Current analysis cem survey - feb 2012 - final

Outsmart Your Competitors

Customer Experience
Management Survey:
Operator Strategies and
Purchase Horizons
February 2012
Presented by:
Jason Marcheck
Director, Custom Research
jmarcheck@currentanalysis.com

Washington DC / London / Paris
Follow Current Analysis
© Current Analysis Inc. All rights reserved.

Outline

Introduction

 Key Findings

 Demographics

 Analysis

 Conclusions

Follow Current Analysis 2

Introduction to the Issue and Survey Design

 This research was commissioned by Current Analysis to better understand
the key considerations of operators in the implementation of CEM solutions
and to help infrastructure vendors achieve differentiation in their portfolios
and propositions.
 Key issues explored:
 Clarify operator interest in CEM solutions across North America and Europe
 Discover operator strategies, preferences, and barriers for adopting CEM solutions
 Assess the level of importance operators have assigned to the adoption of a CEM
solution and establish a level-set of current capabilities
 Identify product capabilities suppliers should develop to meet customer
requirements and exceed competitor capabilities
 Identify operator perception of CEM solution vendors
 76 interviews were conducted (online and by telephone) during December
2011 and January 2012
 Respondents come from a total of 76 distinct service providers
 All respondents involved in operations, network technology or marketing


Outline

 Introduction

Key Findings

 Demographics

 Analysis

 Conclusions


Key Finding #1: Operational Challenges Key to CEM Implementation

Respondents cite “organizational ... At the same time nearly half of all
challenges” as the most prominent respondents say that a single
barrier to the successful adoption of individual in the operator’s
a CEM solution. organization is responsible for CEM
oversight.

Rank the following barriers to the Is there one person in your company
adoption of a CEM solution responsible for overseeing CEM?
1=Low Difficulty, 5=High Difficulty % of respondents, N=76
Mean Response, N=76

Organizational challenges 3.57

Cost to replace existing OSS/BSS
systems
3.45
Yes
Uncertain ability of CEM system to
3.43 45%
gather real-time insights No
Difficulty in correlating data from
different sources in a timely manner
3.34 55%
Multi-vendor solutions create barriers
3.32
to implementation
Low priority in relation to other
3.2
upgrades


Key Finding #2: Operators View Customer Care as Priority

Operators still consider the resolution of trouble tickets and preventing
subscriber churn as the chief objectives of CEM. However, monetization
ranked high as a priority, suggesting that while CEM efforts are still focused
on “blocking and tackling”, operators do see the value of CEM as a revenue
generating tool.
What are major objectives of CEM adoption
1=least important; 5=most important
Mean Response; N=76

Reduce
churn/increase …
4.18
Improve trouble Call
response
4.07
Generate new
revenue
4.07
Identify highest value
customers
4.03
Track network and
service performance
3.79
Quickly evaluate
effectiveness of new …
3.76

3.72
Bring TDM
predictability to IP …
3.71
Track devices using
network
3.66


Key Finding #3: Inconsistencies Related to Personalized Services

Though operators place a high priority …they don’t view the tools required
on matching up customers with to deliver that personalization as
personalized services... primary to CEM.

Most important components of CEM
Do you Agree or Disagree with following solution?
statement? 1=least important, 5=most important
1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree mean responses, n=76
means/responses, N=76
Customer care 4.30
Customer relationship management 4.25
CEM is about the quick resolution of Billing/Charging 4.17
customer care issues or preventing them 4.21
from happening OSS 4.09
Subscriber Data Management 4.05
CEM is primarily about getting the right
customers the right services at the right 4.17 Network Management 3.97
time Policy Control 3.82
CEM is about gaining knowledge on Service Delivery Platform (SDP) 3.79
network conditions and taking action to 3.84
Applications Management 3.76
resolve issues
Device management 3.74
A major priority of CEM is to identify
your most valuable customers and cater 3.72 Analytics 3.74
services to support those customers Deep Packet Inspection 3.51


Key Finding #4: Fixed-Only Operators Trail Mobile and Converged

In addition to being less … Fixed operators are not as far
aggressive than mobile and along as mobile & converged in
converged operators in assembling CEM solution.
centralizing CEM oversight...

Is there one person responsible for Does your organization possess most
CEM oversight? of the components of a CEM
% of respondents solution?
Fixed N=25, Mobile & Converged N=51 % of respondents
Fixed N=25, Mobile & Converged N=51

33%
51%
64% 48%

No No
Yes Yes
67%
49% 52%
36%

Fixed Mobile & Converged
Fixed Mobile & Converged


Key Finding #5: Operators Plan to Work With Best of Breed Suppliers

Nearly half of all respondents have plans to work with multiple
vendors to construct a CEM solution that will be run by an in-house
team; similarly only 22% indicate that they wish to work with a single
integrator to build their CEM solution.
Which best describes your CEM adoption strategy?
% of respondents, N=76

Work with multiple suppliers and build a CEM
49%
system in-house

Contract with a single systems integrator to
22%
construct a CEM solution

Already have one in place 20%

Outsource construction and operation of a CEM
9%
solution to a third party


Outline

 Introduction

 Key Findings

Demographics

 Analysis

 Conclusions


Demographics: Operator Type and Region

 The survey included respondents from fixed (N=25), mobile (N=5) and Converged (N=41)
operators. Converged operators are those with both mobile and fixed assets
 Due to the small sampling of mobile-only operators, survey findings related to operator type
are often presented in two categories, fixed and mobile & converged, which combines
respondents from the mobile and converged categories into a single group
Which of the following best describes your Indicate the continent in which your country
company? is located
% of respondents, N=76 % of respondents, N=76

Fixed operator North America
33% 33%

Converged
operator Europe
60% 67%

Mobile
operator
7%


Demographics: Role within Organization

 Of the 76 respondents, 23 indentified themselves as CEO or president, 14 identified
themselves as being part of the technology organization, 16 as being part of the marketing
organization, 22 as being part of the operations organization and one as being in
procurement
Which best describes your role in the Which best describes your the
organization functional area of your job
% of respondents, N=76 % of respondents, N=76

1%

Network Planning:
Procurement 30%
30% 29% Network Planning:
Operations Network Planning
Corporate Executive:
Marketing Corporate
Executive
Corporate Executive: 70%
Technology
Corporte Executive:
18% 21% CEO/President


Outline

 Introduction

 Key Findings

 Demographics

Analysis

 Conclusions


CEM is Currently Strongly Identified with Network Operations

 The selection of Operations by 75% of survey
Which business units in your organization respondents indicates that IT portion of the
does your CEM strategy involve? operator network the value of CEM is still
% of respondents, N=76 viewed widely as an operational tool

 Accordingly, the fact that less than half of all
Operations 75% respondents consider marketing organizations as
part of a CEM solution indicates a hurdle that
Billing/Charging 68% vendors need to overcome in conveying a holistic
value proposition
Customer Care 66%
 Strong association between CEM and
Network 51% Operations/IT could also explain the inclusion of
Billing/Charging and customer care by large
majorities of respondents as being part of a CEM
Marketing 47%
solution
Other 8%  Operations/IT bias notwithstanding,
approximately half of operators see Marketing as
Key Takeaway a key aspect of its CEM strategy
As reflected throughout this survey, operators still associate
customer satisfaction with service fulfilment, accurate billing and
rapid service disruption resolution. The monetization-oriented Mobile &
benefits of CEM, which are related to the operator’s network Fixed Converged
infrastructure and marketing teams, are not yet obvious to all Operators Operators
operators Selected marketing as
being an organization
involved in operator’s
CEM strategy 52% 45%


Operators Still See CEM as Providing Problem Resolution Role
 That respondents found customer care issues
Do you Agree or Disagree with following to be the most important outcome of the
statement? adoption of a CEM solution is consistent with
1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree the general findings of the survey
means/responses, N=76
 Respondents also strongly agreed with the
statement that CEM was about matching up
CEM is about the quick resolution of subscribers with the proper services at the
customer care issues or preventing them 4.21 proper time. While other portions of the
from happening
survey don’t support the view that
CEM is primarily about getting the right monetization as a high priority, the concept of
customers the right services at the right 4.17
time
CEM as matching services to customers
appears to be taking hold
CEM is about gaining knowledge on
network conditions and taking action to
resolve issues
3.84
 CEM, relative to other functions, surprisingly
was not viewed as having value as an
A major priority of CEM is to identify
your most valuable customers and cater
identifier of high-value customers
3.72
services to support those customers

Key Takeaway
Respondents envision CEM as primarily a means to help subscribers resolve or avoid service performance
issues. Operators see CEM as largely being a vehicle for making sure subscriber problems are resolved rapidly
or prevented. It also seems true that while operators see the role that CEM can play in services delivery
strategies, CEM suppliers will need to convince operators of the full value CEM can provide with respect to
targeting subscribers with attractive service options and personalization.


Constructing a CEM Solution is Not the Top Priority of Operators

Interest in the following major projects?  Construction of a comprehensive CEM solution
finished fourth, in terms of top priorities for
1=very low, 5=very high
operators, beneath reducing OpEx, optimizing OSS
mean response, N=76 and an all-IP transformation

Reducing OpEx 4.08  Even though it finished fourth in this particular
popularity test, constructing a CEM solution still
finds plenty of support, with a mean score of 3.7
Optimizing OSS 3.99
 CEM as part of a new technology introduction
received least interest despite association with high
All-IP Transformation 3.88 priority technology roll-outs like IMS and LTE

 European operators consider CEM more of a
Comprehensive CEM Solution 3.70 priority than North American operators – see below

New technology/architecture adoption 3.61

Key Takeaway North
CEM solution providers need to promote the adoption of America Europe
a CEM solution as being logically concurrent with other Mean score (1-5) when
major operator agendas, such as OSS optimization. In asked about importance
addition, CEM solution providers should stress the OpEx of constructing CEM
benefits of CEM. solution 3.32 3.88


Churn Reduction Viewed as Major Objective of CEM Solutions
What are the major objectives of CEM adoption  Given that retaining customers is fundamental to
1=least important; 5=most important operator survival, churn reduction is seen as the
Mean Response; N=76 chief objective of CEM solution adoption

Reduce churn/increase loyalty 4.18  Though “generate new revenue” scores high as a
major CEM solution objective, other findings – such
Improve trouble Call response 4.07 as identifying high value customers, using CEM as a
marketing engine, etc. – that score low indicate
Generate new revenue 4.07 that operators recognize the need to generate more
revenue, they are still struggling to fully grasp the
Identify highest value customers 4.03
particulars of the role that CEM can play in enabling
increased revenue generation
Track network and service performance 3.79

Quickly evaluate effectiveness of new  Given that operators in 2012 will intensify their
3.76
offerings struggle with OTTs for supremacy as
Differentiate services from competitors/OTT 3.72
communications service providers, the fact that
differentiation from OTT players ranked somewhat
Bring TDM predictability to IP network 3.71 low in terms of CEM solution objectives indicates a
lack of operator focus on the OTT threat
Track devices using network 3.66

Key Takeaway
The fact that operators recognize the importance of CEM as a driver of new services is encouraging. However, it
appears that they lack the understanding of the manner in which CEM can be utilized to increase revenue. This
presents a clear challenge and opportunity for vendors to do a better job of articulating the comprehensive value
that holistic CEM solutions can bring to the table.


Fixed and Converged Operators Have Different CEM Objectives

 Although the differences in the CEM objectives of fixed and converged
operators were relatively small, the two groups had significantly different
views of the importance of identifying high-value customers.
What are major objectives of CEM adoption?
1=least important; 5=most important
Mean response; Fixed: N=25, Converged N=51
4.52
4.12 4.22 4.08 4.06 4.20 4.00 3.96 4.04
3.78 3.76 3.76 3.64 3.76 3.64 3.67
3.44 3.55

Fixed
Converged

Key Takeaway
Up sell opportunities for services consumed via fixed networks (i.e., higher downlink speeds, premium TV content,
etc.) tend to be more subscription oriented than mobile services (i.e. Music downloads, ringtones, etc.). Vendors
need to emphasize the value of CEM as a tool for managing transactions to help mobile operators see
monetization benefits of CEM solutions

Organizational Challenges Seen as Biggest Adoption Obstacle
 Respondents consider overcoming organizational
Rank the following barriers to the adoption issues as being the most difficult CEM adoption
of a CEM solution barrier to hurdle
1=Low Difficulty, 5=High Difficulty
Mean Response, N=76  The fact that the top three barriers seemingly
address three different challenges – organizational
issues, cost issues, and technology issues –
Organizational challenges 3.57 indicates that there is no “silver bullet” for vendors
to use that will demonstrate the value proposition
for a comprehensive CEM solution
Cost to replace existing OSS/BSS systems 3.45

 The survey’s findings that respondents do not
Uncertain ability of CEM system to
gather real-time insights
3.43 consider the “Difficultly of correlating data” to be a
major barrier may be the result of respondents
Difficulty in correlating data from indicating elsewhere in the survey that they don’t
3.34
different sources in a timely manner consider this operation to be a major component of
CEM
Multi-vendor solutions create barriers to
3.32
implementation
 European carriers see organization issues as a
bigger barrier to adoption than North American
Low priority in relation to other upgrades 3.2 operators – see below.

Key Takeaway
Not surprisingly, operators see organizational issues as North
having the biggest impact on CEM solution adoption. America Europe
Broadly, operators tend to see CEM as related to IT and Mean score (1-5) when
operations and see difficulties in extrapolating it across asked if organizational
issues represented a
other businesses in the organization. major barrier to adoption 3.24 3.73


Service-Layer Attributes are Surprisingly Ranked Low in Priority

 Consistent with the strong association of CEM with
Most Important Components of CEM operational components of the organization,
Solution? operators consider customer care and CRM, two
1=least important, 5=most important traditional IT stalwarts, to be the most important
mean responses, n=76 pieces of a CEM solution

Customer care 4.30
 Oddly, the CEM components that primarily provide
operators with information about users, their devices
Customer relationship management 4.25 and the services they are access on the network, rank
Billing/Charging 4.17 the lowest in terms of importance to a CEM solution
OSS 4.09
 With a substantial spread between N. American and
Subscriber Data Management 4.05 Europe opinions on and analytics and DPI (see
Network Management 3.97
below), operators in N. America appear to be
dismissing two rich sources of information about
Policy Control 3.82 network activity and subscriber preferences
Service Delivery Platform (SDP) 3.79
Applications Management 3.76 North America Europe
Device management 3.74
DPI 3.00 3.76
Analytics 3.74
Analytics 3.28 3.96
Deep Packet Inspection 3.51

Key Takeaway
If the seizing of monetization opportunities defines the second evolutional wave of CEM solutions, operators
have yet to embrace that aspect of a CEM solution. Components that are most responsible for providing
personalized and targeted services, such as policy control, analytics and DPI equipment, are ranked low by
operators. Vendors need to seize the opportunity to educate their customers on these points.


Churn Prevention is Key Measurement of CEM Effectiveness
 Strangely, operators put a low priority on application
Rate the most important KPIs related to and service performance, which appears to
contradict the priority placed on churn prevention.
CEM Operators apparently see customer satisfaction more
Mean of responses, 1=very low, 5=very high as a measure of network performance that the
quality of the subscriber experience.

Customer retention 4.47  No surprise that most operators believe the most
important evidence of a CEM solution’s effectiveness
is the retention of customers.
Reduction of trouble calls 4.21
 The low ranking of the ability to gauge the
effectiveness of a new campaign reinforces findings
suggesting a low awareness for the monetization-
Ability to access the network 4.13 aspects of CEM among operators.

 Importance of campaigns and service performance
Effectiveness of new campaigns 3.96 differ by job position – see below.

Service Activation 3.96 CEO Technology Marketing Operations

Effectiveness of new
campaigns (mean) 4.13 4.0 4.38 3.5
Application/service performance 3.89
Application/service
performance (mean) 4.0 4.21 3.81 3.68

Key Takeaway
CEM solution vendors still need to educate operators on the importance of ensuring that subscribers have a
quality experience with the services and applications that run over their network. Similarly, vendors need to help
operators understand that service performance play into churn; customers will be less likely to churn if the
network is up and running and all problems are resolved in a timely manner.


Device Data Ranks Near Bottom as Source of Customer Insight

 Operators oddly selected billing related
Rate the following sources of customer information as being the most important source
insight in terms of a CEM solution of customer insight
mean of responses, 1=least important, 5=most
important, N=76  Device information is also oddly at the bottom of
the ranking, especially given the impact that the
Customer Care Data - Billing Related
flourishing of smart phones and tablets have had
4.22
on network performance.
Subscriber data 4.17
 With the exception of contextual data, nearly all
Customer Care Data - Tech Support… 4.16
other sources of customer insight are ranked
Network performance data 4.08 similarly, an indication that operators have yet to
form conclusive opinions on the relative
Service data 4.07 importance of various information types
Payment data 4.07
 The appearance of contextual data at the bottom
Service ordering and activation data 4.05 of the list is indicative of the disassociation that
Device data 3.84
operators apparently hold between CEM and
opportunities to seize on revenue-generation
Contextual data (location, etc.) 3.49 events.

Key Takeaway
The generally high ranking of all sources of information support the notion that operators are looking for a
comprehensive view of the subscriber experience. This demonstrates an opportunity for CEM solutions
vendors to educate operators the value of pre-rollout consulting engagements to demonstrate the relevance
of each information source. In doing so, vendors have an opportunity to differentiate their consulting offers.


Operators Value Automation and Timeliness over Holistic Attributes

Most important attributes of a CEM
solution?  Of eight characteristics of a CEM
Mean of responses, 1=least important, 5=most solution, operators, by a significant
important, N=76 amount, felt “automation” to be the
most important.
Automated 4.26
 Interest in Proactive resolution
Proactive 4.18 indicates an opportunity for vendors to
demonstrate the value that Analytics
Timely (i.e., real-time data) 4.09
can bring to a CEM solution
Cross organizational 4.04
 With “seamless” and “holistic” falling at
Interactive 3.96 the bottom of the importance ranking,
operators apparently understand the
Predictive 3.95 value of acting on customer data, but
Seamless (i.e., enabling correlation of
3.93
not in viewing that data in a holistic
data)
manner.
Holistic 3.86

Key Takeaway
Operators seem to have yet to fully buy into the value of some the most recent advances in CEM, which are tied to
harnessing the power of information about the user experience. However interest in attributes such as Proactive
data indicates that vendors have the opportunity to educate operators on the tangible value to key aspects such as
Analytics capabilities.


Operators Feel They Possess Most Components of CEM Solution

Does your organization possess most Which CEM components do you need to
of the components of a CEM purchase or update?
solution? % of respondents, N=76
% of respondents
CRM 58%
N=76
Customer care 43%
Billing/Charging 36%

38% OSS 33%
Network Management 33%
Analytics 32%
No SDP 29%
Yes
Applications Management 28%
62% Device management 26%
SDM 26%
Deep Packet Inspection 25%
Policy Control 20%

Key Takeaway
Presently, most operators hold the view that CEM needs to plug back into the CRM function. The low scores for DPI
and policy control are likely to be more indicative of the fact that operators don’t see these elements as being
important components of CRM. In turn, vendors need to take the opportunity to articulate the business value of
DPI, policy control, etc.


Operators View a Mix of Factors as Key CEM Cost Drivers

Product costs are the biggest expense  Overall, operators expect that the cost of the
adopting of a CEM solution will be mix of
associated with adoption of a CEM solution product, operations and services costs
% of respondents, Overall: N=76, Fixed: N=25,
Converged: N=51  Per the chart below – and as expected – it seems
clear that technology execs are much more
focused on product costs than their marketing
and operations counterparts

 Survey’s lack of procurement respondents limits
51% 47% real insight into this issue
60%
FALSE
TRUE

49% 53%
40%
Technology Marketing Operations
Products represent the
biggest CEM solution
Overall Fixed Converged
adoption experience. 86% 31% 32%

Key Takeaway
The even split in expectations between services and product expenses indicates that operators potentially
view both aspects of CEM adoption daunting. If so, then the CEM vendor mandate is to demonstrate how
adopting comprehensive CEM solutions product cost synergies that might not be so easily realized via
piecemeal introductions of CEM components over time.


Operators, Especially N. AM, View CEM Solution as In-House Project

 Nearly half of all respondents say they plan to
construct a multivendor CEM solution, managing
Which scenario best describes your CEM the project internally. This is consistent with
adoption strategy? views expressed elsewhere in the survey
% of respondents, N=76 indicating that operators in general believe they
already posses most of the components for a
CEM solution.
Work with multiple suppliers and build a
49%
CEM system in-house  The 22 percent of respondents that plan to work
with a single systems integrator represent a
sizeable opportunity for CEM solution providers
Contract with a single systems integrator
22% that are capable of overseeing a multi-vendor
to construct a CEM solution project.

Already have one in place 20% North
America Europe
In-house construction 72% 37%
Outsource construction and operation of
9% Single system integrator 20% 24%
a CEM solution to a third party
Already have CEM 8% 25%
Outsource to 3rd party 0% 14%

Key Takeaway
These finding indicate that while many of the largest vendors are pitching the value of “end-to-end” CEM
capabilities, the reality is that half of operators will be looking to use multiple partners. For smaller vendors, this
means ensuring to articulate the interoperability of their solutions. For larger vendors, articulating their SI
capabilities will be key to demonstrating the value they can serve in a prime integrator role.


CEM Adoption Will be Spread Out Over the Next Few Years

 44% of respondents project adoption of a CEM
solution in 2012 or 2013
Timing of adoption of CEM solution?
% of respondents, Overall: N=61, Fixed: N=22,  A majority of respondents either don’t know when
Converged: N=39 they will adopt a CEM solution or believe adoption is
at least three years away
11%  Fixed operators are more aggressive timing wise in
the adoption of a CEM solution
26%

 All respondents interviewed for this survey indicated
that they have plans to adopt a CEM solution.
This Year Therefore, respondents who answered “don’t know”
Next Year are deliberating over timing, and not whether to
33% adopt a CEM solution.
3+ Years
Don’t Know

30%

North America Europe

This year/Next year 39% 48%

3+ years/Don’t know 61% 52%

Key Takeaway
CEM represents both a near term (i.e. 44% of operators expect to invest this year or next year), and a
longer term opportunity. As such, vendors need to be sure to speak to near term needs in places that
will be investing this year (i.e. Europe), and continuing to educate operators in markets (i.e. N. AM)
where operator plans are less concrete.


HP and IBM clear favorites as CEM solution providers

Perception of following vendors as CEM solution providers?
1=very negative, 5=very positive, mean of respondents, N=76

HP 3.87

IBM 3.70

Nokia Siemens Networks 3.53

Ericsson 3.38

Alcatel-Lucent 3.22

Huawei 3.04

Openet 2.89

ZTE 2.72
 Vendor roster is made up of
Tekelec 2.62 equipment and software providers
that claim to offer a CEM solution
Netcracker 2.57

Amdocs 2.49

Key Takeaway
Participants in this survey clearly see companies with the best known system integration expertise as the
primary suppliers of CEM solutions. However, Network equipment makers that have demonstrated their
own SI capabilities follow fairly closely. Smaller players, best known for products rather than broad SI skills,
such as NEC/Netcracker and Amdocs, fall at the bottom of the ranking.

NSN’s very positive ranking puts it in class with IBM and HP

Which vendors do you hold a very positive  In the survey, operators were asked to rank
vendors on a scale of 1-5, with 5 equalling a very
perspective as CEM solution providers? positive opinion of the vendor.
% of respondents, N=76
 When only very positive responses are
HP 26% considered, NSN attracted the highest
Nokia Siemens Networks 26%
percentage of responders, tying it with HP for
leadership.
IBM 25%

Ericsson 14%  Zero respondents said they had a very negative
perception of HP, while only one respondent gave
Alcatel-Lucent 9%
IBM a very negative perception rating.
Huawei 7%
 When viewed from a regional standpoint, vendor
Openet 5%
perception varied very little between North
ZTE 5% American and European operators.
Netcracker 3%

Tekelec 3%

Amdocs 1%

Key Takeaway
NSN currently enjoys some perception advantages over its immediate rivals in the burgeoning CEM solution market.
NSN’s early championing of CEM, as early as a year ahead of rivals, is likely responsible for the company’s positive
recognition among operators. This point is reinforced when viewing the substantial difference between NSN and
Ericsson. As such, Ericsson, Alcatel-Lucent and Huawei should view NSN’s overt focus on CEM as a substantial threat.


Outline

 Introduction

 Key Findings

 Demographics

 Analysis

Conclusions


Conclusions – Overall Theme

 Network operators, by and large, still exhibit some confusion
with respect to crafting their CEM adoption strategies
 Many operators see organization issues as the primary obstacle to CEM
adoption
• This, despite the fact that more than half of the organizations surveyed indicated that
they have a single person in charge of CEM strategy
 Many operators feel that proactive identification of issues is an
important role in CEM, but that a holistic CEM system is less of a
priority
• This, despite the fact that a holistic, cross-organizational CEM system would better
enable proactive identification of all issues that could impact customer experience
 Many operators cite “getting the right services to the right customers”
as key priority, yet they value service-layer tools – such as DPI, device
management, etc. – low relative to other CEM attributes
 Taken as a whole, CEM vendors are being challenged to
better educate operators about how effectively
implemented CEM solutions can mitigate some of these
conflicts

Conclusions – Major Findings

 Operators still heavily associate CEM with operations & care
 Vendor positioning of CEM is that of clearly entering a phase in its development that extends
customer satisfaction beyond traditional measurements, such as adequate service quality, network
availability and the quick resolution of deterioration of either quality or availability.
 Vendors now claim CEM is now equally concerned with more anticipatory issues, such as
supplying the subscriber with customized service plans or personalized offerings based on context,
such as the device he/she is currently using or the location of the subscriber.
 This latest phase in the evolution of CEM, which can be accurately described as assisting operators
in further monetizing their networks and differentiating their offerings from OTT provides, is
clearly not fully conceptualized by a large percentage of the respondents of this survey.

 Operators need to be shown that correlation of customer insight is a
crucial component of an effective CEM solution
 Survey findings that rank “holistic” and “information correlation” as the least important attributes
of a CEM solution indicate that operators have yet to seize on the importance of fully leveraging
the information about subscribers that is readily accessible on their networks.
 Perhaps owing to an operations bias cited above, respondents in this survey see limited value in
acquiring and analysing user-oriented information, such as device information or application
usage.
 For CEM to develop into an operator discipline that represents a significant revenue opportunity
for CEM solution suppliers, operators will need to be better educated on how to harness and utilize
this vital information.


Conclusions – CEM Preferences & Deployment Drivers

 Operators are aware of and addressing organizational challenges associated with
CEM adoption
 Survey respondents cited organization issues as big obstacle to adoption
 Nearly half of operators surveyed report that CEM oversight has been assigned to an individual
 Operational issues, such as customer care, are widely viewed as a chief objective of
a CEM solution
 Marketing –related benefits, such as the evaluation of new campaigns, did not rate high
 Operators surveyed identified service personalization as an important CEM objective
but failed to place a high value on components that are normally associated with
enabling operators to deliver personalized services
 Policy control, DPI and analytics fell at the bottom of a ranking of the most important CEM solution
components
 Mobile and converged operators have been more aggressive in adoption of CEM
solutions than fixed-only counterparts
 Only 36% of fixed have placed CEM oversight with a single entity, compared to 51% for converged
 About half of fixed operators believe they have the pieces of a CEM solution, compared to 67% converged
 Operators overwhelmingly plan to oversee the construction of a CEM solution
through the selection of products and services from multiple suppliers


Conclusions – CEM Preferences & Deployment Drivers

 Construction of a comprehensive CEM solution finished fourth, in terms of the
priority place on major operator initiatives
 Finished behind reducing OpEx, optimizing OSS and all-IP transformation
 Operators do not currently view network infrastructure or marketing organizations
as being critical components of a CEM strategy
 Operations, billing/charging and customer care get top ranking
 Less than half of all respondents indentified marketing as strategic to CEM
 Respondents envision CEM as primarily a means to help subscribers resolve or avoid
service performance issues
 Large majority agree with statement that CEM is primarily about problem prevention or resolution
 Operators consider customer care and CRM, two traditional IT stalwarts, to be the
most important pieces of a CEM solution
 Analytics and deep packet inspection fined at the bottom of the importance ranking
 Device data ranks near bottom as source of customer insight
 Customer care information and subscriber data were viewed as most important
 Operators value automation and timeliness over holistic attributes
 Operators view CEM solutions as equal mix of products and services


Conclusions – Timing and Vendor Perception

 A majority of respondents either don’t know when they will adopt a CEM solution or
believe adoption is at least three years away
 44% of respondents project adoption of a CEM solution in 2012 or 2013
 Fixed operators are surprising more aggressive timing wise in the adoption of a CEM solution
 Participants in this survey clearly see companies with deep system integration
expertise as the primary suppliers of CEM solutions
 HP and IBM score highest perception rating among potential CEM solution providers
 IT specialists, Amdocs and Netcracker, are at bottom of perception rating
 NSN currently enjoys some perception advantages over its immediate rivals in the
burgeoning CEM solution market
 Finished second behind HP in the percentage of respondents that gave it the highest perception score
 Of the 76 respondents surveyed, nearly half mentioned HP as an equipment vendor
he/she would consider in the purchase of some or part of a CEM solution
 That percentage increases to 65% when only the answers of CEOs completing the survey are considered


Thank you

Name: Jason Marcheck
Title: Director, Custom Research
Email: jmarcheck@currentanalysis.com
Website: www.currentanalysis.com


Current analysis cem survey - feb 2012 - final

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Current analysis cem survey - feb 2012 - final

Ähnlich wie Current analysis cem survey - feb 2012 - final (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Current analysis cem survey - feb 2012 - final