Talk:Revenue assurance

Updating the article

If you want the article updated, please discuss it here on the talk page. I can update the content for you, so you can post me a request to get the article updated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit controls have expired and everybody can edit freely. However, edit controls will be reimposed if there is a return to the old problems of regular abuse of this page. Diogenes the Cynic (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct links to external sites

{{editprotected}} Link 3, to the Global Billing Association (GBA) should be removed. That organization is defunct, following its merger with the TM Forum. The link now automatically redirects to the TM Forum.

Link 6, to the first revenue assurance blog, is out of date. The content has since been migrated to another site that hosts a multi-author revenue assurance blog. The site is not commercial in nature, but arguably this link should just be deleted on the basis that blogs are not a suitable reference source (though this opens the question of what is a suitable reference with so little unbiased material available). Diogenes the Cynic (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of citations

{{editprotected}}

There are very few supporting references anywhere in this article. Adding a

template would serve as a useful reminder to any readers and would-be contributors. Diogenes the Cynic (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of material has been added, but clearly the warning about a lack of citations was ignored. Extravagant claims like 'Revenue Assurance has always been present in the telecom parlance' are, on the face of it, plainly false, yet are being presented as fact. Informal language like this might be justifiable if some context was provided, but overall the article is now very long, containing lengthy sections with no attempt to point readers to supporting material. Diogenes the Cynic (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The value of revenue assurance

{{editprotected}} I suggest the following paragraph is added immediately after the first paragraph of the section entitled "the value of revenue assurance":

The TM Forum conducted a benchmark survey in 2008 that concluded average leakage, not including losses due to fraud, was 1% of the gross revenues for those telcos that took part [[1]]. The number of participating telcos was relatively small compared to some other surveys, but the survey technique was more demanding that any comparable survey to date. The survey used the most detailed and prescriptive definition of how to calculate leakage of any survey of its type. The definition was taken from the TM Forum's own standard on how to calculate revenue assurance metrics [[2]]. To increase confidence that participants calculated their leakages correctly, the TM Forum's benchmark program independently reviewed the results and corroborated them with representatives of the participating companies. The survey's average of 1% leakage of gross revenue, whilst still significant, is notably lower than many other quoted estimates and reported survey findings about average leakage. This may be because the survey used a very strict definition of leakage. It may also reflect a reduction in bias or exaggeration in reported leakages, or at least the exclusion of guesswork. Respondents were given authoritative instructions on how to quantify leakage based on actual data and were instructed to avoid making suppositions in the absence of such data.

The Analysys annual survey referred to in the second paragraph has not been repeated in recent years. Either it should be clarified when the surveys were performed, or all mention of them should be removed. Arguably this paragraph should be deleted or completely re-written. It is problematic in that there are many industry claims of this type in circulation, but very few sources that might substantiate them, and the reliability of estimates is questionable. It is unclear whether there should be an extended discussion of this problem, or whether it is better to purge it all and only make mention of what can be independently verified. Diogenes the Cynic (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a definite replacement I will add it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of the TeleManagement Forum to the TM Forum

{{editprotected}} Since this article was written, the TeleManagement Forum has been renamed the TM Forum. All mentions of the TeleManagement Forum should be updated accordingly. Diogenes the Cynic (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]