Dysdatia: Data Blindness and You

I have dyslexia, what used to be called ‘word blindness’, and so I am dyslexic, or to be precise a ‘compensated dyslexic’. I used to find it very difficult to spell and to understand and remember the rules around spelling, but now I am much better at all of this. That’s because my teachers and I didn’t ignore the problem and hope that the spelling problem would just go away. I had to work hard to get round this disability; I use tools (spell checkers) to help me all the time and I took advice and training to combat dyslexia. Now I can spell (most of the time) and I don’t find it difficult to write; hence this blog (but you know, I still don’t get poetry).

“Very interesting, Andrew, but so what?”, I hear you say. Well I believe there is a problem that I call Dysdatia, or “data blindness”, that is affecting many individuals and as a result the organizations they work for. Unlike dyslexia which affects only the small minority, many people have dysdatia, even seasoned IT professionals.

Dysdatia symptoms

Symptoms of dysdatia include:

• working exclusively with business process models like Frameworx’s Business Process Framework without ever wondering what words like “Customer” and “Product” actually mean,
• thinking “Data models aren’t import because we use COTS”,
• believing that Enterprise Data Models have something to do with databases,
• ignoring the Class diagrams in any document because it makes you dizzy when you look at them,
• thinking that the line connecting two components is just a line,
• thinking that Data Architects are just pedantic

It must be remembered that most sufferers of dysdatia are totally unaware that they are suffering from it. The only symptoms they perceive are that there are a lot of messy diagrams with load of lines and boxes on them called class diagrams, and that a third of Frameworx is incomprehensible.

The prognosis for untreated dysdatia is not good and long-term effects include:

•     complex application integration
•     failed SOA and REST implementations/initiatives
•     tight coupling between applications
•     business change and innovation limited by IT throughput
•     fragmented product catalogs
•     complex provisioning and fulfilment flows
•     significant customer dissatisfaction and operational inefficiencies due to poor data quality.

The preconceptions about, and treatment for, dyslexia when I was a child were unpleasant and unproductive; “lazy” or even “stupid” were the usual diagnosis and endless spelling lessons and tests were the treatment. This was discouraging and, worse, pointless. You can’t cure dyslexia; you just learn to work round it. Similarly with dysdatia, it is wrong to think that those people who are “data blind” are lazy or stupid — obviously they are not. Additionally, endlessly pushing these people to read or write (draw) data models will not help them.
Dealing with dysdatia

It is the responsibility of those of us without dysdatia to help dysdatic colleagues. Dysdatia sufferers need our help to:

•     make them aware that they are sufferers
•     realise how this is impacting their work and
•     know how to get support for their problem.

To bring this about I suggest that dysdatia sufferers receive training and support from the non-dysdatic community. I know this isn’t going to be a popular medicine; dysdatic people don’t like the Information Framework training — to quote an anonymous training manager: “We don’t give much SID training because people find it too difficult”. However, think of this training as problem recognition training; rather than expecting the attendee to become an expert in the Information Framework and data modelling, they will simply understand that data exists, what it is for and how to deal with his problems with it.

After the training the attendee won’t be expected to be able to draw class models, but they will understand that the vocabulary used in the rest of Frameworx comes from the Information Framework. They may even be able to look at a class diagram without getting dizzy and possibly, if they are only mildly affected by dysdatia, even understand it. You are going to have to trick your colleagues into attending this training. Call it “vocabulary training” and even avoid showing class diagrams! Instead focus on the meaning of the classes and their definitions, rather than the class diagram structures.

Data appreciation

Sell this type of Information Framework training as “data appreciation” rather than a course in “data composing” – like the difference between music appreciation and music composition. Explain that like in music, where there are three classes of people – those that are tone deaf, those that enjoy music, and those that can write music, that there are three classes of people in IT – those that have dysdatia (and don’t know it), those that have compensated dysdatia and can read a data model, and those who don’t suffer from dysdatia and can draw data models.

Encourage the dysdatic sufferers — tell them that by becoming a compensated dysdatic they will have the basic tools to work around the problem and avoid many of the difficulties they had in the past with integration and data quality. However, you must explain to them that sadly they can never be fully cured of dysdatia; they still will need an Enterprise Data Architect who is by definition non-dysdatic and can draw class diagrams and even make changes to the business’s Information Framework based Enterprise Data Model.

My current boss at least acknowledges he is dysdatic. The other day he said to me “I know data is important, but I still don’t get it, which is why I hired you”.

It is going to be hard work fellow non-dysdatics but in the long run it will be worth it!

First published on the TM Forum Inform Portal on 7 Oct 2014

I have dyslexia, what used to be called ‘word blindness’, and so I am dyslexic, or to be precise a ‘compensated dyslexic’. I used to find it very difficult to spell and to understand and remember the rules around spelling, but now I am much better at all of this. That’s because my teachers and I didn’t ignore the problem and hope that the spelling problem would just go away. I had to work hard to get round this disability; I use tools (spell checkers) to help me all the time and I took advice and training to combat dyslexia. Now I can spell (most of the time) and I don’t find it difficult to write; hence this blog (but you know, I still don’t get poetry).
“Very interesting, Andrew, but so what?”, I hear you say. Well I believe there is a problem that I call Dysdatia, or “data blindness”, that is affecting many individuals and as a result the organizations they work for. Unlike dyslexia which affects only the small minority, many people have dysdatia, even seasoned IT professionals.

Dysdatia symptoms

Symptoms of dysdatia include:

• working exclusively with business process models like Frameworx’s Business Process Framework without ever wondering what words like “Customer” and “Product” actually mean,
• thinking “Data models aren’t import because we use COTS”,
• believing that Enterprise Data Models have something to do with databases,
• ignoring the Class diagrams in any document because it makes you dizzy when you look at them,
• thinking that the line connecting two components is just a line,
• thinking that Data Architects are just pedantic

It must be remembered that most sufferers of dysdatia are totally unaware that they are suffering from it. The only symptoms they perceive are that there are a lot of messy diagrams with load of lines and boxes on them called class diagrams, and that a third of Frameworx is incomprehensible.
The prognosis for untreated dysdatia is not good and long-term effects include:

• complex application integration
• failed SOA and REST implementations/initiatives
• tight coupling between applications
• business change and innovation limited by IT throughput
• fragmented product catalogs
• complex provisioning and fulfilment flows
• significant customer dissatisfaction and operational inefficiencies due to poor data quality.

The preconceptions about, and treatment for, dyslexia when I was a child were unpleasant and unproductive; “lazy” or even “stupid” were the usual diagnosis and endless spelling lessons and tests were the treatment. This was discouraging and, worse, pointless. You can’t cure dyslexia; you just learn to work round it. Similarly with dysdatia, it is wrong to think that those people who are “data blind” are lazy or stupid — obviously they are not. Additionally, endlessly pushing these people to read or write (draw) data models will not help them.

Dealing with dysdatia

It is the responsibility of those of us without dysdatia to help dysdatic colleagues. Dysdatia sufferers need our help to:

• make them aware that they are sufferers
• realise how this is impacting their work and
• know how to get support for their problem.

To bring this about I suggest that dysdatia sufferers receive training and support from the non-dysdatic community. I know this isn’t going to be a popular medicine; dysdatic people don’t like the Information Framework training — to quote an anonymous training manager: “We don’t give much SID training because people find it too difficult”. However, think of this training as problem recognition training; rather than expecting the attendee to become an expert in the Information Framework and data modelling, they will simply understand that data exists, what it is for and how to deal with his problems with it.
After the training the attendee won’t be expected to be able to draw class models, but they will understand that the vocabulary used in the rest of Frameworx comes from the Information Framework. They may even be able to look at a class diagram without getting dizzy and possibly, if they are only mildly affected by dysdatia, even understand it. You are going to have to trick your colleagues into attending this training. Call it “vocabulary training” and even avoid showing class diagrams! Instead focus on the meaning of the classes and their definitions, rather than the class diagram structures.

Data appreciation

Sell this type of Information Framework training as “data appreciation” rather than a course in “data composing” – like the difference between music appreciation and music composition. Explain that like in music, where there are three classes of people – those that are tone deaf, those that enjoy music, and those that can write music, that there are three classes of people in IT – those that have dysdatia (and don’t know it), those that have compensated dysdatia and can read a data model, and those who don’t suffer from dysdatia and can draw data models.
Encourage the dysdatic sufferers — tell them that by becoming a compensated dysdatic they will have the basic tools to work around the problem and avoid many of the difficulties they had in the past with integration and data quality. However, you must explain to them that sadly they can never be fully cured of dysdatia; they still will need an Enterprise Data Architect who is by definition non-dysdatic and can draw class diagrams and even make changes to the business’s Information Framework based Enterprise Data Model.
My current boss at least acknowledges he is dysdatic. The other day he said to me “I know data is important, but I still don’t get it, which is why I hired you”.
It is going to be hard work fellow non-dysdatics but in the long run it will be worth it!
- See more at: http://inform.tmforum.org/strategic-programs-2/customer-centricity/2014/10/dysdatia/#sthash.S798IGzL.dpuf

I have dyslexia, what used to be called ‘word blindness’, and so I am dyslexic, or to be precise a ‘compensated dyslexic’. I used to find it very difficult to spell and to understand and remember the rules around spelling, but now I am much better at all of this. That’s because my teachers and I didn’t ignore the problem and hope that the spelling problem would just go away. I had to work hard to get round this disability; I use tools (spell checkers) to help me all the time and I took advice and training to combat dyslexia. Now I can spell (most of the time) and I don’t find it difficult to write; hence this blog (but you know, I still don’t get poetry).
“Very interesting, Andrew, but so what?”, I hear you say. Well I believe there is a problem that I call Dysdatia, or “data blindness”, that is affecting many individuals and as a result the organizations they work for. Unlike dyslexia which affects only the small minority, many people have dysdatia, even seasoned IT professionals.

Dysdatia symptoms

Symptoms of dysdatia include:

• working exclusively with business process models like Frameworx’s Business Process Framework without ever wondering what words like “Customer” and “Product” actually mean,
• thinking “Data models aren’t import because we use COTS”,
• believing that Enterprise Data Models have something to do with databases,
• ignoring the Class diagrams in any document because it makes you dizzy when you look at them,
• thinking that the line connecting two components is just a line,
• thinking that Data Architects are just pedantic

It must be remembered that most sufferers of dysdatia are totally unaware that they are suffering from it. The only symptoms they perceive are that there are a lot of messy diagrams with load of lines and boxes on them called class diagrams, and that a third of Frameworx is incomprehensible.
The prognosis for untreated dysdatia is not good and long-term effects include:

• complex application integration
• failed SOA and REST implementations/initiatives
• tight coupling between applications
• business change and innovation limited by IT throughput
• fragmented product catalogs
• complex provisioning and fulfilment flows
• significant customer dissatisfaction and operational inefficiencies due to poor data quality.

The preconceptions about, and treatment for, dyslexia when I was a child were unpleasant and unproductive; “lazy” or even “stupid” were the usual diagnosis and endless spelling lessons and tests were the treatment. This was discouraging and, worse, pointless. You can’t cure dyslexia; you just learn to work round it. Similarly with dysdatia, it is wrong to think that those people who are “data blind” are lazy or stupid — obviously they are not. Additionally, endlessly pushing these people to read or write (draw) data models will not help them.

Dealing with dysdatia

It is the responsibility of those of us without dysdatia to help dysdatic colleagues. Dysdatia sufferers need our help to:

• make them aware that they are sufferers
• realise how this is impacting their work and
• know how to get support for their problem.

To bring this about I suggest that dysdatia sufferers receive training and support from the non-dysdatic community. I know this isn’t going to be a popular medicine; dysdatic people don’t like the Information Framework training — to quote an anonymous training manager: “We don’t give much SID training because people find it too difficult”. However, think of this training as problem recognition training; rather than expecting the attendee to become an expert in the Information Framework and data modelling, they will simply understand that data exists, what it is for and how to deal with his problems with it.
After the training the attendee won’t be expected to be able to draw class models, but they will understand that the vocabulary used in the rest of Frameworx comes from the Information Framework. They may even be able to look at a class diagram without getting dizzy and possibly, if they are only mildly affected by dysdatia, even understand it. You are going to have to trick your colleagues into attending this training. Call it “vocabulary training” and even avoid showing class diagrams! Instead focus on the meaning of the classes and their definitions, rather than the class diagram structures.

Data appreciation

Sell this type of Information Framework training as “data appreciation” rather than a course in “data composing” – like the difference between music appreciation and music composition. Explain that like in music, where there are three classes of people – those that are tone deaf, those that enjoy music, and those that can write music, that there are three classes of people in IT – those that have dysdatia (and don’t know it), those that have compensated dysdatia and can read a data model, and those who don’t suffer from dysdatia and can draw data models.
Encourage the dysdatic sufferers — tell them that by becoming a compensated dysdatic they will have the basic tools to work around the problem and avoid many of the difficulties they had in the past with integration and data quality. However, you must explain to them that sadly they can never be fully cured of dysdatia; they still will need an Enterprise Data Architect who is by definition non-dysdatic and can draw class diagrams and even make changes to the business’s Information Framework based Enterprise Data Model.
My current boss at least acknowledges he is dysdatic. The other day he said to me “I know data is important, but I still don’t get it, which is why I hired you”.
It is going to be hard work fellow non-dysdatics but in the long run it will be worth it!
- See more at: http://inform.tmforum.org/strategic-programs-2/customer-centricity/2014/10/dysdatia/#sthash.S798IGzL.dpuf

I have dyslexia, what used to be called ‘word blindness’, and so I am dyslexic, or to be precise a ‘compensated dyslexic’. I used to find it very difficult to spell and to understand and remember the rules around spelling, but now I am much better at all of this. That’s because my teachers and I didn’t ignore the problem and hope that the spelling problem would just go away. I had to work hard to get round this disability; I use tools (spell checkers) to help me all the time and I took advice and training to combat dyslexia. Now I can spell (most of the time) and I don’t find it difficult to write; hence this blog (but you know, I still don’t get poetry).
“Very interesting, Andrew, but so what?”, I hear you say. Well I believe there is a problem that I call Dysdatia, or “data blindness”, that is affecting many individuals and as a result the organizations they work for. Unlike dyslexia which affects only the small minority, many people have dysdatia, even seasoned IT professionals.

Dysdatia symptoms

Symptoms of dysdatia include:

• working exclusively with business process models like Frameworx’s Business Process Framework without ever wondering what words like “Customer” and “Product” actually mean,
• thinking “Data models aren’t import because we use COTS”,
• believing that Enterprise Data Models have something to do with databases,
• ignoring the Class diagrams in any document because it makes you dizzy when you look at them,
• thinking that the line connecting two components is just a line,
• thinking that Data Architects are just pedantic

It must be remembered that most sufferers of dysdatia are totally unaware that they are suffering from it. The only symptoms they perceive are that there are a lot of messy diagrams with load of lines and boxes on them called class diagrams, and that a third of Frameworx is incomprehensible.
The prognosis for untreated dysdatia is not good and long-term effects include:

• complex application integration
• failed SOA and REST implementations/initiatives
• tight coupling between applications
• business change and innovation limited by IT throughput
• fragmented product catalogs
• complex provisioning and fulfilment flows
• significant customer dissatisfaction and operational inefficiencies due to poor data quality.

The preconceptions about, and treatment for, dyslexia when I was a child were unpleasant and unproductive; “lazy” or even “stupid” were the usual diagnosis and endless spelling lessons and tests were the treatment. This was discouraging and, worse, pointless. You can’t cure dyslexia; you just learn to work round it. Similarly with dysdatia, it is wrong to think that those people who are “data blind” are lazy or stupid — obviously they are not. Additionally, endlessly pushing these people to read or write (draw) data models will not help them.

Dealing with dysdatia

It is the responsibility of those of us without dysdatia to help dysdatic colleagues. Dysdatia sufferers need our help to:

• make them aware that they are sufferers
• realise how this is impacting their work and
• know how to get support for their problem.

To bring this about I suggest that dysdatia sufferers receive training and support from the non-dysdatic community. I know this isn’t going to be a popular medicine; dysdatic people don’t like the Information Framework training — to quote an anonymous training manager: “We don’t give much SID training because people find it too difficult”. However, think of this training as problem recognition training; rather than expecting the attendee to become an expert in the Information Framework and data modelling, they will simply understand that data exists, what it is for and how to deal with his problems with it.
After the training the attendee won’t be expected to be able to draw class models, but they will understand that the vocabulary used in the rest of Frameworx comes from the Information Framework. They may even be able to look at a class diagram without getting dizzy and possibly, if they are only mildly affected by dysdatia, even understand it. You are going to have to trick your colleagues into attending this training. Call it “vocabulary training” and even avoid showing class diagrams! Instead focus on the meaning of the classes and their definitions, rather than the class diagram structures.

Data appreciation

Sell this type of Information Framework training as “data appreciation” rather than a course in “data composing” – like the difference between music appreciation and music composition. Explain that like in music, where there are three classes of people – those that are tone deaf, those that enjoy music, and those that can write music, that there are three classes of people in IT – those that have dysdatia (and don’t know it), those that have compensated dysdatia and can read a data model, and those who don’t suffer from dysdatia and can draw data models.
Encourage the dysdatic sufferers — tell them that by becoming a compensated dysdatic they will have the basic tools to work around the problem and avoid many of the difficulties they had in the past with integration and data quality. However, you must explain to them that sadly they can never be fully cured of dysdatia; they still will need an Enterprise Data Architect who is by definition non-dysdatic and can draw class diagrams and even make changes to the business’s Information Framework based Enterprise Data Model.
My current boss at least acknowledges he is dysdatic. The other day he said to me “I know data is important, but I still don’t get it, which is why I hired you”.
It is going to be hard work fellow non-dysdatics but in the long run it will be worth it!
- See more at: http://inform.tmforum.org/strategic-programs-2/customer-centricity/2014/10/dysdatia/#sthash.S798IGzL.dpuf

What's the difference between a household and a small business?

This post was originally posted on the TM Forum Inform portal on 23 September 2015

Not so long ago retail telecommunications customers had a single telephone number for a single line tied to a residential address with a single product/service associated. As far as the service provider was concerned, the customer and the household were synonymous with the phone number.
But for a small or medium enterprise (SME), the setup was different. There could be multiple phone lines possibly going to multiple addresses, a PBX, and services like hunting groups and call pick-up as well as the more conventional phone services.
Things started to change when retail customers began using the phone line for Internet and email – using technology like DSL rather than the old dial-up modems – in addition to making and receiving phone calls. This slow shift wasn’t too difficult to deal with for the service providers and some even managed to get the two services on a single bill.

The era of the digital ecosystem

Jump ahead ten or so years to the era of the ‘digital ecosystem’, and we have homes that have fixed-line connections capable of delivering high-speed broadband services that are consumed as streaming video and cloud services, as well as the more traditional phone, Internet and email services. On top of that households may also have digital TV set-top box and multiple 4G devices including tablets and phones. Now the cracks in the service providers’ approach to dealing with the household as if it were a single phone number with a single customer begins to show, and in fact are much more like yawning chasms than cracks!
The problems of getting all these services on a single bill the customer is trivial compared to the other aspects of the evolution of the digital ecosystem. ‘Customer’ is no longer synonymous with a (single) phone number, and the users of the 4G and Internet-enabled devices want to be able to seamlessly move services from one device to another. This means that all the devices must be related and integrated in some way, but frankly that’s just a technical problem.

What is a lot more complex for the service provider is the realization that the customer paradigm has to change.

First of all, it is not easy to say who the retail customer is, and she/he certainly is no longer just a phone number. In a typical household, someone plays the role of the primary customer, the person responsible for buying and paying for the services – the CFO of the household, if you like. But there can be multiple customers, each paying one or more bills representing portions of shared services. For example, Dad may pay for the cable TV while the teenage kids pay for the sports channel adding to the complexity.
Secondly, there are also administrators in the household who choose and administer individual products and services, the home-sysadmin, if you like. But this role can change from person to person depending on the product, and often the end users or consumers of the services are allowed to different things depending on the policy set by the home security admin (for example, no Internet after bedtime or access to adult sites) and enforced by services such as smart firewalls and certification/classification policies.

How to manage multiple roles?

Nowadays there is very little difference between a household and an SME but few service providers acknowledge this, and even if they do, how can they manage it all?
I’ve tried to help several service providers tackle this problem. They thought it was all about family and the actual relationships between the members of the household – Who is the dad? Who is the mum? Who are the kids? But what about Auntie Jean and Granny, and what about the au pair? How do these people fit into the picture, and what happens when little Katie moves out to go to college or perhaps when Mum and Dad separate?

The relationships between the people making up the household are in reality about as relevant to a service provider as the departmental structure or the shareholders and members of the board of an SME or large enterprise. What service providers must realize is that these ‘real world’ relationships are irrelevant, or if they are relevant it is not the role of the customer relationship management (CRM) system to manage them; it’s the responsibility of the account manager.

Households are organizations and the roles within the household are as dynamic as in any business.  To manage this complexity, the service provider must:

1. Realize that the actual relationships between the parties are generally irrelevant except perhaps the roles of ‘responsible adult’ and ‘minor’;
2. Capture the functional roles such as Customer, Bill Payer and User and match these, where necessary, back to named (or even un-named) individuals; and
3. Record and deliver services in line with the involvement roles such as Chooser, Admin, Consumer that are set at the product level, more often than not by the parties within the household themselves.

The final step is perhaps perceived as the most complex, but in most multi-user products this is already handled by usernames and roles and things like single sign-on. All that needs to be done is to ensure that the customer service assurance and CRM systems have some kind of drill-through to the product so that any problems can be sorted out through a remote login.

Frameworx can help

The Frameworx Information Model (SID) already has all the structures defined that support these advanced concepts. Functional Roles are Party Roles that define the static roles played by individuals or people in relationship to a Customer Account. Involvement roles are also in the Information Model – an Involvement role can be played by a Party Role or a Resource Role, and Involvement Roles can be associated with Products, Services or Resources (customer premises equipment, for example) and these Involvement Roles can be linked to identities (usernames).
So what’s the difference between a household and a small business? The answer is not a lot. They are both complex organizations that need to be managed as such, but Frameworx is already configured to support this complexity.
- See more at: http://inform.tmforum.org/features-and-analysis/featured/2015/09/whats-the-difference-between-a-household-and-a-small-business/#sthash.QiESgSQ2.dpuf

Not so long ago retail telecommunications customers had a single telephone number for a single line tied to a residential address with a single product/service associated. As far as the service provider was concerned, the customer and the household were synonymous with the phone number.
But for a small or medium enterprise (SME), the setup was different. There could be multiple phone lines possibly going to multiple addresses, a PBX, and services like hunting groups and call pick-up as well as the more conventional phone services.
Things started to change when retail customers began using the phone line for Internet and email – using technology like DSL rather than the old dial-up modems – in addition to making and receiving phone calls. This slow shift wasn’t too difficult to deal with for the service providers and some even managed to get the two services on a single bill.

The era of the digital ecosystem

Jump ahead ten or so years to the era of the ‘digital ecosystem’, and we have homes that have fixed-line connections capable of delivering high-speed broadband services that are consumed as streaming video and cloud services, as well as the more traditional phone, Internet and email services. On top of that households may also have digital TV set-top box and multiple 4G devices including tablets and phones. Now the cracks in the service providers’ approach to dealing with the household as if it were a single phone number with a single customer begins to show, and in fact are much more like yawning chasms than cracks!
The problems of getting all these services on a single bill the customer is trivial compared to the other aspects of the evolution of the digital ecosystem. ‘Customer’ is no longer synonymous with a (single) phone number, and the users of the 4G and Internet-enabled devices want to be able to seamlessly move services from one device to another. This means that all the devices must be related and integrated in some way, but frankly that’s just a technical problem.

What is a lot more complex for the service provider is the realization that the customer paradigm has to change.

First of all, it is not easy to say who the retail customer is, and she/he certainly is no longer just a phone number. In a typical household, someone plays the role of the primary customer, the person responsible for buying and paying for the services – the CFO of the household, if you like. But there can be multiple customers, each paying one or more bills representing portions of shared services. For example, Dad may pay for the cable TV while the teenage kids pay for the sports channel adding to the complexity.
Secondly, there are also administrators in the household who choose and administer individual products and services, the home-sysadmin, if you like. But this role can change from person to person depending on the product, and often the end users or consumers of the services are allowed to different things depending on the policy set by the home security admin (for example, no Internet after bedtime or access to adult sites) and enforced by services such as smart firewalls and certification/classification policies.

How to manage multiple roles?

Nowadays there is very little difference between a household and an SME but few service providers acknowledge this, and even if they do, how can they manage it all?
I’ve tried to help several service providers tackle this problem. They thought it was all about family and the actual relationships between the members of the household – Who is the dad? Who is the mum? Who are the kids? But what about Auntie Jean and Granny, and what about the au pair? How do these people fit into the picture, and what happens when little Katie moves out to go to college or perhaps when Mum and Dad separate?

The relationships between the people making up the household are in reality about as relevant to a service provider as the departmental structure or the shareholders and members of the board of an SME or large enterprise. What service providers must realize is that these ‘real world’ relationships are irrelevant, or if they are relevant it is not the role of the customer relationship management (CRM) system to manage them; it’s the responsibility of the account manager.

Households are organizations and the roles within the household are as dynamic as in any business.  To manage this complexity, the service provider must:

1. Realize that the actual relationships between the parties are generally irrelevant except perhaps the roles of ‘responsible adult’ and ‘minor’;
2. Capture the functional roles such as Customer, Bill Payer and User and match these, where necessary, back to named (or even un-named) individuals; and
3. Record and deliver services in line with the involvement roles such as Chooser, Admin, Consumer that are set at the product level, more often than not by the parties within the household themselves.

The final step is perhaps perceived as the most complex, but in most multi-user products this is already handled by usernames and roles and things like single sign-on. All that needs to be done is to ensure that the customer service assurance and CRM systems have some kind of drill-through to the product so that any problems can be sorted out through a remote login.

Frameworx can help

The Frameworx Information Model (SID) already has all the structures defined that support these advanced concepts. Functional Roles are Party Roles that define the static roles played by individuals or people in relationship to a Customer Account. Involvement roles are also in the Information Model – an Involvement role can be played by a Party Role or a Resource Role, and Involvement Roles can be associated with Products, Services or Resources (customer premises equipment, for example) and these Involvement Roles can be linked to identities (usernames).
So what’s the difference between a household and a small business? The answer is not a lot. They are both complex organizations that need to be managed as such, but Frameworx is already configured to support this complexity.
- See more at: http://inform.tmforum.org/features-and-analysis/featured/2015/09/whats-the-difference-between-a-household-and-a-small-business/#sthash.QiESgSQ2.dpuf

Not so long ago retail telecommunications customers had a single telephone number for a single line tied to a residential address with a single product/service associated. As far as the service provider was concerned, the customer and the household were synonymous with the phone number.

But for a small or medium enterprise (SME), the setup was different. There could be multiple phone lines possibly going to multiple addresses, a PBX, and services like hunting groups and call pick-up as well as the more conventional phone services.

Things started to change when retail customers began using the phone line for Internet and email – using technology like DSL rather than the old dial-up modems – in addition to making and receiving phone calls. This slow shift wasn’t too difficult to deal with for the service providers and some even managed to get the two services on a single bill.

The era of the digital ecosystem

Jump ahead ten or so years to the era of the ‘digital ecosystem’, and we have homes that have fixed-line connections capable of delivering high-speed broadband services that are consumed as streaming video and cloud services, as well as the more traditional phone, Internet and email services. On top of that households may also have digital TV set-top box and multiple 4G devices including tablets and phones. Now the cracks in the service providers’ approach to dealing with the household as if it were a single phone number with a single customer begins to show, and in fact are much more like yawning chasms than cracks!

The problems of getting all these services on a single bill the customer is trivial compared to the other aspects of the evolution of the digital ecosystem. ‘Customer’ is no longer synonymous with a (single) phone number, and the users of the 4G and Internet-enabled devices want to be able to seamlessly move services from one device to another. This means that all the devices must be related and integrated in some way, but frankly that’s just a technical problem.

What is a lot more complex for the service provider is the realization that the customer paradigm has to change.

First of all, it is not easy to say who the retail customer is, and she/he certainly is no longer just a phone number. In a typical household, someone plays the role of the primary customer, the person responsible for buying and paying for the services – the CFO of the household, if you like. But there can be multiple customers, each paying one or more bills representing portions of shared services. For example, Dad may pay for the cable TV while the teenage kids pay for the sports channel adding to the complexity.

Secondly, there are also administrators in the household who choose and administer individual products and services, the home-sysadmin, if you like. But this role can change from person to person depending on the product, and often the end users or consumers of the services are allowed to different things depending on the policy set by the home security admin (for example, no Internet after bedtime or access to adult sites) and enforced by services such as smart firewalls and certification/classification policies.

How to manage multiple roles?

Nowadays there is very little difference between a household and an SME but few service providers acknowledge this, and even if they do, how can they manage it all?

I’ve tried to help several service providers tackle this problem. They thought it was all about family and the actual relationships between the members of the household – Who is the dad? Who is the mum? Who are the kids? But what about Auntie Jean and Granny, and what about the au pair? How do these people fit into the picture, and what happens when little Katie moves out to go to college or perhaps when Mum and Dad separate?

The relationships between the people making up the household are in reality about as relevant to a service provider as the departmental structure or the shareholders and members of the board of an SME or large enterprise. What service providers must realize is that these ‘real world’ relationships are irrelevant, or if they are relevant it is not the role of the customer relationship management (CRM) system to manage them; it’s the responsibility of the account manager.

Households are organizations and the roles within the household are as dynamic as in any business.  To manage this complexity, the service provider must:

1.  Realize that the actual relationships between the parties are generally irrelevant except perhaps the roles of ‘responsible adult’ and ‘minor’;
2. Capture the functional roles such as Customer, Bill Payer and User and match these, where necessary, back to named (or even un-named) individuals; and
3.  Record and deliver services in line with the involvement roles such as Chooser, Admin, Consumer that are set at the product level, more often than not by the parties within the household themselves.

The final step is perhaps perceived as the most complex, but in most multi-user products this is already handled by usernames and roles and things like single sign-on. All that needs to be done is to ensure that the customer service assurance and CRM systems have some kind of drill-through to the product so that any problems can be sorted out through a remote login.

Frameworx can help

The Frameworx Information Model (SID) already has all the structures defined that support these advanced concepts. Functional Roles are Party Roles that define the static roles played by individuals or people in relationship to a Customer Account. Involvement roles are also in the Information Model – an Involvement role can be played by a Party Role or a Resource Role, and Involvement Roles can be associated with Products, Services or Resources (customer premises equipment, for example) and these Involvement Roles can be linked to identities (usernames).

So what’s the difference between a household and a small business? The answer is not a lot. They are both complex organizations that need to be managed as such, but Frameworx is already configured to support this complexity.

Not so long ago retail telecommunications customers had a single telephone number for a single line tied to a residential address with a single product/service associated. As far as the service provider was concerned, the customer and the household were synonymous with the phone number.
But for a small or medium enterprise (SME), the setup was different. There could be multiple phone lines possibly going to multiple addresses, a PBX, and services like hunting groups and call pick-up as well as the more conventional phone services.
Things started to change when retail customers began using the phone line for Internet and email – using technology like DSL rather than the old dial-up modems – in addition to making and receiving phone calls. This slow shift wasn’t too difficult to deal with for the service providers and some even managed to get the two services on a single bill.

The era of the digital ecosystem

Jump ahead ten or so years to the era of the ‘digital ecosystem’, and we have homes that have fixed-line connections capable of delivering high-speed broadband services that are consumed as streaming video and cloud services, as well as the more traditional phone, Internet and email services. On top of that households may also have digital TV set-top box and multiple 4G devices including tablets and phones. Now the cracks in the service providers’ approach to dealing with the household as if it were a single phone number with a single customer begins to show, and in fact are much more like yawning chasms than cracks!
The problems of getting all these services on a single bill the customer is trivial compared to the other aspects of the evolution of the digital ecosystem. ‘Customer’ is no longer synonymous with a (single) phone number, and the users of the 4G and Internet-enabled devices want to be able to seamlessly move services from one device to another. This means that all the devices must be related and integrated in some way, but frankly that’s just a technical problem.

What is a lot more complex for the service provider is the realization that the customer paradigm has to change.

First of all, it is not easy to say who the retail customer is, and she/he certainly is no longer just a phone number. In a typical household, someone plays the role of the primary customer, the person responsible for buying and paying for the services – the CFO of the household, if you like. But there can be multiple customers, each paying one or more bills representing portions of shared services. For example, Dad may pay for the cable TV while the teenage kids pay for the sports channel adding to the complexity.
Secondly, there are also administrators in the household who choose and administer individual products and services, the home-sysadmin, if you like. But this role can change from person to person depending on the product, and often the end users or consumers of the services are allowed to different things depending on the policy set by the home security admin (for example, no Internet after bedtime or access to adult sites) and enforced by services such as smart firewalls and certification/classification policies.

How to manage multiple roles?

Nowadays there is very little difference between a household and an SME but few service providers acknowledge this, and even if they do, how can they manage it all?
I’ve tried to help several service providers tackle this problem. They thought it was all about family and the actual relationships between the members of the household – Who is the dad? Who is the mum? Who are the kids? But what about Auntie Jean and Granny, and what about the au pair? How do these people fit into the picture, and what happens when little Katie moves out to go to college or perhaps when Mum and Dad separate?

The relationships between the people making up the household are in reality about as relevant to a service provider as the departmental structure or the shareholders and members of the board of an SME or large enterprise. What service providers must realize is that these ‘real world’ relationships are irrelevant, or if they are relevant it is not the role of the customer relationship management (CRM) system to manage them; it’s the responsibility of the account manager.

Households are organizations and the roles within the household are as dynamic as in any business.  To manage this complexity, the service provider must:

1. Realize that the actual relationships between the parties are generally irrelevant except perhaps the roles of ‘responsible adult’ and ‘minor’;
2. Capture the functional roles such as Customer, Bill Payer and User and match these, where necessary, back to named (or even un-named) individuals; and
3. Record and deliver services in line with the involvement roles such as Chooser, Admin, Consumer that are set at the product level, more often than not by the parties within the household themselves.

The final step is perhaps perceived as the most complex, but in most multi-user products this is already handled by usernames and roles and things like single sign-on. All that needs to be done is to ensure that the customer service assurance and CRM systems have some kind of drill-through to the product so that any problems can be sorted out through a remote login.

Frameworx can help

The Frameworx Information Model (SID) already has all the structures defined that support these advanced concepts. Functional Roles are Party Roles that define the static roles played by individuals or people in relationship to a Customer Account. Involvement roles are also in the Information Model – an Involvement role can be played by a Party Role or a Resource Role, and Involvement Roles can be associated with Products, Services or Resources (customer premises equipment, for example) and these Involvement Roles can be linked to identities (usernames).
So what’s the difference between a household and a small business? The answer is not a lot. They are both complex organizations that need to be managed as such, but Frameworx is already configured to support this complexity.
- See more at: http://inform.tmforum.org/features-and-analysis/featured/2015/09/whats-the-difference-between-a-household-and-a-small-business/#sthash.QiESgSQ2.dpuf

Not so long ago retail telecommunications customers had a single telephone number for a single line tied to a residential address with a single product/service associated. As far as the service provider was concerned, the customer and the household were synonymous with the phone number.
But for a small or medium enterprise (SME), the setup was different. There could be multiple phone lines possibly going to multiple addresses, a PBX, and services like hunting groups and call pick-up as well as the more conventional phone services.
Things started to change when retail customers began using the phone line for Internet and email – using technology like DSL rather than the old dial-up modems – in addition to making and receiving phone calls. This slow shift wasn’t too difficult to deal with for the service providers and some even managed to get the two services on a single bill.

The era of the digital ecosystem

Jump ahead ten or so years to the era of the ‘digital ecosystem’, and we have homes that have fixed-line connections capable of delivering high-speed broadband services that are consumed as streaming video and cloud services, as well as the more traditional phone, Internet and email services. On top of that households may also have digital TV set-top box and multiple 4G devices including tablets and phones. Now the cracks in the service providers’ approach to dealing with the household as if it were a single phone number with a single customer begins to show, and in fact are much more like yawning chasms than cracks!
The problems of getting all these services on a single bill the customer is trivial compared to the other aspects of the evolution of the digital ecosystem. ‘Customer’ is no longer synonymous with a (single) phone number, and the users of the 4G and Internet-enabled devices want to be able to seamlessly move services from one device to another. This means that all the devices must be related and integrated in some way, but frankly that’s just a technical problem.

What is a lot more complex for the service provider is the realization that the customer paradigm has to change.

First of all, it is not easy to say who the retail customer is, and she/he certainly is no longer just a phone number. In a typical household, someone plays the role of the primary customer, the person responsible for buying and paying for the services – the CFO of the household, if you like. But there can be multiple customers, each paying one or more bills representing portions of shared services. For example, Dad may pay for the cable TV while the teenage kids pay for the sports channel adding to the complexity.
Secondly, there are also administrators in the household who choose and administer individual products and services, the home-sysadmin, if you like. But this role can change from person to person depending on the product, and often the end users or consumers of the services are allowed to different things depending on the policy set by the home security admin (for example, no Internet after bedtime or access to adult sites) and enforced by services such as smart firewalls and certification/classification policies.

How to manage multiple roles?

Nowadays there is very little difference between a household and an SME but few service providers acknowledge this, and even if they do, how can they manage it all?
I’ve tried to help several service providers tackle this problem. They thought it was all about family and the actual relationships between the members of the household – Who is the dad? Who is the mum? Who are the kids? But what about Auntie Jean and Granny, and what about the au pair? How do these people fit into the picture, and what happens when little Katie moves out to go to college or perhaps when Mum and Dad separate?

The relationships between the people making up the household are in reality about as relevant to a service provider as the departmental structure or the shareholders and members of the board of an SME or large enterprise. What service providers must realize is that these ‘real world’ relationships are irrelevant, or if they are relevant it is not the role of the customer relationship management (CRM) system to manage them; it’s the responsibility of the account manager.

Households are organizations and the roles within the household are as dynamic as in any business.  To manage this complexity, the service provider must:

1. Realize that the actual relationships between the parties are generally irrelevant except perhaps the roles of ‘responsible adult’ and ‘minor’;
2. Capture the functional roles such as Customer, Bill Payer and User and match these, where necessary, back to named (or even un-named) individuals; and
3. Record and deliver services in line with the involvement roles such as Chooser, Admin, Consumer that are set at the product level, more often than not by the parties within the household themselves.

The final step is perhaps perceived as the most complex, but in most multi-user products this is already handled by usernames and roles and things like single sign-on. All that needs to be done is to ensure that the customer service assurance and CRM systems have some kind of drill-through to the product so that any problems can be sorted out through a remote login.

Frameworx can help

The Frameworx Information Model (SID) already has all the structures defined that support these advanced concepts. Functional Roles are Party Roles that define the static roles played by individuals or people in relationship to a Customer Account. Involvement roles are also in the Information Model – an Involvement role can be played by a Party Role or a Resource Role, and Involvement Roles can be associated with Products, Services or Resources (customer premises equipment, for example) and these Involvement Roles can be linked to identities (usernames).
So what’s the difference between a household and a small business? The answer is not a lot. They are both complex organizations that need to be managed as such, but Frameworx is already configured to support this complexity.
- See more at: http://inform.tmforum.org/features-and-analysis/featured/2015/09/whats-the-difference-between-a-household-and-a-small-business/#sthash.QiESgSQ2.dpuf

Not so long ago retail telecommunications customers had a single telephone number for a single line tied to a residential address with a single product/service associated. As far as the service provider was concerned, the customer and the household were synonymous with the phone number.
But for a small or medium enterprise (SME), the setup was different. There could be multiple phone lines possibly going to multiple addresses, a PBX, and services like hunting groups and call pick-up as well as the more conventional phone services.
Things started to change when retail customers began using the phone line for Internet and email – using technology like DSL rather than the old dial-up modems – in addition to making and receiving phone calls. This slow shift wasn’t too difficult to deal with for the service providers and some even managed to get the two services on a single bill.

The era of the digital ecosystem

Jump ahead ten or so years to the era of the ‘digital ecosystem’, and we have homes that have fixed-line connections capable of delivering high-speed broadband services that are consumed as streaming video and cloud services, as well as the more traditional phone, Internet and email services. On top of that households may also have digital TV set-top box and multiple 4G devices including tablets and phones. Now the cracks in the service providers’ approach to dealing with the household as if it were a single phone number with a single customer begins to show, and in fact are much more like yawning chasms than cracks!
The problems of getting all these services on a single bill the customer is trivial compared to the other aspects of the evolution of the digital ecosystem. ‘Customer’ is no longer synonymous with a (single) phone number, and the users of the 4G and Internet-enabled devices want to be able to seamlessly move services from one device to another. This means that all the devices must be related and integrated in some way, but frankly that’s just a technical problem.

What is a lot more complex for the service provider is the realization that the customer paradigm has to change.

First of all, it is not easy to say who the retail customer is, and she/he certainly is no longer just a phone number. In a typical household, someone plays the role of the primary customer, the person responsible for buying and paying for the services – the CFO of the household, if you like. But there can be multiple customers, each paying one or more bills representing portions of shared services. For example, Dad may pay for the cable TV while the teenage kids pay for the sports channel adding to the complexity.
Secondly, there are also administrators in the household who choose and administer individual products and services, the home-sysadmin, if you like. But this role can change from person to person depending on the product, and often the end users or consumers of the services are allowed to different things depending on the policy set by the home security admin (for example, no Internet after bedtime or access to adult sites) and enforced by services such as smart firewalls and certification/classification policies.

How to manage multiple roles?

Nowadays there is very little difference between a household and an SME but few service providers acknowledge this, and even if they do, how can they manage it all?
I’ve tried to help several service providers tackle this problem. They thought it was all about family and the actual relationships between the members of the household – Who is the dad? Who is the mum? Who are the kids? But what about Auntie Jean and Granny, and what about the au pair? How do these people fit into the picture, and what happens when little Katie moves out to go to college or perhaps when Mum and Dad separate?

The relationships between the people making up the household are in reality about as relevant to a service provider as the departmental structure or the shareholders and members of the board of an SME or large enterprise. What service providers must realize is that these ‘real world’ relationships are irrelevant, or if they are relevant it is not the role of the customer relationship management (CRM) system to manage them; it’s the responsibility of the account manager.

Households are organizations and the roles within the household are as dynamic as in any business.  To manage this complexity, the service provider must:

1. Realize that the actual relationships between the parties are generally irrelevant except perhaps the roles of ‘responsible adult’ and ‘minor’;
2. Capture the functional roles such as Customer, Bill Payer and User and match these, where necessary, back to named (or even un-named) individuals; and
3. Record and deliver services in line with the involvement roles such as Chooser, Admin, Consumer that are set at the product level, more often than not by the parties within the household themselves.

The final step is perhaps perceived as the most complex, but in most multi-user products this is already handled by usernames and roles and things like single sign-on. All that needs to be done is to ensure that the customer service assurance and CRM systems have some kind of drill-through to the product so that any problems can be sorted out through a remote login.

Frameworx can help

The Frameworx Information Model (SID) already has all the structures defined that support these advanced concepts. Functional Roles are Party Roles that define the static roles played by individuals or people in relationship to a Customer Account. Involvement roles are also in the Information Model – an Involvement role can be played by a Party Role or a Resource Role, and Involvement Roles can be associated with Products, Services or Resources (customer premises equipment, for example) and these Involvement Roles can be linked to identities (usernames).
So what’s the difference between a household and a small business? The answer is not a lot. They are both complex organizations that need to be managed as such, but Frameworx is already configured to support this complexity.
- See more at: http://inform.tmforum.org/features-and-analysis/featured/2015/09/whats-the-difference-between-a-household-and-a-small-business/#sthash.QiESgSQ2.dpuf

Not so long ago retail telecommunications customers had a single telephone number for a single line tied to a residential address with a single product/service associated. As far as the service provider was concerned, the customer and the household were synonymous with the phone number.
But for a small or medium enterprise (SME), the setup was different. There could be multiple phone lines possibly going to multiple addresses, a PBX, and services like hunting groups and call pick-up as well as the more conventional phone services.
Things started to change when retail customers began using the phone line for Internet and email – using technology like DSL rather than the old dial-up modems – in addition to making and receiving phone calls. This slow shift wasn’t too difficult to deal with for the service providers and some even managed to get the two services on a single bill.

The era of the digital ecosystem

Jump ahead ten or so years to the era of the ‘digital ecosystem’, and we have homes that have fixed-line connections capable of delivering high-speed broadband services that are consumed as streaming video and cloud services, as well as the more traditional phone, Internet and email services. On top of that households may also have digital TV set-top box and multiple 4G devices including tablets and phones. Now the cracks in the service providers’ approach to dealing with the household as if it were a single phone number with a single customer begins to show, and in fact are much more like yawning chasms than cracks!
The problems of getting all these services on a single bill the customer is trivial compared to the other aspects of the evolution of the digital ecosystem. ‘Customer’ is no longer synonymous with a (single) phone number, and the users of the 4G and Internet-enabled devices want to be able to seamlessly move services from one device to another. This means that all the devices must be related and integrated in some way, but frankly that’s just a technical problem.

What is a lot more complex for the service provider is the realization that the customer paradigm has to change.

First of all, it is not easy to say who the retail customer is, and she/he certainly is no longer just a phone number. In a typical household, someone plays the role of the primary customer, the person responsible for buying and paying for the services – the CFO of the household, if you like. But there can be multiple customers, each paying one or more bills representing portions of shared services. For example, Dad may pay for the cable TV while the teenage kids pay for the sports channel adding to the complexity.
Secondly, there are also administrators in the household who choose and administer individual products and services, the home-sysadmin, if you like. But this role can change from person to person depending on the product, and often the end users or consumers of the services are allowed to different things depending on the policy set by the home security admin (for example, no Internet after bedtime or access to adult sites) and enforced by services such as smart firewalls and certification/classification policies.

How to manage multiple roles?

Nowadays there is very little difference between a household and an SME but few service providers acknowledge this, and even if they do, how can they manage it all?
I’ve tried to help several service providers tackle this problem. They thought it was all about family and the actual relationships between the members of the household – Who is the dad? Who is the mum? Who are the kids? But what about Auntie Jean and Granny, and what about the au pair? How do these people fit into the picture, and what happens when little Katie moves out to go to college or perhaps when Mum and Dad separate?

The relationships between the people making up the household are in reality about as relevant to a service provider as the departmental structure or the shareholders and members of the board of an SME or large enterprise. What service providers must realize is that these ‘real world’ relationships are irrelevant, or if they are relevant it is not the role of the customer relationship management (CRM) system to manage them; it’s the responsibility of the account manager.

Households are organizations and the roles within the household are as dynamic as in any business.  To manage this complexity, the service provider must:

1. Realize that the actual relationships between the parties are generally irrelevant except perhaps the roles of ‘responsible adult’ and ‘minor’;
2. Capture the functional roles such as Customer, Bill Payer and User and match these, where necessary, back to named (or even un-named) individuals; and
3. Record and deliver services in line with the involvement roles such as Chooser, Admin, Consumer that are set at the product level, more often than not by the parties within the household themselves.

The final step is perhaps perceived as the most complex, but in most multi-user products this is already handled by usernames and roles and things like single sign-on. All that needs to be done is to ensure that the customer service assurance and CRM systems have some kind of drill-through to the product so that any problems can be sorted out through a remote login.

Frameworx can help

The Frameworx Information Model (SID) already has all the structures defined that support these advanced concepts. Functional Roles are Party Roles that define the static roles played by individuals or people in relationship to a Customer Account. Involvement roles are also in the Information Model – an Involvement role can be played by a Party Role or a Resource Role, and Involvement Roles can be associated with Products, Services or Resources (customer premises equipment, for example) and these Involvement Roles can be linked to identities (usernames).
So what’s the difference between a household and a small business? The answer is not a lot. They are both complex organizations that need to be managed as such, but Frameworx is already configured to support this complexity.
- See more at: http://inform.tmforum.org/features-and-analysis/featured/2015/09/whats-the-difference-between-a-household-and-a-small-business/#sthash.QiESgSQ2.dpuf

NFV and SID

NFV and its sidekick SDN are getting a huge amount of attention and I’ve been wondering how these fit into good old Frameworx Information Model (SID).

There is a suggestion (http://blog.cimicorp.com/?p=2352) that NFV has been modelled as a Logical Resource at the bottom of the Resource stack by some NFV vendors and that surprised me and I'll explain why.

If you look at the acronym’s components, the word Function is, I believe, the key to understanding how NFV and SID fit together.
Let’s consider a Network Function such as "Firewall" which is often used as an example of something that NFV can deliver without having to deploy a dedicated “box” or firewall device.
I wonder, is it the firewall device that has been virtualised or is it the function that the device offers that has been virtualised? In this case is it that there is a virtual firewall device in the cloud or is the cloud providing a firewall service?

Network Elements are in the network to perform functions, or in SID terms provide services...
So a physical (actually, compound) resource such as a Juniper box provides the service of “Firewall”.
SID (used to) models Resource Facing Services being provided by Logical Resources installed on Physical Resources.

So is NFV/NVF just RFS in another guise?

Should Resource Facing Service (a terrible name see my blog "The Problem with RFSs") be renamed to Resource Functional Service to highlight the connection between NFV and RFS?

This blog was originally published on LinkedIn on 13 Oct 2015.

It has been pointed out to me by John Reilly, no less, that in the latest release of the Frameworx Information Framework (SID) that RFS is being dropped and is only in the release for backward compatibility.  RFS is being replaced by Config - perhaps I will comment on this in a future post.

What is a Phone Number?

Do you know what a Phone Number is? 

Are you sure?  Did you say something like?

“It is a number used on one phone to connect to another phone”.

As far as it goes, that is correct, but that is only one of several correct answers. You could have answered the question by saying any of the following and also be right because phone number pops up all over the CSP’s business, but spotting it can be a bit like playing “Where’s Wally” (or “Where’s Waldo”, if you are American).

What is a phone number?

a)    A phone number is a string of digits and is not, in its truest sense, “a number” because any leading zero is significant.

b)    A phone number is something that can be bought or sold and quite significant amounts of money can be paid for phone numbers.  According to The Register (www.theregister.co.uk) the world's most expensive phone number was auctioned for charity on 22 May 2006 in Qatar.  The number, 666 6666, sold for 10m Qatari riyals or £1.5m.

c)    A phone number is asset allocated to the Communications Service Provider (CSP) by the telecoms regulator that is then allocated, sold, lent or in some other way given for the use of a customer (see (a) above).  The customer can, often, take the phone number with him when he leaves the CSP; he can “port” it out.

d)    A phone number is a way of contacting people and/or organisations (the “simple” answer); so it is a type of address.

e)    A phone number is information on how to connect two phones during a call.

f)     A phone number is a service identifier; a phone service is identified by the phone number used by that service.

g)    A phone number is an account identifier; the customer's account or sub-account is identified by the phone number, after all it appears on the bill.

I’m sure there are other answers too, but the list shows that there are quite a few different definitions a phone number and that it should be found in quite a number of different “pictures” that illustrate the CSPs business.

In the CSP world we have the Frameworx Information Model (aka the SID) that provides definitions of important business concepts and provides lots of “pictures” or data models that show how these concepts interrelate.  So let’s start searching for Phone Number in the SID.  The SID is full of entities and relationships so looking for a particular entity really can be a bit like reading “Where’s Wally/Waldo”; looking for what should be something really easy to spot, but that just doesn’t stand out from the crowd.

SID experts know, even though the SID but doesn’t explicitly show it, that Wally (the phone number) can be found disguised as a Logical Resource and as the Logical Resource can be provided through a Product we can claim to have found him for pictures (a), (b) and (c).

The SID actually has phone number in it as (d), a “Contact Medium”, used to contact Customers, so this time Wally wasn’t even disguised but because it doesn’t relate this phone number with the (Logical Resource) phone number of the Product the Customer is using to make phone calls on the CSPs network it wasn’t particularly easy to find.

So can we find the Phone Number in the SID doing the job defined in (e), providing information on how to connect two phones?  Mr Strowger’s mechanical exchange invented about 125 years ago used a phone number to automatically route the call from one phone to another.  Mr Strowger was an undertaker who became convinced that the telephone operator who was the wife of a competitor undertaker was forwarding calls to her husband when people called for an undertaker, and so he dreamt up a way cutting out the operator in connecting two phones together. CSPs still use this fundamental mechanism in one way or another to route calls using the information imbedded in the phone number to work out how to find the phone that is being called.  This is very important for OSS/network operations but it also has a direct impact on the amount charged to a customer for the call and the profit made by the CSP (on net, off net, roaming, roaming partners, etc, etc). 

So we would expect to find Wally/Waldo (the Phone Number) somewhere around the network picture even if it seems to be bit of an obscure area to find him/it.  But, actually, how obscure is this picture?  Let’s face it, the two of the most important fields on a CDR are the “A Number” and the “B Number” – phone numbers and Billing wouldn’t work if these didn’t identify the product/service being used and ultimately the pricing, discounting and allowances to be applied to the customer’s account for the usage of the network. 

Search as you may, you won’t find Wally/Waldo here in the SID.

And finally, and perhaps most importantly, all the CSPs I’ve worked with all talk about the phone number as being the identifier for the user/the subscriber (a legacy concept that isn’t in the SID) or the product (the subscription or price plan (two more legacy ideas quite rightly excluded from the SID).  But this isn’t just a bit of “legacy thinking” which is how I used to dismiss this definition.  There is an important idea here – not all Products are equal – there are the “subscription products” or the “contract product” that define the overall (basic) services (e.g. voice, messages and data) and their prices and allowances while there are other add-on products that are then associated with or ‘bolted on’ to the main product – and the main product, nine times out of ten, is identified by the Phone Number by both the Customer and the CSP. 

The SID doesn’t draw Wally/Waldo into this picture either, though the ever-flexible SID experts (like me) can claim he is there, you just can’t see him!

I don’t think we should let Phone Number hide in Logical Resource whilst also living secret lives as Contact Medium, Product, Service Identifier and Network Address – these different nuances of the phone number’s role need to be explicitly stated. 

We should be able to see Wally/Waldo wherever he is, then when someone who has never seen the SID before says

“Wow!  That looks complicated… Let’s start with something easy; show me where in these diagrams Phone Number is”,

you can point confidently to the model and say

“There!”

rather than waving your hands around talking about rather complicated things called Logical Resource, Resource Role, Involvement Role etc etc and conducting the “Where’s Wally?” hunt.

You may ask,

“How can I make the SID representation of Phone Number a little closer to the business view of Phone Number?”

or perhaps, if you will,

“How can I put Wally in SID?”

If you make the following enhancements to your own in-house implementation of the SID then it will reflect the business realities and define phone numbers in a way that everyone can recognise and relate to and you will able to point confidently to the SID and say “There’s Wally/Waldo”.

1. Put PhoneNumber and PhoneNumberSpecification into the SID as concrete subclasses of Logical Resource and Logical Resource Specification respectively
2. Create an association from Contact Medium (Phone) to this class.
3. Create concrete subclasses of Product Offering and Product as “Contract Product Offering” and “Contract Product” to identify these key products.
4. Create an association from Contract Product to Phone Number “identified by” to acknowledge that this is important relationship.

I know that the last step is a little controversial for “dyed-in-the-wool” SID practitioners as this is information is already provided by the multipurpose ProductInvolvementRole.  This is a sub type of InvolvementRole that is played by a CustomerAccount, or a PartyRole, or importantly a ResourceRole.  As an alternative to step 4 the creation of a concrete subclass of ResourceRole called “IdentifyingPhoneNumber” would keep the purists, if not the business and “Wally hunters” happy.

So Phone Number is a lot of things to a lot of different people and many of these are already in the SID if hidden from view – but one thing is for certain it isn’t just a string of digits or just a Logical Resource.

So, now, where are Wally’s friends IMSI, IMEI and MSISDN hiding in the SID?