Self-service and personalized customer care is what propels industry leading organizations to success through strong relationships with their customers. Perficient developed a global customer care system using Oracle Siebel to do just that for a major unified communications equipment vendor. A leader in communications systems, applications, and services incrementally rolled out a multi-phase global implementation for its Global Services Support organization. In addition to deflecting a majority of incoming phone calls, it will enable thousands of agents to more effectively serve end customers with a personal touch by efficiently identifying the customer, the installed base, and the entitlement information.

This program is a “mission critical” to our client as it provides the foundation necessary for the company to drastically reduce costs and increase efficiencies across their support organization while improving their customers’ experiences.

Perficient is responsible for the overall Siebel program inclusive of

• program management
• enterprise architecture
• business requirements
• implementation
• data migration
• integration
• offshoring

Business capabilities include a “push” case model, intelligent routing, CTI, and over a dozen real-time integration points into back office systems. Visit with our Oracle team to learn more about this project and Perficient’s Communications Practice at Oracle OpenWorld 2010, September 19-23 in San Francisco.

We’ll be Booth 301 Moscone South. More info Here.

Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter for regular updates throughout OpenWorld: @PRFT_Oracle and follow the conference hash tag on Twitter: #OOW10

Overall telecommunications industry trends:

1. Increasing speed of delivery for data, voice, video and other data transfer
2. Rapid deregulation: “governments are revoking monopolistic policies and older players face a new breed of competitors.”
3. “wireless communication, Internet, cable and satellite program distribution are increasing their share in overall industry earnings”
4. Increasing focus on self-service
5. Focus on next-generation mobile platforms and services
6. Demand for pre-payment and real-time billing infrastructure

How the corporate market differs from the consumer market:

1. Ready to pay more for quality and reliability of servers
2. Less price sensitive in areas such as VPN, data security and video conferencing

This article finishes up with an end-to-end perspective on order management, from order capture to provisioning all the way through to fulfillment.

It then reviews the challenges in order management and then how current telecom trends (listed above) are impacting how the major players are managing processes such as order management.

Read the full post here.

We’ll talk about this first concept in this blog. The remaining two points will be discussed in following postings.
The biggest problem with Red, Yellow, Green, is that it is usually not well defined. It’s often implied to be indicative of how an initiative is tracking to a socialized plan (or date). However, this point is usually not explicitly stated, and furthermore, what does Red, Yellow, or Green really say about how a project is tracking to plan. Without defining this, based on clear metrics, it should not mean much to anyone.
When this is not defined, it usually leads the status creators and recipients to fall into very poor behavioral habits. We’ll discuss some of this later.
However, let’s say we do define what the color coding means. Let’s say that the status color coding pertains to adherence to a stated schedule. Furthermore, let’s announce that Red means we are tracking 25% or more behind plan. Green means that we are tracking within 5% or less behind plan.
Finally, and most importantly, yellow is used for two purposes. First, from the point a project is first baselined up to about 15% into the project timeline, the color coded status for timeline can be no better than yellow. It could be red, but it can’t be green. The reason for this is that early into the execution of a plan, especially one that lasts for long periods of time, it is impossible to tell if the plan is realistic until proper metric tracking is conducted. This cannot be done until there is enough timeline based data, which takes time to collect. Therefore, yellow should be used during this period of time.
And of course the second purpose for using yellow is if the actual project is tracking in between 5% and 25% behind plan.
Stating this up front in a clear and concise way will inhibit poor behavior from both the status report creator, and the report recipients. Basing color coded status on timeline is only useful if there are clear metrics used for defining the methodology behind the color coding.
Doing it this way takes the emotion out of the equation. Reporting using color coded status without metrics is usually done through the emotions of the project manager or the team at whole. In fact, without metrics, emotion is the only way to do it. Furthermore, if the color coding is scrutinized from the recipients of the report, there is often a tendency to report things as green through the majority of the project, then yellow for the last 25% of the timeline, and then red a few days prior to a delivery. How many times have we all seen that? This is one thing I mean by poor behavior.
On the flip side, not stating what the color coding means to the recipients of the report causes them to very often misconstrue what is being conveyed. When it goes yellow, they often freak because they have been provided no context to what yellow means when all it should mean is that the stated date, based on a plan is not guaranteed. Since very little in life is guaranteed, this should not be that big of a deal.
However, since most projects start out as green and stay that way far longer than they should (lack of metrics), when the status changes to yellow towards the end of a project, it simply tells the report reviewers that all is not well. Stating the metrics/conditions for why the color is the way it is will help prevent this reaction from status report reviewers. Starting off as yellow helps enforce what a baselined plan really is; an estimated, not guaranteed, plan of record.
In my next post, we’ll discuss the importance on reporting status on other areas of a projects health. Because it’s not all about timeline!

Me: First of all, iPhone 4 may be the fourth version of the iPhone itself, but since the iPhone is not launching on the Sprint network, we know for sure that it cannot be 4G, because AT&T has no 4G service in the US.

She: What do you mean? But it’s the iPhone 4G, right?

Me: Again, they call it the iPhone 4, not the iPhone 4G. Note the difference? The iPhone 4 works pretty much like the iPhone 3G/iPhone 3GS, except this time, it has some additional cool features. Those features are hooked to the device itself and having these added on your phone will still not affect what lies underneath it – i.e. AT&T’s network is still the same.

She: Jeez, they had me there for a bit, believing that I am going to be getting 4G service soon. So if I am not getting 4G service with AT&T, how can Apple be so sure that the iPhone 4 will be faster and provide me with the better speeds? What exactly are they selling to me then, if we strip the phone of all the “coolness”?

Me: They are tweaking what’s inside the phone so that they can promise the consumer all that speed. One would want to compare this to a highway situation. Suppose Apple was selling you a car with all the cool stuff in it. The fact still remains that even though you are in a cool car, you may still need to share the 405 with all the other people ,with or without the cool cars. Your car’s coolness however still deserves praise, because on an empty highway, clearly, your cool car would outperform its non-cool counterparts.

(That lit a bulb in her head and she began questioning me more)

She: Oh, I get it now. It would not really help having the cool car on 405 unless they build a new 405+ for just the cool cars. That would then enable the real experience, right?

Me: Exactly! There you go. Only Sprint currently has the 4G WiMax network operational and the HTC’s EVO phone is the first 4G phone. Even though Sprint actually claims that its WiMax service is 4G, the International Telecommunications Union still classifies WiMax under 3G. AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon have decided to adopt the LTE (Long Term Evolution) standard developed by the 3GPP consortium. The new spectrum that Verizon and AT&T acquired in the 700 MHz frequency band in 2008 is being used for testing LTE and LTE is still around 2 years away from being deployed. Even though LTE and WiMax can be called sister technologies, there are still some noticeable architectural differences between them. We would need to sit down and talk about them in detail next time.

She: Great, so are you buying the iPhone 4 then even though it is not really 4G?

Me: You bet!

To most of us techies, these nuances in definition and naming are obvious already, but cleverly designed marketing campaigns hide the technical details under strings of jargon making the package look more complicated than it needs to be. In my mind, the step up from 2G to 3G was definitely more significant than the move from 3G to 4G. I would love to hear what the reader thinks.

ComputerWorld conducted a study of the situation that I found pretty fascinating.

Given the wireless mega-trend and associated growing pains, it’s fair to ask how midsize and large IT shops are managing wireless and what they’re doing to prepare for the evolution of wireless over the coming decade. For example, are companies creating a new position of chief mobility officer, or appointing someone with a title similar to Wright’s to oversee all the moving parts? Are IT shops integrating wireless into their technology processes and systems?

You can read more about it in this article, “For IT, Enterprise Wireless to Be More Gnarly in Next Decade”

Where do you and your organization  stand with this issue?

One such popular case of bill shock that has been in the media since 2006 now is the St. Germain case.The St. Germain family of Dover, Mass., received their monthly Verizon bill amounting to more than $12000 in 2006 – Now, that definitely qualifies for bill shock. Bob St. Germain had renewed his family’s 2 year contract with Verizon. What the “agent” missed telling Bob was that the promotional period for free data download had ended for his service and that he was going to be charged per kilobyte for using data on his phone plan. Unaware of and uninformed about this change, Bob’s son had been connecting his laptop to the internet via the cell phone’s internet service, because it was faster than their dial up. However, he was cautiously only using it in the evenings and weekends assuming that his minutes were free then. But, Verizon’s bill meter was ticking away for very kilobyte Bryan was sending or receiving and when the bill for $12,233 came home, the entire family got afflicted with bill shock! When Bob called Verizon to find out what was going on, they told him that he owed them additional $5600 because of the last few days’ unbilled activity. After years’ of haggling over his phone bill, having his credit score affected by this huge amount, being constantly harassed by the not-so-nice collections agencies, and after Bob sued Verizon, Verizon cut the bill in half. However the $9000 that he still owed can still account for bill shock.

The St. Germain case became popular in the media after Bob sued Verizon, but that does not rule out the presence of many other similar cases around the country, when consumers do not have the resources or chance to sue the telcos for causing them bill shock. A comparison between telecom services in Europe and the US reveals that American telecom services are among the highest priced services in the entire developed world. Moreover, European customers have tighter consumer protection laws that can help prevent bill shock. Every time the minutes are 80% (or any user-defined threshold) close to being consumed completely or if roaming charges appear abnormally high or if there is unusual activity in the usage of minutes or data, European telecom service providers are legally obliged to send the consumer free text message alerts pointing to the unusual activity and the impact that this activity could cause on the bill. American consumers are familiar with this service from a banking perspective. Banks send out activity alerts to people and that prevents shock to the consumer at a later date, when they see their monthly bank statement.

On May 11, 2010, FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) has issued a public notice to identify the feasibility of setting up such alert systems for telecom services in the US.

“In this public notice we seek to gather information on the feasibility of instituting usage alerts and cut-off mechanisms similar to those required under the EU regulations that would provide wireless voice, text, and data consumers in the United States a way to monitor, on a real-time basis, their usage of a wireless communications service, as well as the various charges they may incur in connection with such usage (e.g., roaming services, voice service “minute plans,” text message plans). Specifically, we seek comment on whether technological or other differences exist that would prevent wireless providers in this country from employing similar usage controls as those now required by the EU.“

This filing is open to public comments for 45 days. While the majority of the comments so far have been supportive of this latest FCC initiative, there was one comment that I found with a different, yet particularly funny note to it –

If %^$#@ can’t read and keep track of their own bills, they deserve to get hit with bill shock. Think of it as a tax on &^%$#*)^%.

Please check back here later for more consumer comments.

I just finished a series of discussions with the business community of a test equipment manufacturer, where we strongly suggested some immediate measures be implemented, to maintain data integrity and sanctity. When I started this project, my initial impression was this could be a hard sell – people often resist change. And I was quite right. It was a very very hard sell.

So I recommended that we take small steps. Keep all the interests, from across the organization aligned. And march forward with the belief that once we can prove the return on investment – in this case for time and money, rest will follow. So we have structured our plan in phases with simple, short and achievable goals. To initiate the process, we talked with the Business and IT stakeholders and documented some processes that will be followed to achieve these short-term goals.

The current phase of this initiative is primarily focused on educating users about data archiving practices and leveraging life cycle states for customers and products, to segment data. These are two short and simple objectives that are mostly system driven. Further we are putting together some training for the users on how to start leveraging these tools in their day-to-day jobs.

This is just a beginning. Ideally every organization must have a Data Steward who can assist with these activities. Perficient can then work with these Stewards, and assess where they need to focus their resources.

Stay tuned for more on this topic.

To read my last article on this topic – click here, http://blogs.perficient.com/communications/blog/2010/04/01/master-data-management/

Issue and Historical Background – In 2007, Comcast customers began to notice that their peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing BitTorrent application seemed to have slowed down a lot or completely stopped working without prior notice and Comcast appeared to have been exercising certain questionable methods to interfere with customers’ use of these peer-to-peer networking applications. Following this finding, advocacy groups filed complaints to the FCC about Comcast’s debatable network management practices. The issue was that Comcast was violating the FCC’s internet policy statement which asserted that consumers are entitled to access all lawful content of their choice over the internet and that internet service providers should strive to achieve that goal [2]. In 2008, the FCC issued an Order stating that Comcast should explore alternate options of network management instead of blocking peer-to-peer communications and ordered Comcast to make detailed disclosures describing the alternate approaches and how the company plans to implement it. Even though Comcast had started to look at alternate network management practices and was in the process of exploring other options as ordered by FCC, it petitioned for review under the objection that (a) the FCC has no jurisdiction over network management practices of an internet service provider like Comcast (b) There was procedural flaws in passing this Order, because the FCC deviated from the normal lawmaking procedure as delineated in the Administrative Procedures Act (c) Parts of the Order were arbitrary and capricious.

Outcome of hearing – The petition for review was decided by the United States Court of Appeals, for the District of Columbia Circuit on April 6, 2010. The hearing completely circled around whether FCC has justifiable jurisdiction over this matter or not. And the decision of the court was that FCC does not have the authority to regulate the network management practices of Comcast’s internet service.

Ancillary Jurisdiction – Through the Communications Act of 1934 (amended over the decades), the Congress has vested the FCC with the broad authority to regulate common carrier services under Title II, broadcast, radio and cellular telephony under Title III, and cable services under Title VI.  In addition to the authority from the Act, past court rulings [4] have vested FCC with what is called “ancillary jurisdiction” using which the FCC can make rules and regulations, pass Orders, etc as long as the overall goal aligns with the wider policy goals espoused in the Communications Act. Also, through these past court rulings, FCC has allowed for deregulation of the “internet and information” space, claiming that this deregulation would lead to innovation and more consumer choice [5].

In this particular case, the FCC does not claim that it has the authority to regulate Comcast’s internet service under neither Title II, as a “telecommunications service” nor using Title VI as a “cable service” [6]. Instead it uses its “ancillary jurisdiction” to subject Comcast to the Order.

Comcast’s defense – Comcast defends its need to block and slow down P2P applications as an important step in ensuring that a particular set of customers do not hog scarce bandwidth at the expense of other Comcast customers’ bandwidth availabilities. Although Comcast has been looking at alternate network management practices since FCC’s Order, the first response was to block these applications that hogged the bandwidth. Following the establishment of this practice, Comcast was sued by consumers – one e.g. Hart v. Comcast of Alameda, Inc., No. 07-6350 (N.D. Cal. 2008). However, Comcast managed to acquire a stay for this case, by suggesting that this case should be deferred to an agency that has the subject matter expertise and within whose jurisdiction this would fall (of couse, the FCC). This case is still pending with the FCC.  Comcast seems to agree that the FCC has subject matter jurisdiction over network management practices, however it disagrees with the procedural aspects of the Order in question and challenges FCC’s ancillary authority.

Potential Impacts in the industry – According to many news reports, this decision could trigger many unwanted actions in the industry. With Comcast’s acquisition of NBC under review, there is a cause for as Comcast, empowered by the decision of this case, could then potentially favor its own content as opposed to content from competitors. Similarly, Comcast could start blocking Google, if it teams up with Bing, or it could slow down YouTube considerably in favor of promoting its own contents.  This ruling has suddenly caused the situation to appear bleak, as analysts have begun to scream about the lack of internet consumer protection laws. Some analysts also argue that this ruling could also potentially impact the implementation of the National Broadband Plan (NBP), as proposed by the FCC. Through the NBP, FCC is trying to get basic high speed internet service to all Americans, instead of merely getting them phone service. With this ruling, the question remains as to whether FCC needs to change its strategy and take a fresh look at its jurisdiction and authority before moving ahead with the NBP or not.

Open Issues – There is a lack of clarity in the definitions of and the differences between “telecommunications service” and “information service”. “Information service” is currently not regulated, because it is believed to be a competitive space, while “telecommunications service” is subject to common carrier regulations under Title II of the Act. If the FCC succeeds in proving that internet service provided by cable companies falls under “telecommunications service” as opposed to the “information service”, then there would be a way for the FCC to impose regulation. This might mean revisiting and reversing the rulings of some past court cases.

The current structure of the Communications Act remains fractured into non-overlapping silos. In the past, services and industries were non-overlapping – there was telephone, cable TV, over the air (OTA) broadcasting, etc. separated by technology, modes of operation and companies. In today’s converging platforms, we see that these silos do not exist anymore. Cable TV providers carry the digital OTA channels along with their respective cable content; they provide high-speed internet service through cable modems, and also provide digital voice phone services; similarly, cellular phone companies provide internet service, etc. Court rulings like these repeatedly remind us that in a convergent technology platform that we experience today, obsolete regulation could have the negative impact of slowing down innovation and thwarting competition by creating an environment of regulatory uncertainty. If at some point the FCC and the Congress decide to revisit the Communications Act, many would agree that it would be very helpful if they adapted the Act to address some of the current and relevant challenges in the industry today.

References and Interesting Reads:

[1] Comcast Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Communications Commission, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No 08-1291, Decided: April 6, 2010.

[2] In re Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities, 20 F.C.C.R. 14,986, 14,988, ¶ 4(2005).

[3] In re Formal Compl. Of Free Press & Public Knowledge Against Comcast Corp. for Secretly Degrading Peer-to-Peer Applications, 23 F.C.C.R. 13,028 (2008) (Order)

[4] The three Supreme Court cases that authorized FCC’s “ancillary jurisdiction” – United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968), United States v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. 649 (1972) (Midwest Video I), anf FCC v. Midwest Video Corp., 440 U.S. 689 (1979) (Midwest Video II).

[5] These cases are part of the Computer Inquiries I, II and III. Also see Robert Cannon, The Legacy of the Federal Communications Commission’s Computer Inquiries, Available at – http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v55/no2/cannon.pdf

[6] In a 2005 case, the FCC had to conclude that Internet service provided by cable companies was neither “telecommunications” nor “cable”, therefore neither Title II nor Title VI applied to it. However, the FCC used ancillary jurisdiction to settle the case.  See Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005). Also see  Cable Modem Order of 2002 – In re High-Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities, 17 F.C.C.R. 4798, 4802  (2002).