article page
| 1
| 2
| 3
|
Dr. Solotorevsky: I think it's very important that this came from an independent source. If it came from a single company, you could always suspect that it contains biased information. Without this study, nobody really knows the level of revenue leakage in a company. In revenue assurance, they say the revenue leakage is 14-15% of the revenue. In data, they say the revenue leakage is about 2%. What information should I believe? In the past, the attitude has been that if a group doesn't know the answer, they often just guessed. The only way it can be taken seriously is if it's done completely independently.
Assaf Landau: When we approach the benchmarking as an organization and open it to all the operators in the organization, we allow the benchmark to be truly between operators. And not merely in terms of technology, because a lot of times, people look at benchmarking and say "well is it mobile industry, or is it content, or is it fixed?" Here it is truly bench-marking that is cross-platform and cross-technology and cross-product. This is really benchmarking of revenue assurance, and not just a specific technology.
|
|
I think it's very important that this came from an independent source. |
|
studies, that they address all of these perspectives together, and only by looking at all of these together can you get a really good picture of the situation.
Morisso Taieb: If I may, I'd like to make another point here about incentives for the revenue assurance team. When we used to use KPIs that were based on recoveries, the incentives were based on the recoveries. That means that if processes were not effective, you will end up with huge recoveries. If you don't take the actions to repair the bad processes, you will still end up with huge incentives from recoveries, and you will be very happy because you will get a lot of money. With our new benchmarks, we're looking at KPIs that measure performance, and base incentives on performance. If we don't bring back all the money we discover, or don't bring it back in time, we'll get less money.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Solotorevsky: One of the important things about the approach we provided here is what we are measuring. As Morisso mentioned previously, most of the people that spoke about revenue assurance in the past were talking about revenue leakage. How much money are you losing? That's very important, but they've neglected very important things. How much can we recover? How much time will it take to recover? If you've discovered one million dollars in leakage, are you looking at all of the data in your organization, or just one percent of the data in your organization? This approach can give us important things, and without them, even the revenue leakage is completely out of perspective. You will not find, in other
|
|
Dr. Solotorevsky: I must add a small story. About a year ago, I visited two operators. Each of them told me about their revenue assurance goals. The first operator told me that they received bonuses if each year they discover more leakages. The second operator told me that they received a bonus if the volume of leakages goes down each year. If I weren't a serious person, I'd have very easy advice for them. For the first operator, just discover leakage, but don't report it until next year. For the second operator, if you don't want to find leakages, take a vacation, go to the sea, sit there the rest of the year, and you won't find any leakages. If you only
article page
| 1
| 2
| 3
| |
|
