Why Some Telecom Expense Management Initiatives Fail and Others Succeed

The value of successful telecom expense management (TEM) is so great, most people in the industry don’t bother – or don’t want – to talk about TEM failures. But like any other enterprise management system, a TEM solution poorly conceived or executed can fail. This doesn’t cast any doubt on the value of TEM done right – but rather offers instructive guidance in avoiding the consequences of TEM done wrong.

So what can derail a TEM initiative? Here are some of the usual suspects:

Broken promises – Broken promises damage relationships, and not only in the pages of romance novels. A TEM vendor may set expectations based on a best-case outcome, but many variables influence the actual savings that can be achieved by the solution. For example, the state of the client’s telecom environment and existing degree of optimization will affect the improvements that can be realized. Implementation might take longer than promised due to changing requirements, technology integration snafus, or weak executive sponsorship. Other factors – in license and SaaS deployments – include the ability of the client to meet the resource demands of managing the system.

Misalignment with business requirements – A TEM solution will fail if it is not precisely aligned with the customer’s needs and business processes. Can the software handle your GL coding and cost allocation requirements? It might – but only if the invoice data is granular enough, and the software mapping capability is adequate. Limited workflow support can also cause TEM failures. The workflow capabilities of some TEM applications may not be flexible enough to accommodate your particular needs. TEM providers who know what they’re doing will always perform an inventory/audit/discovery process in order to thoroughly understand the customer’s business and TEM needs before designing a solution.

Lack of buy-in – A TEM initiative has many stakeholders, and buy-in from all is crucial for its success. The people who will use the system on a day-to-day basis must actively participate in developing requirements, testing the solution, and ultimately, embracing the solution. At the executive level, buy-in helps marshal enterprise resources behind the TEM initiative and adoption across the organization. Executive stakeholders are also in a position to see the “big picture” – the potential for the solution to address telecom issues beyond the single pain point that may have triggered the TEM initiative in the first place. A TEM solution that doesn’t address the needs of all stakeholders is more likely to fail.

Partial TEM solution / lack of integration – TEM solutions that are designed to solve one problem might be very effective in the short term, but they fail to deliver long term value. To deliver sustained ROI, year after year, a TEM solution must address the full telecom expense lifecycle. Only a comprehensive solution – covering sourcing and contracts, usage and inventory management, invoice and dispute management, MACD workflow, integration with AP and other systems – can drive out costs on an ongoing basis. One-time audits and partial TEM solutions fail to generate the ongoing savings that a complete and integrated solution is capable of providing.

In every enterprise solution, some degree of risk is unavoidable. But if you understand why some TEM projects fail, you are in a far better position to make sure that yours will succeed.

Want to learn more about why some TEM initiatives succeed and others don’t? Click here to view a recording of our recent Webcast, which explains the “magic formula” for a TEM solution that successfully delivers visibility, control, and savings.

Veramark Technologies is a leading provider of telecom expense management and Call Accounting Solutions.

Comments

[Stan Holloway]

I have been involved with "telecom expense management" for some 20+ years for two fortune 500 companies — well before the advent of TEM. This webinar is most intriguing because it relates to the issues most TEM providers won't admit exist, potential failure or at least less than satisfactory results.