This video features Santhosh Laxmana, who describes himself as an Adjunct Professor at the Aegis School of Business. But how does somebody become a professor of revenue assurance?
Archive for September, 2010
Recently I had the opportunity to conduct an RA assignment for/with a British carrier that had invested heavily in a proper set of RA solutions about 3 years ago. The amount of leakage spotted was rather impressive. As a result I had decided to list below some myths regarding RA and to challenge them.
1. “Empirical RA efforts, prior to TMF maturity model were less effective”
Empirical RA efforts have numerous weaknesses as they rely solely on the common sense of the RA team and the support they receive from the upper management. However even the most sophisticated and well defined RA initiatives would not thrive without these elementary activities, which IMHO are entirely non-trivial.
2. “Advanced dedicated software solutions are fundamental for proper RA execution”
Software solutions are important as they allow us to focus on the “what” rather than forcing the RA team to struggle with the “how”. Yet, dedicated software requires a tendering process, internal lobbying with IT, procurement, implementation, integration, training and operating the software. Somehow it seems that 90% of the effort is still allotted for the means rather than just focusing on the job itself.
3. “RA conferences are an import platform for ideas sharing and empirical know-how exchange”
Few would argue that RA conferences have little merit. However these few would be primarily: vendors; consultants; and RA managers that hope someone will spot them whilst they give their speech on the podium, and offer them a promotion with a rival carrier.
4. “In the early days of RA there was much more fun”
Any further suggestions for additional myths?
The practice of revenue assurance is possibly the worst named discipline ever. There are a dwindling number of hardliners who stick to a scope that only involves assuring the processing of transactions with the potential to generate income (what is loosely but imprecisely referred to as ‘revenue’). More and more practitioners have come to realize that they can make a better overall contribution to the business by utilizing their skills wherever they are needed. The most blatantly paradoxical result is that these RA people assure costs as well as revenues, though their job title does not change to reflect this new reality. Over at his blog, Maverick makes the case that cost management is not merely a convenient extension of RA, but should be seen as an integral component of its scope; you can read his post here. To resolve the confusion caused by the name, he proposes incorporating the work under the umbrella term ‘risk management’. I know others prefer ‘business assurance’ as a way to escape RA’s cul-de-sac of nomenclature. All of which rather implies the more devious and forward-thinking readers should be out acquiring the rights to talkrisk.com or talkBA.com…