This document takes a holistic & non-commercial view on some of the available Information Model offerings in tele-communications industry from Traditional Business Intelligence perspective and in context with the Tele Management Forums Information Architecture; SID (Shared Information Data Model, currently known as the Information Framework). This document does not serve as a business use case or a promotional use case for any particular offering. This is rather a knowledge artifact which provides some insight on the currently available solutions. The target audience of this document is the Information management team(s) for various Telecom Operators who deal with the information management solutions and information architectures for telecom service providers.

1. Sayak Majumder
Abhijit Dutta
A Short Study on Telecom Information
Models & Offerings
A r t i f a c t G e n r e : K n o w l e d g e
P a p e r
I n d u s t r y : T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s
D o m a i n : I n f o r m a t i o n M g m t .
S o u r c e : I n d e p e n d e n t S t u d y
This document takes a holistic & non-commercial view on
some of the available Information Model offerings in tele-
communications industry from Traditional Business
Intelligence perspective and in context with the Tele
Management Forums Information Architecture; SID (Shared
Information Data Model, currently known as the
Information Framework). This document does not serve as
a business use case or a promotional use case for any
particular offering. This is rather a knowledge artifact which
provides some insight on the currently available solutions.
The target audience of this document is the Information
management team(s) for various Telecom Operators who
deal with the information management solutions and
information architectures for telecom service providers.

2. A Short Study on Telecom Information Models & Offerings
White Paper 1
Contents
Executive Summary:......................................................................................................................................2
The Information Framework a.k.a SID:.........................................................................................................3
CLDM (Teradata Corporation): .....................................................................................................................4
TDW (IBM):....................................................................................................................................................5
OCDM (Oracle Corporation): ........................................................................................................................7
Conclusion:....................................................................................................................................................8
Abbreviations:...............................................................................................................................................9
Reference:...................................................................................................................................................10
Disclaimer: ..................................................................................................................................................10
Authors: ......................................................................................................................................................10

3. A Short Study on Telecom Information Models & Offerings
White Paper 2
Executive Summary:
With the advent of new technologies in Information management landscape, emergence of IoT and
cloud based solutions kicking in, it is often becoming too complicated for the Communication/Telecom
Service Providers (also known and henceforth referred in the document as CSP) to choose the right
vendor, right platform and the right architecture (not to mention, at the right moment). All though
Traditional Business Intelligence (Data Warehouse solution) has been in the business for a long time
now, the same question is equally applicable there. A more matured traditional analytics platform is
often considered as rudimentary criteria to build advanced analytics applications which would extract
more meaning out of the enterprise information (through Big Data/Statistical Modeling/Machine
Learning/Cognitive Computing etc.) where traditional analytics is limited from a capacity/capability
perspective. Also it is observed that Hadoop technologies are often used to store the cold data in the
data lake but for majority of the analytics use cases, DW is still serving as the one stop shop for majority
of the data requirements. But building a solid foundation is not always an easy job. Majority of the
cases, it is a complicated job involving many success factors. Success is often determined by sound
strategic decisions emphasizing on long term goals rather than tactical advantages from a short-term
win perspective.
In this context, one of the most strategic (and often one of the most important) choice that the CSPs
have to make is choosing the right reference architecture (Information Architecture in this case) to
govern the Information Landscape for Traditional BI platform. In case you do not want to build the
solution from scratch, a logical approach is to select from one of the available Information Models from
a preferred pool of vendor. We have some strategic offerings existent in the telecom market for a long
time from vendors like IBM, Oracle, Teradata and so on (and of course the fundamental Information
Model (Information Framework) from TMForum); many of the other Information Models are built on
top of this one) but the real question remains unanswered – which offering is the most complete one?
There is no ideal check list available till date which can provide a definitive answer. In this document we
wish to explore some of the levers and non levers of more than a couple of Information Model offerings
from the market leaders (IBM, Teradata and Oracle) in context with SID from TMForum and based on
our professional experiences. It is assumed that the reader will have interest in SID a.k.a Information
Framework and current Information Modeling frameworks available in the telecom market in order to
relate and analyze the information provided in this paper. However this analysis does not aim to point
towards any specific solution.
Qualitative analysis is adopted as the formal analysis methodology. This is backed by the practical
experience of the authors, since they have worked extensively in some of the Information Models
(which are being talked about in this paper). Data points gathered from the official literatures of
TMForum, IBM, Teradata and the Oracle Corporation have helped in adding some quantitative
measurements also.

4. A Short Study on Telecom Information Models & Offerings
White Paper 3
The Information Framework a.k.a SID:
Well, there is no definitive time line when it all started. But as SID was industrialized (It started back in
the year 2000; Originally based on the Alliance Common Information Architecture; ACIA from AT&T and
the British Telecom), people realized that the time for rolling out custom data models by the in-house IT
team is gone. Information Framework is a consolidated effort from TMForum (based on the feedback
from the member companies) which tries to provide a comprehensive blue print for the Information
Architecture for any CSP. It not only takes the 360 degree view of the information required by a CSP in
covering most of the BAU activities, but also helps them realign their Information landscape for future
proof solutions. But is this the final solution?
The answer to the question is not an easy one. Information Framework was primarily built as a logical
extension of the eTOM (Process model by TMForum) to support the NGOSS architecture (now known as
Frameworx). Although Information Framework has the fundamental 3NF data model with a
comprehensive list of domains/entities/attributes (frankly, it is extremely extensive..), it is still evolving.
Its utility for data integration depends on the skills of the data analyst/modeler which may lead to
inevitable customization (sometimes in a major scale). Also, Information Framework is a one of solution
with possibilities of theoretically overlapping domains. For example, it is often unclear that where
should be the Separation-Of-Concern between the two domains viz Engaged Party and Customer (Ref:
GB922, SID 16.0). From the documentation (Ref: GB922_Customer_R16.0.0.pdf), it is understood that
the “Customer data resides within the Party Business Entity” as a Party role. But since both of them are
shown as separate domains, at the time of logicalization/physicalization of the data model, it may create
confusion on whether to create the anchor entity on party alone or create additional anchor entity for
Customer. This happens because individual domains (in Information Framework) usually lead to
separate subject areas and individual subject areas start with an anchor entity (in classical LDM). There
can be other approaches also. This is overcome in standard information model offerings from different
companies where they primarily identify Party as a subject area and put Customer as a role rather than
identifying Customer as a separate subject area.
Another point is SID was created as a free product (for the TMForum members companies) but the
primary intention may not have been traditional BI always. So, at the end of the day, one may not be
able to achieve a quicker ROI and reduced TCO for an Enterprise BI by its implementation although there
can be an appeal for a reduced Capex (since the asset is available from TMForum at free of cost for the
member companies). Hence it may not provide any strategic benefit; if implemented in a stand-alone
mode.
In the next sections, we will do a quick analysis on the Information Models already available (we have
chosen IBM, Teradata and Oracle since these 3 have the highest market penetration) and we will try to
identify some of the key points for a holistic understanding.

5. A Short Study on Telecom Information Models & Offerings
White Paper 4
CLDM (Teradata Corporation):
Teradata has always been there as a strong performer on the RDBMS products. Their offering is known
as Teradata Communications Logical Data Model (also known and henceforth referred in the document
as CLDM). They provide a great entity/attribute detail in the 3NF logical model (which is the actual
product from Information Architecture perspective) and covers many subject areas for the CSPs. Along
with an Information Framework alignment, the subject area/facet classifications provide a legible and
clear boundaries between the high level entities. They have implemented the concept of mini
dimensions which is good from an Enterprise BI implementation perspective but sometimes a bit
voluminous to handle; as this results in additional physical tables. CLDM have refrained from providing a
semantic abstraction on top of the 3NF structure. This may not seem lucrative as majority of the CSPs
will ask for an end to end solution which not only should cover the foundation layer but should also
provide a clear direction on the business abstraction and further classification of data marts for a
meaningful analytics. Since, they have been playing along for a long time in the IT industry, clearly they
have formed a loyal customer base and their marketing and front end sales service is just fabulous. As a
result they have secured some of the very big contracts with couple of big names in Telecom domain
(one simple example should be the Vodafone group who have adapted the 3NF model at their group
level and have percolated the same solution with local customizations for the different Vodafone
operating companies).
Let’s summarize some of key points down below for better understanding:
Levers Non Levers
• Nice classification of high level subject
areas and subsequent Facets. Information
Framework aligned.
• Overall TCO is slightly on the higher side
when combined with the total Hardware
plus Software offering.
• Deep content particularly around Party
and Marketing areas.
• Closely coupled with Teradata Boxes.
• An incumbent player with a strong and
loyal customer base.
• Slightly weak on Risk, Service Management
and Network side.
• Exceptional marketing team. • Effort required for customization.
• Fantastic MPP performance.

6. A Short Study on Telecom Information Models & Offerings
White Paper 5
TDW (IBM):
IBM (also known as the Big Blue) is a famous name in IT industry and they have been redefining business
since the beginning. From the innovator of the most popular electrical typewriters, now they have
emerged into the era of AI and Cognitive Computing through their award winning AI platform, The
Watson. Still, their Information Model offering which is known as Telecommunication Data Warehouse
Model (also known and henceforth referred into the document as TDW) appears to be a strong offering,
till date. With a proper classification of high level subject areas into 9 data concepts (which by the way,
fits fine with the Information Framework domains) they have built a holistic model. One of the key USP
is the Classification Model based on IFW (Information Framework), which eliminates complexity in
managing the dimensional information right from the 3-NF layer. All dimensional information (business
descriptions) is stored in merely 3 database tables in the 3-NF layer which can again be exposed in terms
of database views in the semantic layer. This ensures much less number of physical tables and less ETL
jobs. Also, they provide OOTB BSTs (Business Solution Templates) which are nothing but fully functional
data marts on top of the dimensional/aggregated layer. They offer more than 50 BSTs with more than 5
Focus Areas (one of which is specifically mapped for the TMForums Benchmarking KPIs), good
integration with IBMs glossary tools, proper metadata management features with Infosphere
applications. Having said that, one concern is the inclusion of their own modeling product IDA
(Infosphere Data Architect) which is not entirely as user friendly as Erwin or Oracle Power Designer.
Based on eclipse IDE, it takes skill to make IDA operational in an enterprise level (multi developer
environment, export/import of metadata etc.). They also come with some inbuilt BIRT reports for pulling
the descriptions out of the LDM/PDM but it again is tedious to make the proper configurations to make
the BIRT reports work. In short, IDA is an excellent and capable tool but common user may find CA Erwin
as more user friendly and easier to use, but this opinion is subjective and based on individual
perceptions.

7. A Short Study on Telecom Information Models & Offerings
White Paper 6
Let’s summarize some of key comparisons down below for better understanding:
Levers Non Levers
• Fine classification of high level subject
areas into 9 data concepts and subsequent
information hierarchy. SID aligned.
• License cost is on the higher side.
• Comprehensive offering of BST’s to
provide a quick TTM.
• Closely coupled with IBMs Blue Stack.
• Unique implementation of Classification
Model based on IFW which creates a clean
model from business information
management perspective.
• Tight coupling with IDA as a modeling tool;
IDA is technically complex and takes higher
skill to operate and provide a bit less
flexibility with respect to Erwin/Power
Designer.
• Good integration option with the
metadata tools and glossary tools.
• Difficult to get the BIRT reports going.
Takes a good deal of time and effort from
the configuration management
perspective.
• Solid foundation layer namely Atomic
Warehouse Model (Formerly SOR a.k.a
System of Records) to cater the 3NF logical
data model.
• Effort required for customization.
• Good extension to the Dimensional
Warehouse Model with proper usage of
the Analytical Requirements section.
• Can be exported directly into the meta
data model of reporting tools (example:
The model can be exported in terms of CPF
files which can be read by Framework
Manager tool, which is the Meta Data
Modeling tool for IBM Cognos BI Suite).

8. A Short Study on Telecom Information Models & Offerings
White Paper 7
OCDM (Oracle Corporation):
Used to be an inevitable choice for RDBMS implementations couple of years back, they are still powerful
when it comes to Enterprise Information Architecture and Industry Models. With a strong Oracle
Communication Data Model (also known and henceforth referred as OCDM) which spans across
primarily 8 Subject Areas (a.k.a Business Areas), 880+ entities and 1380+ attributes, prebuilt reporting
solutions, custom adapters for BRM and NCC, 6+ pre-built mining models and over 20 OLAP cubes; the
Oracle stack looks to be a solid offering from Telecom Industry model perspective. The provided mining
models and MOLAP cubes work well but for the majority of the cases, they might require certain level of
customization. Thus said, the analytical components work pretty well with the exalytics platform and
performance has always been one of the key showcase benchmark for Oracle. The product fits well with
Oracle Billing and Charging products and a set of pre mapped ETL routines are already provided (which is
actually a pretty good thing, considering you already have other Oracle products in place).
Let’s summarize some of key comparisons down below for better understanding:
Levers Non Levers
• Information Framework aligned. • Overall TCO might be tad bit higher when
combined with the total Hardware plus
Software offering.
• Great offering with diverse product
catalogue spanning from the base LDM
towards pre built MOLAP cubes and
custom mining models for advanced
analytics.
• Closely coupled with other Oracle
appliances.
• An incumbent player with a strong and
loyal customer base.
• Effort requires on model management
because of too much of abstraction
between multiple layers.
• Physical model is designed and optimized
for Exadata boxes.
• Effort required for customization.
• Fantastic MPP performance.

9. A Short Study on Telecom Information Models & Offerings
White Paper 8
Conclusion:
Clearly there are many leaders with great offerings and a plethora of features, but we cannot isolate a
single offering which can be proclaimed as an ultimate solution.
Although IBM sounds very promising from content / model management perspective along with the
additional accelerators in form of Business Solution Templates (BSTs), licensing cost and complex
modeling tool are the major challenges.
Teradata provides a great 3NF model which pretty much covers all the domains for the CSPs Information
Management Landscape, but inclusion of hardware boxes and additional paraphernalia’s may seem to
be less appealing to the end customer especially if they are aiming for a squeeze in their CAPEX and
already possess their own Infrastructure.
Oracle is a market leader in not only DBMS area but also in the ERP space with numerous solutions.
Their telco solution is also a front runner from many angles but model management could be done in a
simpler way especially with numerous abstractions between Base, Derived, Aggregated and Reporting
layer. Also, the USP of having BRM and NCC adapters inbuilt can compel for a full Oracle stack.
There are many custom solutions/accelerators available in the Information Industry (apart from the
market leaders) which can be evaluated and leveraged while coming up with an Information
Architecture Landscape for a CSP. Some examples can be SaaS, Amdocs, Capgemini, Ericsson etc.
Readers are requested to exercise their discretion while doing so.
Finally when it comes down to the end decision, the CSPs will have to consider numerous factors (from
Infra, licensing, existing business liaison etc.) while selecting the preferred Information Model. Like we
said at the beginning, there is no ideal checklist in our opinion which can automatically choose the best
Information Architecture for a CSP; it is primarily the available budget, long term organizational goals
and discretion exercised by the management which will influence the end selection.

10. A Short Study on Telecom Information Models & Offerings
White Paper 9
Abbreviations:
BI: Business Intelligence
SID: Shared Information Data Model
BAU: Business as Usual
CSP: Communication Service Provider
OLAP/MOLAP: Online Analytical Processing / Multidimensional Online Analytical Processing
IFW: Information Framework
CDM: Conceptual Data Model
LDM: Logical Data Model
PDM: Physical Data Model
TTM: Time to Market
TCO: Total Cost of Ownership
CAPEX: Capital Expenditure
OPEX: Operational Expenditure
3NF: Third Normal Form
BST: Business Solution Template
DBMS: Database Management System
SOR: System of Records
ETL: Extraction Transformation and Load
OOTB: Out of the Box
USP: Unique Selling Proposition
BRM: Billing and Revenue Management
NCC: Network Charging and Control
AI: Artificial Intelligence

11. A Short Study on Telecom Information Models & Offerings
White Paper 10
Reference:
1. https://www.tmforum.org/information-framework-sid/
2. http://in.teradata.com/logical-data-
models/communications/?LangType=16393&LangSelect=true
3. ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/software/data/mdm/pdf/TDW_GIM_2005.pdf
4. http://www.oracledwh.de/downloads/12_Sonst_Themen_und_Loesungen/Industrie_Datenmod
elle/Telco/communications-data-model-132183.pdf)
Disclaimer:
This paper exerts individual opinion(s) on the mentioned subject(s) and associated industry
offerings/services. The purpose of the paper is academic (information only) in nature. This does not
represent any formal evaluation process for tool selection (or vendor selection methodology as such)
which can be utilized by the telecom service providers, as is. This paper aims to provide some insight
based on the practical experiences of the authors. This paper does not depict any view/comment from
any of the mentioned vendors (IBM/Teradata/Oracle). This paper should not be treated as a
promotional/business use case and/or advertisement material about the mentioned industry solutions
and offerings. Also, the actual study related to this subject has been carried out over a span of 4 years
(between 2012 and 2016); hence the points/opinions presented in this document might be out dated
due to inadvertent reasons. The reader is requested to exercise discretion and sought up-to-date
materials from the respective technology vendors.
Authors:
Sayak Majumder (sayak.majumder@gmail.com): Sayak is currently associated with Ericsson India Global
Services as a Solution Architect. He has experience in implementing TDW and CLDM for different Tier 1
Telecom operators in ASEAN sector as well as in EU region. Apart from classical data modeling, he also
has good experience in traditional analytics and integration tools.
Abhijit Dutta (Abhijit.dutta@gmail.com): Abhijit is currently associated with Ericsson India Global
Services as a Solution Architect. He has good amount of experience implementing OCDM for different
Telecom operators across the globe. Apart from Information Architecture, he takes interest in the Pre-
Sales and Solution Building part for the BI competency.