I planned to find some interesting statistics about RA on the web for the year 2008. Unfortunately I didn’t find anything that is solid. However, going through the web trying to find the desirable data, reminded me that there are few  basic rules to be followed when conducting a research and investigation that of course apply when it comes to RA.
 

I wish you all great 2009, I hope you will enjoy this short anecdote, and remember to use it to recall the basics.

The TMF published in the Appendix A of TR131 v2, the number of pages found by search engines (aka hits), for several RA related terms, such as “Revenue Assurance” AND provisioning  in year 2004 (using yahoo) and in 2007 (using Google).I thought it would be interesting to repeat the test, using Google.

The first result that I obtained was quite surprising; in December 2007 according to TR131, “Revenue Assurance” generated 518,000 hits. Surprisingly enough in December 2008 it generated only 323,000 hits. I believed that the difference in the figures does not mean that people lost their interest in RA.

My assumption was that the reason for the gap in the figures is due to some change in the way Google is calculating hits. However, I was not able (using Google) to find any justification, or contradiction to my assumption It was clear to me that I should not rely on the number of hits to analyze changes from previous years.

Therefore I decided to look at another parameter -  the change over the years in the ratio between the number of hits of “Revenue Assurance” together with some terms  like provisioning or mediation or leading to the number of hits of “Revenue Assurance” alone.

Looking at this yield some interesting results: the number of hits including both terms “Revenue Assurance”  and “leading” was 319,000; the number of  hits of “Revenue Assurance”  together with “rating” was 319,000. The coincidence in the numbers was a bit surprising so I googled to see the number of hits pages that include the 3 terms “Revenue Assurance”   and “leading” and  “rating“. Surprise, surprise  319,000.  Now I was puzzled, it did not make sense that in ~99% of the pages in which “Revenue Assurance”  appears, also “leading” and  “rating” appeared.

I went one step further checking how many hits I get for pages in which “Revenue Assurance” appears  but “rating” does not appear and the result was 274,000. Combining the number of “Revenue Assurance”  and “rating” (319,000.) + the Number of Revenue Assurance”  and not “rating”  (274,000)= should give me the total number of  hits with “Revenue Assurance ” (323,000) Clearly enough I proved beyond any doubt that  319,000 + 274,000 = 323,000 J. Now seriously, Google number of hits is only estimation ( ref1), however, the estimation, at least in our case, wasn’t good enough to do any significant deduction. 

It was time to give a chance to other search engines;

I proved there some new mathematical theorems

MSN:  43,100,000 = 46.600 + 42,100,000
Asks:  114,200 = 57,600 + 105,800
Yahoo 2,470,000 = 495,000 + 2,250,000  Clearly I could not use these numbers to yield any significant conclusion regarding RA. Well my short investigation reminded me of some really basics rules that we all tend to forget from time to time. Always have them in mind they can be the difference between doing an outstanding job and making a fool of yourself. 

1.     Always distinguish between facts, calculations, and estimations
2.     Do not trust numbers always double check them, and always apply sanity checks
3.     Coincidences exist, but many times they are not coincidences
4.     The real meaning of a number is not necessarily what you want it to mean
5.     Information even if it come from serious sources can be completely incorrect
6.     It is better to admit that you cannot deduce something, than to deduce something without solid foundation

Have a great 2009, and if I may quote Monty Python, in today’s situation remember to always look at the bright side of lifeGadi