging Refunded Overcharging Overcharging Profit Cost of RA Dept. vs. Discovered R Other KPIs used

(7) 29% (5) 21%

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

16/20

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)

(16) 67%

(8) 33%

No

Yes

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

17/20

TM Forum Revenue Assurance Definitions and Standards

Definition of Revenue Assurance
1

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

Revenue Assurance Modes

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 RASK
3

Source: TM Forum, Revenue Assurance Overview TR131, Release 2.0, August 2008, S. 12. Source: TM Forum, Revenue Assurance Guidebook GB941, Release 2.0, November 2009, S. 16. Source: TM Forum, Revenue Assurance Guidebook GB941, Release 2.0, November 2009, S. 19.

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

18/20

TM Forum Revenue Assurance Maturity Model RAMM

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

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

19/20

Contact Information
Thomas Lthi Business Analyst Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd thomas.luethi1@swisscom.com Tel. +41 58-223 30 11 Dr. Gadi Solotorevsky CTO cVidya Networks, Inc. gadi@cvidya.com Tel. +972-52-5565218

Steve Cotton Head of Revenue Management TM Forum scotton@tmforum.org Tel. +1 646 546 2084

Revenue Assurance Survey 2011

20/20