I have a problem with the way the eTOM hierarchy is established

If one look at Process decomposition the top of the hierarchy at Company level should be the CEO 'function' below we should see the main functions/processes and carry on decomposing..

I do agree that eTOM does not cover the entirity of the company but still cover at least 3 of the main functions (Strategy, Operation, Enterprise Management) and whitin each there are a set of sub processes.

When You have to implement the eTOM structure it forces you to start at what they call level 1 which in fact should be a level 2 and the result is a warped hierarchy where what you have in the company is out of step/level with eTOM.

My suggestion would be that level 0 be the main function using the eTOM structure having as sub functions the 3 'pillars' of eTOM (level 1) Strategy, Operation, and Enterprise management then go to the current level 1 (in fact level 2) this would in my view rationalize the the structure and align it with general process hierarchy rukles.

 

Hi,

When any company adopted eTOM framework, how to get certification for company that is certified in eTOM process.

 

thanks in advance

 

Sivaram

George

The ITU-T Acceptance of TM Forum Information Framework should speak volumes on its own.

ITU-T Recommendation M.3190 will serve as an introduction to the Information Framework “Analysis Model,” which will cover all of the information required to implement use cases based on the TM Forum Business Process Framework (eTOM)

Secondly - you say "at Company level"
The eTOM is NOT at company level, nor technology specific.
You have to contextualize the level of abstraction you are looking at in the eTOM.

Your suggestion omits the the most important end-to-end level 1 vertical FAB.

Lastly - the eTOM doesnt force you to do anything - it is meant to be a good reference.