I was recently going through the recent posts, and one thing I’ve noticed is that we seem to be a bit partial in only addressing issues faced by established operators. Now, I want to initiate a discussion which focuses on Greenfield operators.
Assuming that we had an opportunity to help a new operator (Greenfield Operator) build a RA and FMS practice, what would we inculcate into the “DNA” of the operator from Day 1? The experiment is directly focused on checking the impact of “Early in the Day” enabling of RA and FMS, and to what extent the move would help the operator save on large leakage issues later on. In my opinion, the critical step for the Operator would be to design & decide the RA and FMS framework. The framework should be encompassing all aspects of reporting, tracking, evolution path and integration.My point of view regarding a RA & FMS practice from day 1 would be :
a) Planned integration of new network elements with RA as a test-bed for system accuracy
b) Existing fraudsters who have been active/ejected in other networks would find a Greenfield operator to be a “Soft” target
c) Building up of effective usage patterns for identification of Fraudsters via deviant usage tracking
d) Proactive verification of subscription data flow and sub-systems
e) Ensuring a “leak-proof” work-flow to handle all issues including rectification tracking
Of course, there are many more reasons for a new operator to take advantage of a full-fledged RA and FMS operation. While keeping in mind that Fraud and Revenue Assurance might not be a key component of a new operator’s roll-out strategy, it is also important to keep in mind that prevention is definitely better than cure.
It is absolutely clear to me that having a strong RA and FMS framework in place from Day 1 would definitely help an operator in both the short term as well as the long term. The progressive growth of the network will help the analysts to have a clear understanding of concern areas, as well as building a considerable in-house knowledge base. As a direct result of forward-planning, the in-house teams would also have to implement fairly strong work-flows. Simple errors, like business document version errors, could be foreseen and nipped at the bud.
I could go on and on, but I would be more interested in getting your views on the subject. Specifically, I’m wondering if anyone sees a reason for why a greenfield operator would NOT want to have a RA and FMS framework in place on Day 1.