Selecting a new billing platform is a daunting task.
The problem with selecting a commercial off-the-shelf product is that most vendors opt to expand on the functionality of billing in an effort to attract customers, and perhaps to make comparisons challenging. Consequently, billing systems embrace such functions as order management, trouble management, customer contact management, customer relationship management, product catalog management, provisioning, service activation and service quality management. Meanwhile, some of the core features required for billing may be absent, such as network data collection, taxation, intercarrier settlements, bill presentment and payment collections.
The chance of any two people having the same requirements when they search for a billing system is indeed remote. Not only are their legacy environments and business plans likely to be different, but their view of functional scope is open for interpretation.
The leading selection criterion during the last two years has been the rationale that "this billing system works for company B, so it will also work for me." But six months later when the hypothesis proves false, a quick conversation with company C will yield a replacement.
This view ignores the fact that the billing system is only as good as its working environment. Functionality within is as important as integration to the surrounding systems. Overlapping functionality and data can cause as many problems as missing functionality and data.
Analyzing the Business
The BSS/OSS environment must meet the requirements of an evolving business. Businesses grow and change. Requirements change. This is not plug-and-play, and it never will be as long as vendors seek to gain market share through differentiation with concepts like customer care.
When analyzing the features and functions of a billing system, it is imperative that you understand the business goals surrounding the billing function. Is billing a key differentiator for the business? What is our value statement for customer service? Do we categorize market segments in terms of operations and support? Will we apply the same business philosophy to new geographical markets? Do we have the internal resources and skills to maintain a new billing platform? Are our payment options moving us toward increasing complexity or simplicity?
The answers to these questions should be based on business and marketing plans. These answers will impact key decisions on billing deployment, specifically on whether to buy or build, to rely on outsourced or in-house expertise, or to use an ASP or complete service bureau.
From a financial perspective, can you validate that the preferred solution is cost-effective? A cost of ownership model should cover all elements of billing operations-software licenses, hardware acquisition, service bureau fees, new resources, training, migration, yearly license upgrades, and other aspects of implementation and ongoing administration. With the current emphasis on "pay-as-you-grow" license models, it is important to predict costs across the time frame when you expect your greatest market growth, which may be 3 to 5 years after implementation.
And if your business plan is to transfer billing management from service bureau to in-house, the costs of decommissioning a solution and migrating, as well as any exit penalties that may exist in your contract need to be factored in.
All this analysis appears to be predicated on the fact that you know where your business is headed but will at least tell you two things: the elements of business formulation that have been decided, and the ones that have been deferred or ignored. From this information, regardless of how firm it is, you wish to proceed to systems selection.
Two basic options are available: select the system that has all the functionality and flexibility with every bell and whistle, or select the system that has the architecture that lets you extend the solution as you change and grow. The first option usually comes at a hefty price; the second option allows you to pay when you need to introduce a feature, although you usually end up paying the same in the long term. The second option might help cash flow but does nothing for end-user angst, since delivering new features when needed has historically involved delays of six months or more.
Can you select a solution with an extensible architecture to cover the gaps in the business and marketing plans? Yes, if you understand where the tenets of architectural design-such as scalability, usability, portability, maintainability and accessibility-need to exhibit the necessary flexibility. And in the meantime other projects are moving forward to deliver CRM, service delivery, network management, financials and other solutions, each with their own architectural constraints, functional scope and integration requirements.
It's understandable to want your billing solution up and running, but there are so many moving parts and unknown factors. In addition, there are more than 100 vendors that specialize in billing applications, from data collection to EBPP; service bureaus and ASPs to non-traditional vendors from enterprise CRM and ERP.
Unfortunately, the realization of whether you have made a good choice in a billing solution can take a while. And the cost to rectify the mistake might be as high.
Neil Purser is director of the OSS practice at LTC Internationational. He can be reached at npurser@ltcinternational.com.
Email this article
Add a comment
Printer version
Order reprints
RSS Feed
Bookmark article