|Since we announced the publication of our book, Revenue Assurance: Expert Opinions for Communications Providers, the response has been overwhelming. In Britain the book made the top 10 for “Hot Future Releases in Telecommunications” on Amazon.co.uk. Thanks to everybody who has already pre-ordered a copy. Meanwhile, for everyone else, here is a proper look at the cover, and a list of online retailers where you can get your copy.|
Archive for January, 2011
Normally I would not dedicate a talkRA post to a promotional video, but there are two interesting things about this one featuring Danny Sangster, Senior Manager of Enterprise BI at XO Communications. First, and most obviously, there is no mention of needing or using specialized revenue assurance software. There is a Moore’s law undercurrent to what Danny says. As processing power increases, the need for specialization declines. Second, take note of how the language of ‘revenue assurance’ is used. Right from the beginning, Danny talks about margins, costs and profitability. These concepts are part of what ‘revenue assurance’ means to XO Communications. At first glance there may seem to be no connection between my two observations, but I believe there is a deep and fundamental relationship between them. Technology is an enabler, and language reflects what we do. As we attain new capabilities, our language evolves. If our technology allows us to be more versatile, then we can naturally adopt a more expansive role. Meaning is determined by how people use words in practice, and whilst marketeers might try to manipulate language, and standards-setters might try to define language, both can be overrun by the changes that happen in real life. The language and technology of revenue assurance keeps progressing and developing all the time. We will all change with it.
Here is the video…
Look carefully at the latest press release from Subex and you will find it raises some intriguing questions about the purpose of revenue assurance. On the surface of it, we hear a typical good news story: ‘leading SE Asian operator’, ‘successful implementation’, ‘now processing over 100 million CDRs a day’, ‘provides unprecedented automated correction capabilities’. But hold on… how do we feel about those last two statements when read together? There is nothing wrong with processing lots of data – well done to everyone involved. Unprecedented automated correction sounds good too, but what does it mean? The meaning is not obvious because, after all, this is unprecedented. One likely meaning, if this is applied to 100 million CDRs per day, is that data is being manipulated without human oversight. On the one hand, this can be a good thing. If there is something wrong with the data, then fix it as quickly and cheaply as possible. On the other hand, it begs a question about the role of RA, especially if we believe that RA has something to do with better operational efficiency. If it is efficient to automatically correct the errors in data, then why is it not more efficient to change systems so they produce the correct data in the first place?