Frameworx

Optimizing Lead to Cash with Frameworx to ITIL Integration: Catalyst Approved for MW Dublin

JoannO — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:24:16 GMT

Hello all,

I wish to let you know that the catalyst, Optimizing Lead to Cash with Frameworx to ITIL Integration has been approved for MW Dublin 2012.

John Wilmes of Progress Software has kindly agreed to lead this work. I have attached the slides that John has created, to help scope out this catalyst. The participants so far are listed here, and some additional participants are required in the following area’s. Meetings for this catalyst will kick off on the week of Jan 9^th, and this team will meet at TM Forum Action Week in Madrid, on Friday Jan 27^th, from 11:00am to 3:00pm.

The following types of additional participants also sought:

- 1 or more IT vendor

- 1 or more NE/EMS or NMS vendor

- 1 or more B/OSS vendor

Participants:

Orange France Telecom

Reliance Communications

Progress Software

Huawei

Tribold

If you are interested to participate please let me know, jobrien@tmforum.org

Regards,

Joann

Optimizing Lead to Cash with Frameworx to ITIL Integration: Catalyst Approved for MW Dublin

JoannO — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:22:16 GMT

Hello all,

I wish to let you know that the catalyst, Optimizing Lead to Cash with Frameworx to ITIL Integration has been approved for MW Dublin 2012.

The following types of additional participants also sought:

- 1 or more IT vendor

- 1 or more NE/EMS or NMS vendor

- 1 or more B/OSS vendor

Participants:

Orange France Telecom

Reliance Communications

Progress Software

Huawei

Tribold

If you are interested to participate please let me know, jobrien@tmforum.org

Regards,

Joann

RE: [Frameworx] TOGAF Version 9.1 has been published today [#171002]

KlausH1 — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:06:55 GMT

Hi all,

This is an interesting discussion going on here.

Reading through the conversation I guess there is a fundamental problem, which is the related to the differentiation of “Meta-Model” provided by TOGAF and “Content” of this metamodel, which is frameworx and other industry standards such as SCOR.

E.g. we will find eTOM activities, ITIL activities etc. as instantiations of the meta-entity function or process. We will find SID objects as “tuples” in the TOGAF data entities tables. Business Services in TOGAF will contain e.g. OSS/J APIs. Application components will most probably implement TAM.

I think that the differentiation is quite powerful, as it allows decoupling the architecture framework from the actual architecture.

What do you think?

Cheers!

Klaus

From: Frameworx [mailto:frameworx@community.tmforum.org] On Behalf Of Danny Weinberger
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 3:07 PM
To: Hagenlocher, Klaus-Juergen
Subject: [Frameworx] TOGAF Version 9.1 has been published today [#171002]

Danny Weinberger , Enterprise Architect , Architecting-the-Enterprise

Hi All,

I hear you and I think I know where you are coming from. In Frameworx eTOM and SID are very much related to each other. When developing a business architecture using eTOM/SID you also consider SID and the associated data entities.
In TOGAF, Business Architecture in the Content Metamodel only focuses on the business perspective, which means, Business products, strategy, people involved, processes, roles/actors but not about Data. Data is part of the Data Architecture and is derived from the business/application architecture.

Hope it helps.

Danny

Frameworx
Topics:General, tognm

Shared In:2 Communities

Shared In:Business Process Framework (eTOM) : General
Frameworx Architecture Solutions Team (FAST) : Enterprise Architecture, fa, General, TOGAF, TOGAF 9, TOGAF 9.1

View thread online

Please note, this discussion thread is shared across communities. Any replies that you make to this discussion thread, will be posted to all of the communities and topics listed above.

/o:p>

Full thread available online here: http://www.tmforum.org/community/groups/frameworx/forum/p/171002/196372.aspx?utm_campaign=community&utm_medium=frameworx&utm_source=alert#196372

This message was sent to klaus-juergen.hagenlocher@hp.com and follows the subscription preferences of your membership of the Frameworx TM Forum Online Community.

To unsubscribe immediately, please click here and click "Edit Collaboration Community Notifications". You will be prompted to log in if you are not logged in already. To cut down on email volume, you may also choose to receive your discussion notifications via a daily or weekly digest email as opposed to immediate separate emails.

TM Forum, 240 Headquarters Plaza, East Tower, 10th Floor, Morristown, NJ 07960-6628, USA. Call +1 973 944 5100. info@tmforum.org

Call for Participants: MW Dublin Catalyst, Optimizing Lead to Cash with Frameworx to ITIL Integration

JoannO — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 14:41:03 GMT

As a follow on from the successful Frameworx / ITIL catalyst focused on Assurance at MW Orlando, the team have scoped a new catalyst for MW Dublin with direction and input from sponsors Orange-FT. This catalyst is titled: Optimizing Lead to Cash with Frameworx to ITIL Integration.

This catalyst will focus on implementing end-to-end fulfillment processes in the context of Lead-to-Cash, with detailed visibility from a combined Business Process Framework-ITIL perspective.

Current Participants are:

Sponsors: Orange-FT

Participants: Progress Software, Huawei and Tribold.

This catalyst is seeking additional participants in the following spaces:

Additional Service Provider Sponsors, as well as:

One or more managed services / outsourced network operations vendors

– NE, EMS, NMS, resource provisioning, some service provisioning, supplier/partner requisition

One or more B/OSS vendors (could also be in previous categories)

– CRM, order management, service activation, inventory, workforce management

One or more “ITIL vendors”

– ITIL configuration and change management applications and ITIL CMS (CMDB)

I have attached the Use Case for the catalyst, provided by John Wilmes of Progress Software. If you are interested in getting involved in this catalyst please contact me directly: jobrien@tmforum.org

Note, it is expected that catalyst participants will attend the face to face meeting for this catalyst to be held at TM Forum Action Week Madrid Jan 2012. The meetings for this catalyst are currently scheduled for Friday January 27th from 11:00am to 3:00pm.

Kind regards,

Joann O’Brien

Seeking Tool Vendors for New Project

JoannO — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:18:46 GMT

Hi all,

In response to Service Provider requests, TM Forum is launching a project to create a process for Enterprise Architecture Tool vendors to use when they are including Frameworx or its elements in their products.

As a result, we are seeking a small group of selected tool vendors to participate in this 6 month project that will kick off in December 2011 and will hold a face to face meeting at TM Forum Action Week, Madrid in January 2012.

The goals of the team will be:

To create a definition of what it means for a tool to be Frameworx-based so that service providers and other users will have confidence that their solutions will align with Frameworx
To better enable development of Frameworx-based Enterprise Architecture Tools by the vendor community
To develop and document a streamlined, repeatable and sustainable process for tool vendors to use when they are including Frameworx in their products

If you are a tool vendor and position your product as a tool to aid the adoption of Frameworx, participation in this project will help you to demonstrate to your customers that your product is aligned with Frameworx resulting in increased customer satisfaction.

If you are interested in participating in this effort please contact me directly, jobrien@tmforum.org

Kind Regards,

Joann

Appreciation for member support in driving forward Frameworx standards and best practices

CliveDeakin — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:54:52 GMT

The current TM Forum Strategic Plan introduced the concept of taking a more disciplined product and project management approach to driving forward the TM Forum Frameworx standards. This led to the creation of a structure and processes to deliver twice yearly releases of Frameworx, with release dates and a gate process which gives us significant visibility into what is planned for each release.

Frameworx 11.5 sees the second release of the highly successful Frameworx standard within the 2011/12 Forum operating year. This release is the first to align to the newly introduced release gate process, and it contains several very substantial technical deliverables which will be of significant benefit to all Forum members.

The Technical Strategy Sub-committee (TSS) recognises the on-going commitment and investment of Forum member companies driving forward the expansion and continued development of Forum standards. We would like to take this opportunity thank those participating member companies who have delivered the content for the very impressive Frameworx 11.5 release, and for their tremendous support in working to and meeting the newly introduced Frameworx release structure.

The continued expansion of the Frameworx standard is even more crucial today to enable the membership to innovate, reduce costs, improve customer experience and maintain market share, and the TSS looks forward to the continued support from Forum member companies as we work together to deliver the right solutions at the right time to meet the demands of our rapidly changing marketplace.

Please accept my thanks on behalf of the Technical Strategy Sub-committee. We look forward to engaging with you all to produce a similarly successful Frameworx 12 release!

Kind regards

Karl Wilhelm Siebert

Chair – Technical Strategy Sub Committee

RE: RE: UDEF and TM Forum

JohannesMinnaar — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:53:25 GMT

Thanks John,
I and and a few others learned something new there.

There is a difference to community home searches and main index :

- Searching http://www.tmforum.org/Community/ delivers different results than
- Searching http://www.tmforum.org/

J

RE: [Frameworx] RE: UDEF and TM Forum [#170727]

KennethD — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:38:25 GMT

Johannes,

You raise some interesting points about UDEF and APQC and there seems to be benefit to proceed with the work.

May I point you to a couple of recent examples from the Defense community of how to successfully proceed? The Defense community determined it would be good for the Information Framework to have a better model for Network Defense and improvements in the Policy area. The Defense community made a couple of very substantial contributions towards the work, and then engaged with the Information Framework team to incorporate the contributions into the Framework. In fact the Policy (PIE) team is continuing to work towards delivery of an interface.

So if you, as a member feel there is interesting work to be done with UDEF and APQC I would point you to the defense community’s examples and successes.

Regards,

Ken Dilbeck

From: Frameworx [mailto:frameworx@community.tmforum.org] On Behalf Of Johannes Minnaar
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 8:29 AM
To: Kenneth Dilbeck
Subject: RE: [Frameworx] RE: UDEF and TM Forum [#170727]

Johannes Minnaar , Business Analyst , Ericsson

Frameworx
Topics:General

View thread online

Full thread available online here: http://www.tmforum.org/community/groups/frameworx/forum/p/170727/194956.aspx?utm_campaign=community&utm_medium=frameworx&utm_source=alert#194956

This message was sent to kdilbeck@tmforum.org and follows the subscription preferences of your membership of the Frameworx TM Forum Online Community.

To unsubscribe immediately, please click here and click the 'Edit Subscriptions' button from the Email Subscription preferences section located on the right hand side of the page just underneath the menu bar. To cut down on email volume, you may also choose to receive your discussion notifications via a daily or weekly digest email as opposed to immediate separate emails.

TM Forum, 240 Headquarters Plaza, East Tower, 10th Floor, Morristown, NJ 07960-6628, USA. Call +1 973 944 5100. info@tmforum.org

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

RE: [Frameworx] RE: UDEF and TM Forum [#170727]

DaveM27 — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:13:06 GMT

We did look at APQC around eTOM v2 (2003-4) and at that time it was just a set of categories with no text and that was the situation for quite a bit of time. The rest is history as they say.

Dave

Dave Milham

Chief Architect

t +44 5601 855561 m +44 7802 902451
e dmilham@tmforum.org

From: Frameworx [mailto:frameworx@community.tmforum.org] On Behalf Of John Reilly
Sent: 01 November 2011 15:17
To: Dave Milham
Subject: RE: [Frameworx] RE: UDEF and TM Forum [#170727]

John Reilly , Senior Program Manager , TM Forum

There is a reference to APQC for the processes, Johannes. If you think that I should add more regarding copyright, I can do this. Just let me know. I would like to point out that APQC seems to borrow heavily from the eTOM, but there is no reference to TM Forum and eTOM in their work!

Frameworx
Topics:General

View thread online

/o:p>

Full thread available online here: http://www.tmforum.org/community/groups/frameworx/forum/p/170727/194970.aspx?utm_campaign=community&utm_medium=frameworx&utm_source=alert#194970

This message was sent to dmilham@tmforum.org and follows the subscription preferences of your membership of the Frameworx TM Forum Online Community.

RE: RE: UDEF and TM Forum

JohnR6 — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:13:46 GMT

RE: RE: UDEF and TM Forum

JohannesMinnaar — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:57:55 GMT

Hi John R,
mmm. This document actually proofs a sad point - there is no clear reference to the APQC intellectual property - where and how much, or at least referencing them in the bibliography of the document.

Johannes

RE: RE: UDEF and TM Forum

JohnR6 — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:57:35 GMT

Howdy, Johannes...if you go to the TM Forum home page and do a search it includes not only what is posted to the home site, but also the communities.

RE: UDEF and TM Forum

JohannesMinnaar — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:44:49 GMT

Hi John W,

sure, here is one reference, as requested. Link. Here is another link. Since UDEF have close correlance with SID, you can search the SID community. Unfortunately there is no overall search facility in TM Forum that I know of. (by definition you have to know where to get a hit before performing the search ;)

Of course APQC and UDEF have their own IPR, like TOGAF, ITIL, 3GPP etc. Nonetheless, we could reuse the work from outside the community, as long as it is clearly referenced. This could avoid that some might interpret this fact as having to redo it in TMF.

RE: RE: UDEF and TM Forum

JohnR6 — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:40:32 GMT

Howdy, Johannes and Danny. I am familiar with the APQC telecom process model, which does have a number of processes that are quite similar to those in the eTOM. In fact, a number of us put together a contribution that contains candidate eTOM processes that includes some of the APQC work. Here is a link to the contribution...
http://www.tmforum.org/Community/groups/the_business_process_framework/contributions.aspx?id=artf2385

RE: UDEF and TM Forum

JohannesMinnaar — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:25:39 GMT

Hallo Arnold, Denny, all,

yes, I agree. I think it makes really sense to align UDEF and APQC with Frameworxx of TMForum.
UDEF does provide a structured vocabulary to provide semantic links for information classes. Although UDEF does not (yet) have the all the telecommunication information objects at all levels, it certainly provides substantial value w.r.t the SID i.t.o.hierarchy, relation and clear convention. Also APQC could provide good guidance to BPF (eTOM) and Benchmarking.

There are, however, some challenges. Both APQC and UDEF have been proposed in the past in TM Forum - and have met with resistance by certain key individuals. Simply search the forum for UDEF or APQC, and check the responses. Hopefully, we could overcome this temporal setback when enough momentum is reached in the community itself.

Regards,
Johannes Minnaar

[collapse]-----Original Message-----
From: Overeem, Arnold van [mailto:arnold.van.overeem@capgemini.com]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 9:35 AM
To: Danny Weinberger
Cc: udef@opengroup.org; Frameworx; Ron Schuldt
Subject: RE: UDEF and TM Forum

Hi Danny,

I have been working on this topic for some time about 18 months ago, but the guy with which I was working left his company, and the work is stalled since. I am also member of TMforum, and would be interested to connect to the right people there to bring this forward, however limited in available spare time.

Vriendelijke groet / Regards / Gruß / С уважением / Terveisin / εγκάρδια / Saludos

Arnold van Overeem
Global Architect
Tel: (+31) (0) 6 54 774715 Grip 91073 (weblog)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Weinberger [mailto:danny.weinberger@architecting-the-
> enterprise.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 8:54 AM
> To: Ron Schuldt; udef@opengroup.org
> Cc: Overeem, Arnold van
> Subject: UDEF and TM Forum
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> Hope you are fine.
>
> I am involved in the TM Forum developing the metamodel and other documents
> being part of the Frameworx Architecture Steering Team. At a last regular
> telecon, they also talked about a so-called "Federated Model". This is about
> the Federated Information Model, Federated Network Information Model, etc. I
> have sent them the link to UDEF and they said that this is relevant for them
> talking to you.
>
> I will forward your contact to them, copying you and you then can talk to each
> other. After a specific point, we also might involve Andrew if necessary - but
> we can decide it later.
>
> What do you think about it?
>
> Kind Regards
> Danny
>
>[/collapse]

RE: UDEF and TM Forum

Arnoldv — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:41:25 GMT

Hi Danny,

I have been working on this topic for some time about 18 months ago, but the guy with which I was working left his company, and the work is stalled since. I am also member of TMforum, and would be interested to connect to the right people there to bring this forward, however limited in available spare time.

Vriendelijke groet / Regards / Gruß / С уважением / Terveisin / εγκάρδια / Saludos

Arnold van Overeem
Global Architect
Tel: (+31) (0) 6 54 774715 Grip 91073 (weblog)

> [collapse]-----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Weinberger [mailto:danny.weinberger@architecting-the-
> enterprise.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 8:54 AM
> To: Ron Schuldt; udef@opengroup.org
> Cc: Overeem, Arnold van
> Subject: UDEF and TM Forum
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> Hope you are fine.
>
> I am involved in the TM Forum developing the metamodel and other documents
> being part of the Frameworx Architecture Steering Team. At a last regular
> telecon, they also talked about a so-called "Federated Model". This is about
> the Federated Information Model, Federated Network Information Model, etc. I
> have sent them the link to UDEF and they said that this is relevant for them
> talking to you.
>
> I will forward your contact to them, copying you and you then can talk to each
> other. After a specific point, we also might involve Andrew if necessary - but
> we can decide it later.
>
> What do you think about it?
>
> Kind Regards
> Danny
>
>[/collapse]

RE: eTOM - based end-to-end Journeys (for service providers_

KalilurR1 — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:13:35 GMT

Thanks for the reply John. Appreciate it.

RE: eTOM - based end-to-end Journeys (for service providers_

KalilurR1 — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:13:33 GMT

Thanks for the reply John. Appreciate it.

RE: [Frameworx] Generic version of Lead to Cash (L2C) QSP [#170474]

VinayD — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 05:08:15 GMT

Hi John,

When you say generic do you mean one which is used in all the different scenarios ( intersection of requirements ) or do you mean one which tries to fulfill requirements of different scenarios ( union of intersections)?

Another point is the definition what is being sold and is used to generate cash ? Is it the product ( set of services) ? the Service type ( multiple instances of services ) ? the instance of service ? or combination of all ?

With Best Regards

Vinay

From: Frameworx [mailto:frameworx@community.tmforum.org] On Behalf Of John Wilmes
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 11:08 PM
To: Vinay Stephen Devadatta (WT01 - GMT-Telecom Equipment)
Subject: [Frameworx] Generic version of Lead to Cash (L2C) QSP [#170474]

John Wilmes , Chief Technical Architect, Communications Sector , Progress Software

I am working on a generic Lead to Cash QSP using the Request-to-Answer, Order-to-Payment and Production Order-to-Acceptance processes in GB921-E as a starting point.

The eTOM scope is a subset of the following eTOM level 2 processes:

• Customer Interface Management

• Selling

• Marketing Fulfillment & Response

• Order Handling

• Service Configuration & Activation

• Resource Provisioning

• Supplier/Partner Requisition Management

The ITIL scope is a subset of the following ITIL processes within Service Transition and Service Operation:

• Request Fulfillment

• Change Management

• Service Asset & Configuration Management

• Release & Deployment Management

The design constraint is to use only existing eTOM level 3 and level 4 process elements, except where ITIL activities are referenced, in which cases new eTOM level 4 process elements are proposed.

That constraint leaves any current mappings between eTOM process elements and SID entities, TAM capabilities, and business services in their existing documentation, outside the QSP.

The QSP outputs are:

• A set of approximately 25-30 level 4 BPMN process flows

• A synthesis of the existing GB921-E level 3 process flows.

Regards

John

Frameworx
Topics:General, tognm

Shared In:12 Communities

Shared In:Information Framework (SID) : General
Business Process Framework (eTOM) : General
Concept to market: Best Practices for smarter product delivery (C2MBP) : General
Catalyst Program - Our Innovation Accelerator : General
Application Framework (TAM) : General
Revenue Management Initiative : General
TM Forum Integration Program (TIP) : General
Frameworx Architecture Sub Team (FAST) : General
Cloud Services Initiative : General
Energy Smart Grid : general
Charging and Billing : general
Cloud/Frameworx QSP : Business Process Framework, Cloud, Frameworx, general, Lead-to-Cash

/o:p>

Full thread available online here: http://www.tmforum.org/community/groups/frameworx/forum/p/170474/194195.aspx?utm_campaign=community&utm_medium=frameworx&utm_source=alert#194195

This message was sent to vinay.devadatta@wipro.com and follows the subscription preferences of your membership of the Frameworx TM Forum Online Community.

Please do not print this email unless it is absolutely necessary.

The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.

WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted via email. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

www.wipro.com

RE: eTOM - based end-to-end Journeys (for service providers_

JohnW — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:21:26 GMT

You might also want to look at the customer-facing sections of GB921-E which contains detailed process descriptions at level 3.

Regards

John