Revenue Assurance: Understanding the Big Picture

I have heard it said (and it has been my experience) that knowledge truly is power. However the road to knowledge is often quite difficult and certainly is not always clear. The acquisition of data and information must be one leg of the journey. However these components must be combined with perspective and sound judgment, as information is only useful when you know how to apply it. And of course understanding is a pivotal step on the way to knowledge as well. After all, being able to perform a procedure is great, but if you understand it, then you know why the process was developed, and how to modify it when something changes.

The reason I bring this up is because in everything GRAPA does we strive to help our members grow in their knowledge of Revenue Assurance. Through our benchmarks and standards book we try to provide data and information, and various perspectives and judgments can be discussed on our blogs and social networking forums, like LinkedIn and Facebook. However, the best way to use GRAPA as a tool to build revenue assurance understanding is through our training events.

Now I am certainly not trying to diminish the value of the other services GRAPA provides. As the 2010 Standards Production Manager, GRAPA’s principles and standards hold a special place in my heart. And, if you have ready some of my earlier blogs, you will know that I think GRAPA’s social network is one the strongest tools we can use to build a professional community. However, after witnessing two GRAPA training events, I feel comfortable saying that this is the most effective and efficient way GRAPA can help members expand their revenue assurance knowledge and understanding.

One reason for this, I believe, is because GRAPA’s training (whether it is a two day crash course, one week Core certification curriculum, or a two week advanced program) is dedicated to presenting the whole revenue assurance picture. While many might automatically connect RA to control implementation, we recognize that that is only a small part of the job, and that most of the revenue assurance role revolves around performing forensics. GRAPA training goes in-depth on each facet of the RA Lifecycle (forensics, controls, compliance, and corrections) and makes sure that professionals understand the complete revenue assurance process (and why that is so valuable to their telco).

Moreover, GRAPA recognizes that it is difficult assure a domain or line of business without having the end-to-end picture of how the systems and processes work at a fundamental level. In that sense, RA professionals need to have a solid grasp on how almost everything works, from network to mediation systems to convergent billing systems, to interconnect and roaming. That being said, one of the reasons I appreciated GRAPA training, was that it made each of these topics accessible. It presented a full picture of each of them, but still approached them from a truly RA (and at times fraud) perspective.

This is what knowledge is all about. While having a list of the GRAPA standard controls for (as an example) the prepaid line of business is great, and certainly useful for a Revenue Assurance professional, once one fully appreciates how the LOB functions, where the greatest risks are, and the concepts behind it, a more complete knowledge can be attained. As a line of business changes or a new product becomes available, students can figure out for themselves what controls should be in place because they have the background knowledge to do so with integrity.

 As I watched students in training combine their increased understanding of domains/lines of business with a fuller appreciation of the RA function and lifecycle, an amazing thing began to happen. The combination of information, data, and perspective grew into understanding and knowledge. It almost seemed that they were able to predict methods of assurance and controls before they were presented, because they were more quickly able to see where the greatest risk opportunities would be.

When I first started, GRAPA's president, Rob Mattison explained to me that our training is about more than just teaching students how to perform forensics and implement controls for specific areas (Interconnect, CAMEL, MBanking, etc).It’s about providing a methodology for RA professionals that can help them to do their job regardless of what gets thrown at them in the future.

After being a part of these trainings I think this is an accurate appraisal of what GRAPA events are all about. While students certainly walked away with standard controls for a plethora of domains and lines of business, and with a few other tips and tricks for many of the newer technologies and products, it seemed they achieved something more valuable. The knowledge and the confidence that they understand Telco Revenue Assurance, and that as new products/technologies continue to develop, they have the approach and methods to be ready to assure them successfully.

This is Us

About a week ago, I went to a Backstreet Boys (BSB) concert. If you know the group I am talking about, then I am betting that right about now you are rolling your eyes and wondering if I should ever be taken seriously again. For those of you who do not know BSB, then we will just leave it at pop-singing boy band that used to cater to teenage fans about eight to ten years ago (and in case anyone is wondering they are still making new albums, and touring worldwide).

As a lifelong fan, I will say this concert was absolutely amazing. This was my (eh hem) fourth BSB concert in my lifetime, but it is really hard for me to embarrassed; the Boys have never let me down. However, besides screaming at the top of my lungs, boppin’ along to all my favorite tunes from 7th grade, and just generally behaving like a silly teen, I did make an interesting observation. When I had gone to my first concert I was 12 years old, and like me, most of the fans had been preteen-teenage girls. Some of them came with parents, but most of them were at the age where they could go to the concert with other friends. I am pretty sure we saw less than ten boys/men.

The one I went to last week featured a completely different demographic, the girls who had once been younger were now in their 20s, and instead of going with girlfriends many brought a significant other or a young family. While there were certainly more women, there were also plenty of boyfriends, husbands, and sons in the crowd as well. There were many situations where I would see a group of people and wonder who from there is the BSB fan - the 4 year old boy, the 9 year old girl, the middle aged parents, or the older still grandmother. None of these people would have been at this concert 10 years ago!

But then something magical happened, the show started and it was as if all of us had been transported back to our younger selves. Despite a much more diverse and different crowd then they had back in their prime, the Backstreet Boys still performed a darn good show for everyone there. They were able to instill the same feelings and excitement in the crowd, and after just a few songs, even the boyfriends and the grandma (referenced before) were singing and dancing along.

Although, few may take BSB seriously enough to consider them professionals of any sort, I think this situation actually proves just the opposite. In their case, they are entertainers, and they have lived up to their objective of entertaining a crowd, no matter what types of people might be included. They adjusted to the changes in their audience without sacrificing integrity in the image, sound, or personality loyal fans have come to expect since their beginning.

Revenue assurance, in many ways, is in the same place as BSB, their “audience” is shifting. Some RA departments are finding their scope expanding into more operational departments. Other revenue assurance teams are taking on a more strategic role and getting involved with new product development and marketing. And even the RA team who is most unchanging still needs to work with others in a telco atmosphere that is never constant.

That is why, in my opinion, revenue assurance is similar to BSB, as they seem to constantly handle their new “audiences” and react to new situations and roles without losing the integrity of the value that they bring to Telecoms. I certainly can’t predict how the RA role will shift in the next five or even ten years, or who their new “audiences” will be. But I do believe that the core principles and objectives that revenue assurance has today – consensus, rationality, integrity, consistency, etc– will be just as critical in the future.

Ultimately, this is why I keep putting principles up for discussion on this blog, as a community matter. Maybe I am over-exaggerating their importance, but to me they are the foundation for revenue assurance professionalism and identity.

When I left the BSB concert with my ears ringing, voice sore from shouting, and legs exhausted from dancing, it was as though I was the same person walking out of one of their concerts ten years ago. The concert had been based on their new album called “This is Us,” and I felt they stayed true to that theme.

So, especially now, as RA finds themselves changing into new roles (as I imagine they always will), we, as a community need to make sure we have a solid grasp on those things that help us to say “This is Us” and here is what it means to be an revenue assurance professional.

Removing Cinderella from Revenue Assurance

I wonder if many of our members have seen Disney’s version of Cinderella. There is a scene at the beginning of this movie that comes to my head whenever I hear stories about revenue assurance departments that are demanded to be everywhere and must clean up as much leakage/mitigate as much risk as possible. Early in the movie Cinderella is stuck at the beck and call of her demanding step-mother and spoiled step-sisters. In the image that comes to my mind she is carrying three breakfast plates (one in each hand and one on her head), feeding the pets, and cleaning the house on the way up to deliver her step-mother’s and step-sisters’ breakfasts. All the while viewers hear shrill “CIN-DER-ELLA’s” being called out with even more (somewhat ridiculous) requests.

Unfortunately, it seems that revenue assurance departments often can be treated the same way. Since they have few well defined boundaries, and it is not really clear on what they do, they get asked to do everything. They balance the assurance of many domains, lines of business, and in all of them they must find/stop as much risk as possible. Not to mention, that if something goes wrong, Revenue Assurance tends to find themselves to blame.

Now to me, this seems quite unreasonable. Depending on the size and depth of a revenue assurance department, there must be a limit to what they are asked to do and where they are asked to go. As mentioned before, the revenue assurance professional must bring integrity to every task and relationship, which is difficult when there is too much to do.

This leads me to the next three GRAPA Principles proposed for 2011: Scope Management, Management’s Appetite for Risk, and Departmental Sovereignty. Together these three Principles help revenue assurance to prioritize, set boundaries, and figure out (and explain) their role in their Telco.

According to Scope Management,

“Revenue assurance is only responsible for the risks to revenues in those domains that have been defined as ‘in scope.’”

And when is an area in scope? According to the proposal for 2011, five things must occur before an area can be considered as “in scope” for revenue assurance, and only then is RA accountable for that area.

An area is in scope when:
• The RA team has been formally assigned responsibility for the area by management
• The RA team has performed a forensic analysis of the domain, and delivered an assessment of the risks discovered and the recommended levels of risk to be considered
• The RA Team has recommended a series of corrections and controls in alignment with management’s appetite for risk
• Management has approved the costs and changes defined by the recommended corrections and controls
• The corrections and controls have been implemented


As you can see, this principle gets at the heart of the role of revenue assurance. As a profession, RA should have a standard way for approaching the functions they will perform for Telco’s – where they will go, and what needs to happen before they can have responsibility for the revenues of a certain domain. When I look at each of the five steps, each seems so important because if revenue assurance is going to be asked to do something, the only way they can do it right (and with integrity) is if they have been heavily involved in the process from the beginning.

So while this revenue assurance story does not end with a glass slipper or prince charming, I imagine it can provide RA professionals with something much more valuable. With scope management, an RA team can establish boundaries for where they should be and when they can be held accountable for revenues and risk. This principle provides revenue assurance with a process for managing the torrential amount of demands that can be asked of them, and reverses the image of Cinderella I explained earlier. With Scope Management (along with Departmental Sovereignty and Management’s Appetite for Risk) the picture of Revenue Assurance is now one of a balanced professional. He/she does not respond to a Telco’s every revenue-related whim, but knows where his/her role and function within the Telco universe.

Revenue Assurance: Verifying Integrity with Integrity

This is a hard post to begin. I feel very comfortable suggesting that Consensus is the political platform of RA, and that Rationality is the mindset of RA (a sensibility of sense, if you will), but as I think about how integrity relates to the revenue assurance professional, I find myself perplexed. Integrity is about being trustworthy, accurate, and dependable. It means doing what you say you are going to do, and being honest in all actions and relationships.

This is not simply another component of the RA heart, mind, or soul, it isn’t just another piece of the revenue assurance personality. It is bigger and yet at the same time more elemental. To me, it is difficult to classify this principle because it is fundamentally built into every aspect of revenue assurance. Both in character and in their role, the RA practitioner’s main function is to assure integrity (of systems, of revenues received, through lines of business), and do that with integrity. So it’s no wonder that this concept is hard to describe, it is so interwoven into the heart of all things Revenue Assurance, that to try to separate it into its own compartment is near impossible.

The wording of the Principle of Integrity for 2011 is:

“All revenue assurance activities are to be performed with a primary focus on the integrity of the activities performed.”

Unlike the first two (consensus and rationality), this principle does not provide clear directions. Consensus explains itself – use cooperation to solve problems, as does rationality – make sure you will recover more risk/leakage then the amount of resources you spend doing the recovery. But all Integrity says is behave with integrity….what does that mean?

The 2011 GRAPA Principles offer the following suggestions:

Integrity – Organizational: manage all relationships with management and operational teams with integrity. This means that all communication will be as accurate, clear and dependable as possible.

Integrity - Identification and Quantification of Risk: deliver estimates of risk and leakage that are as accurate, fair and realistic as possible.

Integrity - Assessment of Domains as “In Scope”: any domain declared to be “in scope” will be assured based upon a comprehensive forensic assessment of the area and an accurate appraisal of the actual risks discovered.

Integrity - Reporting of Compliance: provide management with accurate reporting of how well implemented controls, corrections, and forensics are being managed.

Integrity - Technical Knowledge: understand the technology and be able to make informed appraisals of capabilities and risk (or have resources available to draw these conclusions).

I certainly agree with all of these as methods of maintaining professional integrity in the Revenue Assurance role. Especially since at the core, the Revenue Assurance job is all about identifying, quantifying, and reporting risk, there needs to be an ethical standard of integrity that guides all three of these processes in order for RA to have any meaning.

However, I think there is still more to it. There is still something being missed about the importance or pervasiveness of integrity that is not being captured by the current wording of Principle. So of course, I will turn this discussion to the community for comments. What does integrity mean to you in your current role? Does it describe how you do your job? How you interact with others? Where else do you act with integrity that is not already included in the GRAPA principle?

This is a community standard about what it means to do and to be Revenue Assurance, and I think this is one of the principles that will be most enhanced by a group discussion. I am, as always, curious to hear your feedback.

Sense and Sensibility: A Story of RA-tionality

In a previous post, I suggested that Consensus must be the political platform for Revenue Assurance. While this is certainly true, and an excellent guiding principle for managing relationships with other Telco players, the revenue assurance professional should also have a principle-based approach as he/she performs his/her primary job functions.

The 2011 GRAPA Principles provide a few guidelines to assist RA Professionals in this regard, but in my opinion (and I will admit that I am biased) none is as important as rationalization. It has been a fundamental component of the 2009 Standards and Principles, and thus far GRAPA members have said that it should stay as one of the core three for 2011.

I love when things make sense. When I am sure that a problem is being solved through the most logical means, I sleep more easily and am much less concerned that something will go wrong. I am betting that this is also one reason why I love working with RA professionals so much – they bring the common sense, the hard data, a logical sensibility and outlook to the Telco environment. For that reason, GRAPA supports a principle that encapsulates RA professionals, both in their good sense and down-to-earth sensibility – Rationality.

The Principle of Rationality (both for 2009 and so far for 2011) is, as you might expect, very simple. It states:

All expenditures and investments should not ever exceed the expected returns.

So simple, so powerful. There is almost no way to embellish on it, or explain it any better - it is just common sense. Why put more money, time, resources, etc into something then you expect to get out?

Especially for RA, whose job it is to maximize revenues to the Telco, how can their activities be based on anything else? And if revenue assurance isn’t practicing rationality, who else can the Telco count on to make sure risk reduction activities (or any other activities for that matter) are cost justified?

However, given that this blog is for the GRAPA community, I am not anticipating a great deal of negative responses to this principle. From everything I have seen it already mirrors the RA mindset. They have a fundamental understanding of the fact that every revenue assurance decision requires that a balance be struck between the degree of risk mitigated and the cost of accomplishing that degree.

So in this case, I am interested in a different sort of feedback. (Unless of course you think I am totally incorrect, in which case I am very curious as to why). However, assuming that most RA professionals will agree with this principle, I am most interested in hearing about how you, in your RA role, have exemplified rationality, and why that has been powerful for you. Perhaps you have found a good way of documenting cost justifications that your team, other teams, or management really appreciate. Or maybe, you have found that other people look to you to bring the rational sensibility to the problems they face. Also, I am curious, have there been any times when practicing rationality has been extremely difficult, either for practical or political reasons? What are the challenges of rationality, and can it fail?

As usual, I am looking forward to the conversation!