openet 360 degree view personalisation wp may11
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 Openet 360 Degree View Personalisation WP May11
1/17
-
7/30/2019 Openet 360 Degree View Personalisation WP May11
2/17
A 360 degree view of personalisation in communications
Telesperience analysis 2 April 2011
0 SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................31 KEY GOALS AND HOW THEY MAP AGAINST THE EIGHT TYPES OF PERSONALISATION 4
Figure 1 Relative importance of operational, commercial and customer goals ............................................. 4Figure 2 How selected priorities affect relative importance placed on each type of personalisation............ 6
2 DELIVERING PERSONALISATION: ORGANISATIONAL GAPS ................................................7Figure 3 Staff involved in the rollout of new products or tariffs gap analysis ............................................ 7Figure 4 Ease of making changes: the view of marketing versus IT.............................................................. 8
3 CAPABILITIES ANALYSIS............................................................................................................9Figure 5 Supporting key types of personalisation: comparison of views of marketing and IT................... 10Figure 6 How far ahead are the most innovative companies in terms of rolling out different types of
personalisation? ........................................................ ................................................................. .................. 11
4 REGIONAL DIFFERENCES.........................................................................................................12Figure 7 Regional analysis: goals, personalisation targets and agility ......................................................... 13Figure 8 Regional approaches to funding personalisation initiatives........................................................... 14
5 INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESEARCH PROGRAMME........................................................15Figure 9 Demographics of respondents........................................................................................................ 15
6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND FURTHER INFORMATION.......................................................17
-
7/30/2019 Openet 360 Degree View Personalisation WP May11
3/17
A 360 degree view of personalisation in communications
Telesperience analysis 3 April 2011
0 Summary
Key findings
Personalisation is a key strategy for many service providers worldwide, and is frequently discussed at
conferences and in industry press. The aim of this research programme is to discover the status of
personalisation initiatives within the industry, the inhibiting factors, the benefits, and how
personalisation is helping communications service providers (CSPs) deliver against their core
commercial and customer goals. In the first part of this programme we spoke to product management
& marketing experts to discover their view. In the second part of the programme we spoke to IT
departments (such as BSS and OSS managers). We then compared the views of these two
stakeholders to see where there are differences and points of agreement, and to create a
comprehensive overview of views and key issues.
This gap analysis is presented in this paper. It should be noted that we use the term gap analysis
to denote the analysis of a number of types of difference in the research we have undertaken which
we present as:
a mapping of goals to personalisation targets (Section 1) an organisational analysis to discover the differences in view between product marketing &
management and IT departments (Section 2)
a capabilities analysis to understand whether CSPs are able to deliver against thepersonalisation strategies they have (Section 3)
a regional analysis to discover the differences between regions (Section 4).In the third and final part of this research programme we spoke to end customers to create a unique
three-dimensional perspective of this topic, and the findings from this part of the programme are
available in the fourth data sheet in the series1.
1 Copies of the other papers in this series can be downloaded for free from: www.openet.com/personalisation
Telesperience data sheet: A 360 degree view of
personalisation in communications
-
7/30/2019 Openet 360 Degree View Personalisation WP May11
4/17
A 360 degree view of personalisation in communications
Telesperience analysis 4 April 2011
1 Key goals and how they map against the eight types
of personalisation
Communications service providers we spoke to in this research programme reported their main goals
as being a combination of the three key Telesperience criteria:
operational key operational goals include reducing costs, better management of assets
(such as network capacity), and improved operational efficiency
commercial including goals such as enhancing commercial agility, better monetisation and
opening up new revenue streams, maintaining brand values and combating competitors
offers
customer with regards to customers CSPs seek to improve the customer experience overall,
acquire new customers and retain existing ones.
Both sets of stakeholders (IT and product management & marketing) regard meeting the needs of
customers better as their primary goal. This is extremely heartening as Telesperience believes thatcustomers and not technology should be the starting point for communications service provision.
Globally, IT staff said their primary goal was an improved customer experience and this was rated
more highly than operational goals such as reducing costs and improving operational efficiency.
Likewise, product managers and marketers rated customer issues as their top goals, but they were
split over whether acquiring or retaining customers was more important. Figure 1 shows how the two
key stakeholders rated these three sets of goals overall.
Figure 1 Relative importance of operational, commercial and customer goals
Stakeholder IT department Type Product management & marketing Type
Rank 1 Improve customer experience Cust Customer acquisition Cust
Rank 2 Reduce costs Op Customer retention Cust
Rank 3 Improve operational efficiency Op Increase revenue from existingproducts
Com
Rank 4 Increase commercial agility Com Maintain brand values Com
Rank 5 Better monetisation Com Open up new revenue streams Com
Rank 6 Comply withregulation/legislation
Op/Com
Combat competitors offers Com
Rank 7 Network issues: upgrades &traffic management
Op Reduce costs Op
Source: Telesperience 2011Type: Cust = customer goal; Op = operational goal; Com = commercial goal
-
7/30/2019 Openet 360 Degree View Personalisation WP May11
5/17
A 360 degree view of personalisation in communications
Telesperience analysis 5 April 2011
Figure 1 indicates that although both key stakeholders agree that customer goals are the most
important, IT regards operational goals as being their next most important set of priorities, while
product management and marketing tends to prioritise commercial goals.
There is a tendency to view communications service providers (CSPs) as being either focused on
customer acquisition or customer retention, but it should be noted that most of the CSPs we spoke to
were focused on both goals simultaneously. In fact, 78% of CSPs in this programme who rated
customer retention as key also rated customer acquisition as being really important to them. This
validates Telesperiences view that instead of seeing CSPs as having an acquisition versus retention
mindset, a more accurate way of analysing CSP goals today is whether they are focused on
operational issues (such as networks or cost-reduction), commercial issues (such as new revenue
streams or competition), or customer issues.
In fact, most CSPs are focused on a combination of goals, creating a unique fingerprint of goals that
are important to them along with the relative weight placed upon them. Their primary focus then
influences other goals they think are important and the relative weight placed upon these. The
combination of these goals also affects how they value and utilise the eight key types of
personalisation2 we have researched in this programme, as shown in Figure 2.
While there are still regional differences depending on whether CSPs operate in so-called mature,
competitive markets, for example, or younger, high-growth markets, these differences are somewhat
less acute than they were a relatively short time ago. Many high-growth markets have now flipped
from pure customer acquisition strategies to more complex, hybrid strategies featuring a combination
of competitive positioning and customer retention. However, the relative importance of operational
goals is very interesting: they tend to be more important in markets where price pressure is acute or
downwards. Not all markets face this situation yet, and CSPs which do not face such pressures may
therefore emphasise other goals more highly.
However, it should be noted that mature markets are not necessarily highly competitive and it should
not be presumed that customer retention or operational efficiency are primarily characteristics of
mature markets. Where customers have little choice, then CSPs may place less emphasis on retaining
them, and therefore on meeting their needs better, since there is a relatively low risk they will churn.
Such CSPs may wish to increase revenues from their customer base though, and personalisation is a
way of achieving this goal. Thus their primary motivation or goal is to use personalisation to drive up
revenues, rather than to retain customers per se.
Markets that value operational efficiency tend to have certain characteristics. CSPs in these markets
are either trying to reduce the cost of operations in order to meet a price point that is required to
expand their operations to lower value customers (a good example of this would be India) or they are
trying to reduce operational cost because they need to offer lower priced services to remain
2The eight key types of personalisation we have researched in this programme are: personalised customer support,
personalised offers, personalised content or products, personalised tariffs and prices, personalised quality of service (QoS)and bandwidth, personalised advertising, personalised devices and personalised controls.
-
7/30/2019 Openet 360 Degree View Personalisation WP May11
6/17
A 360 degree view of personalisation in communications
Telesperience analysis 6 April 2011
competitive and profitable in the face of price competition from rivals or mandated lowering of prices
by a regulator (an example of this type of market is the UK).
Figure 2 How selected priorities affect relative importance placed on each type ofpersonalisation
Key goal Type Primary
personalisation goal
Secondary
personalisation goal
Tertiary personalisation
goal
Retaincustomers
Cust Offers Customer support Content and products
Acquirecustomers
Cust Offers Content and products Customer support
Maintainbrand values
Com Offers Content and products Customer support
Increaserevenuesfrom existingproducts
Com Content and products Devices Offers
Create new
revenuestreams
Com Customer support Tariffs and prices Offers
Source: Telesperience 2011
In Figure 2 we see that experts in our sample who said retaining customers was very important to
them (a customer-oriented goal), said personalised offers, customer support, and content & products
were their most important personalisation goals. In contrast, those who wanted to create new revenue
streams (a commercial-oriented goal) valued personalised customer support, tariffs & prices, and
offers.
This diagram provides interesting insights into the relative weights placed upon the key types of
personalisation according to the goals of service providers.
-
7/30/2019 Openet 360 Degree View Personalisation WP May11
7/17
A 360 degree view of personalisation in communications
Telesperience analysis 7 April 2011
2 Delivering personalisation: organisational gaps
Product marketing and management experts told us that the main barriers they face in rolling out
personalisation initiatives are internal barriers, insufficient budget (for both software and marketing)
and lack of vision. The organisational gap they identified as their primary barrier was furthersupported by the finding that 60% of product managers and marketers felt that there was a gulf
between them and their IT department, in the sense that IT either did not support their goals or
understand them. Fortunately, 40% of marketing and product management experts said they either
lead IT (10%) or work in partnership with them (30%). As can be seen from Figure 3, however, when
rolling out new products, key IT staff are often not consulted. There is also a mismatch between who
IT thinks are consulted during such a process, and who product management and marketing thinks
are consulted.
Product marketing and management report being more likely to involve business managers and
senior management in new product rollouts than certain key IT staff. Only four out of ten reported
always consulting billing and CRM managers, for example. Only two out of ten always consult OSS
network or data staff.
Figure 3 Staff involved in the rollout of new products or tariffs gap analysis
90%
47%
37%
47%
47%
70%
60%
53%
7%
10%
83%
53%
30%
17%
13%
40%
40%
20%
3%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Product mgt & marketing
Senior mgt
CIO
Network
Data
Billing
CRM
OSS
Consultants
Partners
IT view Marketing view
Source: Telesperience 2011
This means that some marketing & product managers are making product rollout plans without
knowing if the existing infrastructure will support their initiatives. Failing to involve IT staff in the
planning and rollout of new products and tariffs would be acceptable if product management and
marketing were largely self-sufficient; but they are not. In our research programme, only 10% of
product management & marketing experts reported that they were able to easily make changes to
tariffs or offers, or could rollout new ones, without the involvement of IT. This corresponds very
closely to what we were told by IT experts, as only 10% of these reported that product marketing and
management could easily make changes without their involvement (see Figure 4).
-
7/30/2019 Openet 360 Degree View Personalisation WP May11
8/17
A 360 degree view of personalisation in communications
Telesperience analysis 8 April 2011
Figure 4 Ease of making changes: the view of marketing versus IT
10%
20%
37%
33%
10%
40%
50%
0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Can easily make changes
Some IT support required
IT support required and it takes
a lot of effort
Changes are very difficult
Marketing IT
Source: Telesperience 2011
Diagram shows a comparison of the percentage of each type of stakeholder that believes making changes is easy/difficult
Figure 4 clearly shows that product marketing and management feel that making changes is often far
from easy with 70% reporting that changes require a lot of IT effort or are very difficult. This
difficulty in making changes, and dependence on IT, is often a factor of a legacy IT infrastructure that
has not been designed to support change. However, this is a worrying indication when considered in
the context of personalisation, as true personalisation is a dynamic process that requires continual,
incremental change based on customer information, and is not just one-off, static offers or products
targeted at niche markets.
-
7/30/2019 Openet 360 Degree View Personalisation WP May11
9/17
A 360 degree view of personalisation in communications
Telesperience analysis 9 April 2011
3 Capabilities analysis
We asked the experts who participated in our research programme if they could deliver key types of
personalisation today, or whether they were planning to deliver them in future. While there were a
few areas where both product marketing & management and IT are aligned, in many areas they arenot. Sometimes product marketing & management believes they can already deliver or have plans to
deliver certain types of personalisation which IT managers tell us their current infrastructure cannot
support. In other cases, IT is planning support for types of personalisation capabilities that are not
currently high on the agenda for product management and marketing. There are a number of reasons
for this gap:
overestimating capabilities product management and marketing sometimes do not fullyappreciate the technical consequences of their plans
failure to communicate/understand key goals whereby for whatever reason IT does notfully understand the goals of product management and marketing, or is not involved in the
decision-making and planning until too late different definitions of personalised services which is where one of the stakeholders
(often product management & marketing) has a less sophisticated or different view of what is
possible than the other. This results in the stakeholder reporting that they are able to deliver
that type of personalisation when they are only actually able to deliver a static or relatively
unsophisticated version
an ad hoc or labour-intensive effort by IT - which is often the result of IT having to acttactically in order to deliver against marketings goals. This frequently occurs when IT is not
consulted early enough in the cycle. This means that although from marketings point of view
its goals are met, this is only achieved because of considerable and possibly unsustainable
effort by IT. These IT fixes are usually not a long-term or scalable solution to the issue, and
often prevent a more sophisticated or dynamic level of personalisation in the mid-term.
Personalised customer support, for example, is the number one goal for marketers, and six out of ten
say they can support it now; with nine out of ten saying they will be able to support it by 2013.
However, as can be seen from Figure 5, IT departments are much less confident at being able to easily
deliver personalised customer care today. Having said that, by 2013 a similar level of IT experts to
product marketers (nine out of ten) believe they will be able to support it. Overall, though the good
news is that IT is set to meet or exceed the expectations of product management and marketing in
supporting all areas of personalisation, as it implements solutions that can easily and smartly meet
their needs.
-
7/30/2019 Openet 360 Degree View Personalisation WP May11
10/17
A 360 degree view of personalisation in communications
Telesperience analysis 10 April 2011
Figure 5 Supporting key types of personalisation: comparison of views of marketing and IT
Type of
personalisation
Rank by
marketing
Does marketing
think it can be
delivered now?
Does IT think it
can be
delivered now?
Gap analysis
(now)
Gap analysis
(planned
support by2013)
Customer support 1 6 out of 10 3 out of 10 Similar
Offers 2 3 out of 10 3 out of 10 Similar
Content =3 7 out of 10 3 out of 10 Similar
Tariffs/Prices
innovative
=3 5 out of 10 7 out of 10
Tariffs/Prices - casualusage or service
passes
=3 6 out of 10 5 out of 10
Tariffs/Prices
personalised
=3 3 out of 10 4 out of 10
QoS 4 2 out of 10 3 out of 10
Adverts 5 4 out of 10 1 out of 10
Controls - parental or
employee
=6 5 out of 10 3 out of 10
Controls - smart =6 4 out of 10 3 out of 10
Source: Telesperience 2011
= IT ahead in its plans to implement; =marketing ahead in its plans to rollout
-
7/30/2019 Openet 360 Degree View Personalisation WP May11
11/17
A 360 degree view of personalisation in communications
Telesperience analysis 11 April 2011
Figure 5 is very telling, as it reveals that marketing is often ahead of IT in terms of its thinking, and IT
often struggles to support these plans. This is not because of a lack of willingness or capability.
Product managers and marketers acknowledge that key barriers to delivering personalisation are lack
of software budget and inadequacies in the legacy software infrastructure.3
We also wanted to explore whether the most innovative companies in the sample (34% regarded
themselves as being innovative) were more advanced in their support for different types of
personalisation than the average for the research sample. As Figure 6 shows they were more advanced
in the rollout of every aspect, although they were further ahead in some areas than in other. What
was interesting though was this group of innovators did not report that making changes to existing
tariffs and products were any easier than the average overall indicating that even they could
improve their performance going forward by investing in solutions that support easier real-time and
dynamic personalisation.
Figure 6 How far ahead are the most innovative companies in terms of rolling out differenttypes of personalisation?
67%
33%
53%
33%
60%
40%
50%
23%
63%
40%
80%
50%
70%
40%
70%
60%
70%
50%
80%
40%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Products or product bundles
Personalised tariffing, offers & bundles
Innovative tariffing options
Subsidised usage (eg ad-subsidised)
Casual usage packages
Personal sm art controls
Parental or employee controls
Differentiated QoS
Customer s ervice channel
Personalised advertising
Average Innovators
Source: Telesperience 2011
3 We asked product managers and marketers to rate the key barriers they faced in delivering personalisation on a scale of 1-5. The top barrier
they reported was organisational barriers (2.83), followed by insufficient budget for software (2.63). Legacy software infrastructure was
regarded as being the fourth most important barrier (2.57). See: Opportunities from personalisation the view of product management and
marketing for more details.
-
7/30/2019 Openet 360 Degree View Personalisation WP May11
12/17
A 360 degree view of personalisation in communications
Telesperience analysis 12 April 2011
4 Regional differences
The types of personalisation that are regarded as being the most useful, and the way these are
implemented and budgeted for, reveal distinct regional differences. Some of these regional
differences are due to the maturity of the local market in the sense that markets focused largely onsubscriber growth tend to be interested in personalisation strategies that support this aim. That said,
the initial phase of rapid subscriber growth following service rollout is coming to an end now in
many high-growth markets. Growth may still be substantial in these markets, but the emphasis is
shifting towards a second phase of maturity where CSPs seek to stabilise their customer base and
differentiate themselves from competitors. In more mature markets, personalisation also has a role to
play in helping CSPs better meet the needs of customers whether the motivation for this is to
increase revenues or stabilise or increase the customer base.4
So what are the differences in terms of regional goals for CSPs implementing personalisation
strategies? As shown in Figures 7 and 8, each region has different goals, personalisation targets andapproaches to support these.
Figure 7 shows there is considerable commonality between regions in terms of key goals and the most
highly rated forms of personalisation. What differs is the relative value placed on each. However,
some regions have goals and strategies that are more closely aligned than others. It is interesting to
note, for example, that North America and CALA have virtually identical priorities with regards to
personalisation strategy; whereas in contrast, MEAs goals are a hybrid of those seen as important in
Europe and Asia.
From Figure 8 we can see that all world regions expect at least some of the IT support for innovation
to be funded out of OPEX and CAPEX savings. However, this pattern is most acute in Europe andCALA. If this strategy continues it will certainly slow down the ability of CSPs in these areas to get
quick access to the quantifiable benefits provided by personalisation.
4For more information about the maturation of personalisation strategies and how they address the needs of CSPs in
different types of markets, please see the free accompanying issues paper which is available fromwww.openet.com/personalisation.
-
7/30/2019 Openet 360 Degree View Personalisation WP May11
13/17
A 360 degree view of personalisation in communications
Telesperience analysis 13 April 2011
Figure 7 Regional analysis: goals, personalisation targets and agility
Region Primary goals in order ofimportance
Key personalisationstrategies
Agility ease of makingchanges
NorthAmerica
IT: improve customer
experience, reduce costs
Marketing: customer
acquisition, customer
retention & loyalty, open up
new revenue streams
1. Tariffs
2. Offers
3. Customer support
Can easily make changes(25%)
Requires some IT support(25%)
IT support required and ittakes a lot of effort (37%)
Very difficult (13%)
Europe
IT: reduce cost, improve
customer experience
Marketing: customer
acquisition, customer
retention & loyalty,
increase revenues from
existing products
1. Offers
=2. Customer support
=2. Content
Can easily make changes(5%)
Requires some IT support
(30%)
IT support required and ittakes a lot of effort (50%)
Very difficult (15%)
Middle East& Africa
IT: improve customer
experience, increase
commercial agility
Marketing: customer
acquisition, customer
retention & loyalty,
increase revenues from
existing products
1. QoS
=2. Offers
=2. Customer support
Can easily make changes(8%)
Requires some IT support(33%)
IT support required and ittakes a lot of effort (50%)
Very difficult (8%)
Asia
IT: reduce cost, improve
operational efficiency
Marketing: customer
acquisition, customer
retention & loyalty,
maintain brand values
1. Customer support
2. Content
3. QoS
Can easily make changes(0%)
Requires some IT support(25%)
IT support required and ittakes a lot of effort (50%)
Very difficult (25%)
CALA
IT: improve operational
efficiency, improve
customer experience
Marketing: customer
acquisition, maintain brand
values, improve customer
retention & loyalty,
increase revenues from
existing products
1. Tariffs
=2. Offers
=2. Customer support
Can easily make changes(33%)
Requires some IT support(17%)
IT support required and ittakes a lot of effort (33%)
Very difficult (17%)
Source: Telesperience 2011
-
7/30/2019 Openet 360 Degree View Personalisation WP May11
14/17
A 360 degree view of personalisation in communications
Telesperience analysis 14 April 2011
Figure 8 Regional approaches to funding personalisation initiatives
50%
67%
33%
80%
50%
67%
25%
33%
33%
10%
33%
33%
10%
25%
25%
25%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
North America
CALA
MEA
Europe
Asia
Multi
Fund from OPEX savings Sufficient budget Sufficient infrastructure Considering OPEX model eg SaaS Cannot innovate due to lack of budget
Source: Telesperience 2011
Telesperiences view
Telesperience believes that CSPs need to ensure that their key personalisation strategies are properly supported
and funded if their business is to benefit from the quantifiable and wide ranging benefits these strategies can
deliver. Expecting IT to fund support for personalisation out of CAPEX and OPEX savings from the existing
IT budget will certainly inhibit and constrain the companys ability to quickly and fully support these
initiatives. We believe that the benefits of personalisation measured in terms of key operational, commercial
and customer metrics far outweigh the cost of the IT budget needed to deliver them. The cost of not supporting
personalisation early include inflated costs elsewhere in the business (such as the cost of dealing with customer
complaints or churn), as well as enormous opportunity costs from slowing down the rollout of new product and
tariff offerings.
-
7/30/2019 Openet 360 Degree View Personalisation WP May11
15/17
A 360 degree view of personalisation in communications
Telesperience analysis 15 April 2011
5 Information about the research programme
Scope of the researchThis research programme uses a technique which is sometimes called the expert panel or expert
sample. In other words we sought to locate a relatively small number of highly qualified experts
who had the knowledge and experience to answer the questions we were researching, and who could
represent the views of their peers.
This expert panel was focused on understanding the role of personalisation strategies from the point
of view of IT experts such as those working in BSS and OSS departments versus product
management and marketing experts. This panel comprised experts from a range of different types of
CSP, and of a variety of sizes. The research was conducted between January and March 2011 and the
report prepared for publication in March 2011.
Demographics of the expert panel
In this programme we spoke to 63 operators worldwide. Figure 9 provides a demographical
breakdown of these operators by size of subscriber base, region of operation, network technology,
and how innovative they consider themselves to be.
Figure 9 Demographics of respondents
North America
14%
CALA
11%
MEA
19%Europe
33%
Asia
13%
Multi-region
10%
Up to 5 million
37%
5-20 million30%
20 million+
33%
Source: Telesperience 2011
-
7/30/2019 Openet 360 Degree View Personalisation WP May11
16/17
A 360 degree view of personalisation in communications
Telesperience analysis 16 April 2011
Figure 9 Demographics of respondents (cont)
Multiplay
29%
MVNO
3%
Fixed inc fibre,cable, broadband
16%
Mobile or
wireless
52%
We're innovators
34%
We're proactive
33%
We're reactive
30%
We're trailers
3%
Source: Telesperience 2011
-
7/30/2019 Openet 360 Degree View Personalisation WP May11
17/17
A 360 degree view of personalisation in communications
6 Acknowledgements and further information
Author
Teresa Cottam is the Research Director and Founder of Telesperience. She has more than 17 years industry
experience and was previously an Associate Principal Analyst with UK-based telecoms consultancy Analysys
Mason, covering the billing, CRM and service delivery sectors. Before that she was Research and Publications
Director at Chorleywood Consulting, a specialist BSS/OSS consultancy which was acquired by Informa Telecoms
& Media. Prior to this she was Managing Editor at industry analysts Ovum.
Teresa has authored numerous influential reports and trends papers during her career, is a regular speaker at
telecoms industry events, and is a judge at various industry awards including the GSMA awards 2011 (presented
at MWC11). Teresa is passionate about helping CSPs optimise the value of their software, and strongly believes
that software will play an increasingly important role in helping CSPs differentiate their offering, operate
profitably, and attract & retain customers.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank all those companies and individuals who helped with our research and
generously gave their time and expertise. In particular, we would like to thank Openet, who provided
sponsorship to fund this research programme. It should be noted that in keeping with our usual methodology
the sponsors involvement has comprised scoping the extent of the project and supporting the project with
funding: they have not sought to influence the findings or recommendations made.
About Telesperience
Telesperience is a UK-based telecoms analyst firm focused on how software and data helps communications
service providers improve their operational efficiency, commercial agility and the customer experience they
deliver. We consider where the problems lie with legacy technology, and how companies can transition to
provide a more positive telesperience for their customers and a more profitable business for themselves.
Telesperiences open source research programme relies on the goodwill of companies who fund research in order
to make it free at the point of delivery. We endeavour to ensure that our research remains objective and
independent: the steps we take to do this are outlined on our website, but the most significant is using
experienced and respected analysts who have a track record within our industry. Report sponsors are always
acknowledged, so readers are aware who is funding the research programme. For more information about
Telesperience see www.telesperience.com, check out our blog at www.microsperience.com or visit our B2B wiki
at www.wikisperience.com.
About Openet
Openet is the most innovative provider of Subscriber Optimization Software (SOS) to tier one communications
and media service providers. To succeed, todays operators must know their subscribers, deploy innovative
business models and control the allocation of network resources. Openet's offerings are engineered to attract
subscribers and provide an optimal experience, minimize the cost to serve them and maximize revenuemaking
the most of every subscriber. With customers across the globe, Openet is meeting the needs of operators
worldwide such as Vodafone, Orange, AT&T and Verizon. For more information, please visit www.openet.com.