With reference to Moinak Banerjee’s blog post regarding “Scary numbers! Or is it?” I thought I would share some insight based on empirical data from 60+ operators across the world, over a 7 year period. The graphic shows the typical leakage and recovery curves as a percentage of revenues, correlated to the TMF’s maturity stages (you can click on the image to see it in more detail). The graph does not take in to account geographical locations, but I often use it to set baseline targets for leakage detection and recovery. Please take a look and see if your level of maturity matches the typical percentages for recovery and detection. I would be interested to hear if your experience is the same or different.
This information is a significant value add when it comes to true numbers, rather than estimated forecasts from thin air. The graph provides a sort of benchmark to start and set target for achieving results.
One quick question that comes to my mind, do we have the source of the information/research?
The information has come directly from over 60+ operators around the world, over a 7 year period. Every month, each operator has submitted a leakage detection and recovery report that detailed all the information required to project the “leakage hump”. All in all, the data set consists of around 2500 reports, so it is probably one of the biggest and comprehensive studies in this area to date. The graph also shows the estimated timeline it would take an operator to move to a higher level of maturity, which is also an important consideration.
Unlike many of the consultancy reports, proclaiming ridiculous losses of leakages, designed to scare CFOs in to buying their “expert” services, I strongly feel the data we have collected is accurate to a significant degree. The only part of the “leakage hump” that may be inaccurate are the readings relating to level 5 maturity, because we did not have many operators in this maturity rating.