BraindumpDiscussion on Axion Meeting Outcomes and Huawei Analysis
Summary:
- The team discussed their experiences with recording and transcribing meetings, expressing dissatisfaction with Teams recordings.
- Positive updates were shared from a meeting with Axion regarding the POC, highlighting Danny's willingness to progress commercially.
- Concerns were raised about Huawei's software performance and commitment compared to TM Forum assessments.
- Insights from architecture meetings with Technotree indicated a need for help in architecture from Axion's team.
- A detailed analysis of Huawei's transformation recommendations highlighted major issues related to compliance and catalog-driven processes.
Content:
Hi, how are you? Hi, good afternoon. You know what I did in the last meeting? I was recording the trans... when I joined, I started recording it, and then I finished and then I got out of the thing and it deleted. Okay, no, I got it, I sent it to Jyoti. I'm used to that. I record just about everything, but she's got a different app, but it's fine. Thank you, because yeah, then I was like, oh my God, I finally recorded it and then I deleted it. Okay. Actually, that's okay. I got the transcript anyway, so it's fine.
Yeah, I got it. Because I was just telling you how stupid I am. Well, there's still the recording as well in Telkom if we must, but I don't find Teams recordings very good. The transcript... Yeah, it's not very good. Okay, we're waiting for Jakob or Yusuf, okay? He should be joining, I think. He said he was going to. Okay, no problem. By the way, on a side note, we met with Axion this morning, Jyoti, for defining the POC and stuff like that. And it's a really positive conversation so far. So Danny is very keen to move ahead and get things going from a commercial perspective as well.
I've got something else that's very keen too. I was in an Axion RFP defense session with Technotree, right? Yeah. And I met Nadal and there was another Axion guy, they saying they may need help with architecture. Okay, nice. But they fit in the group context. So I am going to try and set up a meeting at some point. I don't get through the defense because I don't want to talk about it while we're doing that. Yeah. Okay, so I want to share some data once we kind of get through today's conversation. But the first thing I need to know, Quobus, in the documentation you're going through, is there anything emerging that's very different from what we know?
No, it's just, I think, Huawei is doing a little bit better than the TM Forum assessment that you sent me, which is really a devastating one. But no, there's a lot of promises and a lot of things. Yeah, you see, and Huawei performs badly in the discussion also, is that what they promise you and what their software can actually do is two different things. They're still really running their old ITS stack, Quobus. Yes, yes. The whole phase one is based on what they have. It's just the uplift of what Telkom has already got. Yeah, and they never want to uplift more than that because they're not investing in BFS.
And that phase two of them is the moon, the stars and the rest come with it and they're going to develop everything and delivery there and it's going to be promotions and everything. Yeah, I got it. Because I was just telling him how stupid I am. I was telling him how stupid I am. Well, there's still the recording as well in Telkom if we must, but I don't find the Teams recordings very good. The transcript. No, it's not very good. Yeah. Okay, we're waiting for Jakko. He should be joining, I think. He said he was going to.
Okay, no problem. By the way, on a side note, we met with Axion this morning, Jyoti, for defining the POC and stuff like that. And it's a really positive conversation so far. So Danny is very keen to move ahead and get things going from a commercial perspective as well. I've got something else that's very keen too. I was in an Axion RFP defense session with Technotree, right? Yeah. And I met Nadal and there was another Axion guy. They're saying they may need help with architecture. Okay, nice. With the group, but they fit in the group context.
So I am going to try and set up a meeting at some point. I don't get through the defense because I don't want to talk about it while we're doing that. Yeah. Okay, so I want to share some data once we kind of get through today's conversation. But the first thing I need to know, Quobus, in the documentation you're going through, is there anything emerging that's very different from what we know? No, it's just, I think, Huawei is doing a little bit better than the TM Forum assessment that you sent me, which is really a devastating one.
But no, there's a lot of promises and a lot of things. Yeah, you see that even Huawei performs badly in the discussion also is that what they promise you and what their software can actually do is two different things. They're still really running their old ITS stack, Quobus. Yes, yes. The whole phase one is based on what they have. It's just the uplift of what Telkom has already got. Yeah, and they never want to uplift more than that because they're not investing in BFS. And that phase two of them is the moon, the stars, and the rest come with it.
And they're going to develop everything and delivery there and it's going to be promotions and everything. Yeah, I got it. Because I was just telling him how stupid I am. I was telling him how stupid I am. Well, there's still a Teams recording as well in Telkom if we must, but I don't find Teams recordings very good. The transcript. Yeah, it's not very good. Yeah. Okay, we're waiting for Jaco. He should be joining, I think. He said he was going to. Okay, no problem. By the way, on a side note, we met with Axian this morning, Jyoti, for defining the POC and stuff like that.
And it's a really positive conversation so far. So Danny is very keen to move ahead and get things going from a commercial perspective as well. But I've got something else that's very keen too. I was in an Axian RFP defense session with Technotree, right? Yeah. And I met Nadal and there was another guy and they saying they may need help with architecture. Okay, nice. With the group, but they sit in the group context. So I am going to try and set up a meeting at some point. I don't get through the defense because I don't want to talk about it while we're doing that.
Yeah. Okay, so I want to share some data once we kind of get through today's conversation. But the first thing I need to know, Quobus, in the documentation you're going through, is there anything emerging that's very different from what we know? No, it's just, I think, Huawei is doing a little bit better than the TM Forum assessment that you sent me, which is really a devastating one. But no, there's a lot of promises and a lot of things. Yeah, you see, that is why Huawei performs badly in the discussion also is that what they promise you and what their software can actually do is two different things.
They're still really running their old ITS tech, Quobus. Yes, yes. The whole phase one is based on what they have. It's just the uplift of what Telkom has already got. Yeah, and they never want to uplift more than that because they're not investing in BFS. And that phase two of them is the moon, the stars, and the rest come with it and they're going to develop everything and delivery there and it's going to be promotions and everything. Yeah, I got it. Because I was just telling him how stupid I am. I was telling him how stupid I am.
Well, there's still a recording as well in Telkom if we must, but I don't find Teams recordings very good. The transcript. No, it's not very good. Yeah. Okay, we're waiting for Jaco. He should be joining, I think. He said he was going to. Okay, no problem. By the way, on a side note, we met with Axian this morning, Jyoti, for defining the POC and stuff like that. And it's a really positive conversation so far. So Danny is very keen to move ahead and get things going from a commercial perspective as well. I've got something else that's very keen too.
I was in an Axian RFP defense session with Technotree, right? Yeah. And I met Nadal and there was another guy. They saying they may need help with architecture. Okay, nice. With the group, but they sit in the group context. So I am going to try and set up a meeting at some point. I don't get through the defense because I don't want to talk about it while we're doing that. Yeah. Okay, so I want to share some data once we kind of get through today's conversation. But the first thing I need to know, Quobas, in the documentation you're going through, is there anything emerging that's very different from what we know?
No, it's just, I think, Huawei is doing a little bit better than the TM Forum assessment that you sent me, which is really a devastating one. But no, there's a lot of promises and a lot of things. Yeah, you see that even Huawei performs badly in the discussion also is that what they promise you and what their software can actually do is two different things. They're still really running their old ITS stack, Quobas. Yes, yes. The whole phase one is based on what they have. It's just the uplift of what Telkom has already got. Yeah, and they never want to uplift more than that because they're not investing in BFS.
And that phase two of them is the moon, the stars, and the rest come with it and they're going to develop everything and delivery there and it's going to be promotions and everything. Yeah, I got it. Because I was just telling him how stupid I am. I was telling him how stupid I am. Well, there's still the recording as well in Telkom if we must, but I don't find the teams And then it's an implement a business configurable master catalog in the personalization and AI layer on the data foundation and in possible cross-functional SLAs and operating model disciplines in place.
So there will be more meat around this, but these are the high-level things coming out for the work done to date. What happens there? Then you can go to each section which says what is each of the domain, you know, the domain scores, what are the gaps and what are the recommendations and what's the priority, right? As we told them we would do. And you will see that for digital and beyond connectivity, you will see that for customer support, etc. So it goes. Once I put it on the web, once I put it on the SharePoint, you guys can look at that.
I'm not very happy with this heat map because it doesn't give a title to each of the boxes. So I'm working on this to improve that. But here's what you see coming out of this whole thing. There's eight critical items, you know, must fit for foundation. There's 48 high priority items. There's 80 medium high. There's 37 quick starts they could begin now and get some value out of that, and 42 kind of at the floor, which I had two or less, right? So that needs to be worked through. Then from a finding standpoint, some of the things that come up is program strengths, cost to serve and workforce management.
I think the guys are doing a very good job there and really trying hard to get things to work. Fulfillment and provisioning, I think, I don't know if you agree with me, Kovas, immensely is much better than we've seen in other operators, right? It's a bit hidden in open surf. Yeah, but the issue is that from open surf to them, it's very much an automated process, right? Yes, yes. There's not been a lot of manual maneuvering, which is always a problem. But it is preventing them from doing true catalog driven fulfillment. It is, yeah. There's no flow through there.
You know, is a big issue. I want to put down here one other thing that the web journey for postpaid, I think, is really good. I really like what I saw that day. The catalog management is a problem. Customer retention maybe at fixed broadband is a problem. You know, I can't believe that in one organization, there's a postpaid function that can both, a mobile function, that can build something so wonderful on the web, and then there's a fixed broadband journey that is a disaster from start to finish. Yeah, but one caveat, though, is that the portal is only for one customer journey, and that is a new order.
Yeah, but the issue is that from open surf to them, it's very much an automated process, right? Yes, yes. There's not been a lot of manual maneuvering, which is always a problem. But it is preventing them from doing true catalog driven fulfillment. It is, yeah. There's no flow through there. You know, is a big issue. I want to put down here one other thing that the web journey for postpaid, I think, is really good. I really like what I saw that day. The catalog management is a problem. Customer retention may be at fixed broadband is a problem.
You know, I can't believe that in one organization, there's a postpaid function that can build both a mobile function, that can build something so wonderful on the web, and then there's a fixed broadband journey that is a disaster from start to finish. Yeah, but one caveat, though, is that the portal is only for one customer journey, and that is a new order. No, no, the whole issue of the approach to how they're providing various functions across various channels, I think, leaves a lot to be desired. Well, the recommendation is going to be to look at what journeys are critical and really prioritize those, either at each channel level or across multiple channels.
Then customer retention in fixed broadband, then RA, governance is, sorry, someone's saying something? Yeah, sorry, Joti. Just one thing that I also picked up in other sessions from the checkout perspective from the web was that you can only check out one contract at a time when you're doing postpaid. So I don't know if that's also something that we... Okay, that was for the fixed broadband. It was not for postpaid. Postpaid, they said you can do as many as possible. Okay, okay. But I think the issue of a mixed cart is something that has to come up.
Yeah, there's no dynamic selection. There's no dynamic selection. You're talking about the strengths here. Yeah. Source data reconciliation and independent validation, I think RA does a good job. End-to-end revenue change reconciliation also is a strength. So a lot of RA strengths that come in, even in terms of leakage detection, you know, they do both checks, everything, fraud management, fraud controls. But then if you look at the cross-cutting, that's the same stuff I showed you in the first page and what needs to be done there, right? So that gets down in domain by domain. What do they do in architecture?
What do they do in digital and beyond connectivity? What do they do for customer service and off-ride? So it's that level of detail. Then I've just got the project plan in here to ensure that, you know, when I do the reporting, I'm able to get that into a presentation. Here's an interesting one. So if you look at what I did last night, Govis, and, you know, AI is a wonderful tool. Yeah, I'm amazed with what... I have now got it down to a fine art. What you are getting together here is like, are you ever sleeping or this just AI?
You give very intelligent instructions to get what you want, right? So essentially what I did is I told Claude, take the Huawei report, look at it against the findings of the different work streams, and tell me how many of those will Huawei plug. And this is what you've got. Yeah. Fantastic. Our intention is not to tell them to get rid of Huawei. Our intention is to help them understand how weak the solution is. Yes. So that goes through that. Then I want to share something else that I think you're going to find very interesting in... I feel that after we've gone through that transformation program session, I don't necessarily agree with the way they're doing transformation.
So I have to put a presentation together we need to take to them to say, you know, we can have a workshop with them and we won't get nowhere, right? So I'm putting in instead a recommended operating model to track every, you know, how they work through, right? The first thing will be, we've done the assessment, we've identified the risk, and this deck is now going to tell you what we're going to do, you know, what we're going to recommend you do. We give them the program maturity. We say these are, you know, real findings.
They're broad and they're interdependent. The transformation program itself didn't score too high. Governance, tracking, and benefits discipline are the weakest link and not the technology. Huawei BSS is necessary but not sufficient. It delivers a minority of the agenda. Much of it is partial, pending conformance, and a large share sits outside BSS scope entirely. Without one-track backlog and clear ownership, high-value cross-cutting items will fall between domains and vendors. So one of the problems, Govis, is that Huawei is only addressing a part of this. There is no clear roadmap for the rest other than what we saw for the integration guide, right?
Yes. The second thing I see that is a challenge is that there is no retirement plan for those systems. And therefore, you're not going to get cost of ownership benefits over a period of time. So there needs to be a very robust plan managed through the transformation office. So we said everything needs to be tracked in one view. You've got 198 improvement recommendations per priority, and this is how they look. There's six cross-cutting constraints. There's 10 items. The transformation office is going to have to track this, right? Because if they don't, they're going to get a suboptimal solution.
Then we say five ways that issues can fall through the cracks. There's no single source of truth. You have unclear ownership. You have tracking tasks but not outcomes. You have no design authority with speed. And you are assuming not assuring. You end up assuming not assuring, right? So the model that comes from this slide on actually tries to tell them how they can fix it. So if issues are not tracked to closure, and I think we said that a couple of times in the sessions, you're going to recreate complexity, right? You'll have stranded benefits. Systems are replaced, but journeys, data, and billing states fragmented the business case.
It is exactly a shootout of the MTN case. Yeah, I was going to say, it is a replica. Yeah. Then vendor lock-in to partial. Huawei 33% coverage never converts to deliver it because conformance gaps are never closed. So the transformation office is going to have to manage that and make sure that they commit to closing those gaps. Cross-cutting items often... Customer 360 data deduplication, open APIs, looks between domains, etc. You know, there is no universal view of these things. They're doing it, you know, a value stream by value stream, which doesn't always work. And I think one other added complexity for them is the whole relationship between BCX, OpenServe, and telecom, right?
Because it seems like there's no central way of managing it, which means... No, I don't think that's any... I really didn't see that to be a problem. You don't? No, I think it's just the case of not having defined clear interfaces and clear information requirements. But do you think that if they make different decisions, does it impact the others? Well, they wouldn't make decisions without considering their clients, right? Any change management decisions, any technology changes would necessarily involve telecom and all other clients. So I didn't see that as such a big issue. What I see as a bigger issue is that because they own both these companies, the ability to do my newt is something they're not taking advantage of.
Yeah, that's true. That's another way to see it, actually. The integration between the two needs to be strengthened to provide a significant volume of value information that makes a lot of sense in handling customer calls, etc. Right, so influencing customer experience. There's still a couple of cross-cutting things I want to bring out. No customer experience focus. There is no single view. You know, there's no, you know, there's complexity for the call center to handle customer queries. Therefore, the way they're working is not efficient. So a lot of that will come in. I'm just taking this at a high level right now.
So we're saying if there's an operating model in place, there's a single line of sight. Every issue is owned, it's RAG rated, and visible from the live dashboard. The focus is on convergence and not replication. So the design authority will force standards, complexities removed and not rebuilt. Huawei is governed to deliver. In other words, you watch them to make sure they maturity uplift, you know, uplift that sticks, moving from 2.8 to manage in every domain. And then delivery has become, will become more predictable. What I wonder, and I will not tell you from the meetings, but is when they selected Huawei, how big a voice the architecture guys had.
It was a closed process and I'm 99% sure it was dumped in with the network deal. Yeah, yeah. And it's in its financial model standards. But we're not there to question that. We must understand that. We are not auditors. No, no, but that's the result you're seeing is that it wasn't based on compliance. Yeah, but these are sensitive issues and this is why they're not, they've been very reluctant to share, but we shouldn't be, see ourselves as a judge or the jury here. No, all I'm saying is we're seeing the result of that selection that was not driven by architecture.
We think it's a bad decision. Anyway, but I also think the RFP, they did do some kind of RFP, but it was scrapped. But I think that that must have been very incomplete as well. Okay, in the seven guiding principles in terms of rethinking the transformation, one backlog, one owner per area with due dates and cross-cutting items that get a single lead. There must be focus on outcomes. Standards have to be enforced. They have to assure everything that's delivered. They need to have a deliberate decommissioning focus in terms of retiring MDocs and other systems. And then it must be transparent by default.
What is the new model? So we talk about a steering, this might have to be adapted based on what they do, but this is what it needs to look like. We can debate this, you know, as we finish the assessment exercise. Then the governance bodies and what their roles would be and what they decide. The transformation management office becomes the engine room, has the register and the backlog, the planning and sequencing, the cadence and reporting, rate and escalation, the benefits realization, and gate management. You know, I didn't get a feeling of how that office was properly structured.
I know Blessing has some role and Impo seems to be very important there, but Impo's also got a day-to-day job of being the enterprise architect, right? The whole architecture function. So we would need to see clarity. I mean, we would say that, you know, I will ask Blessing for that kind of information on the structure of the transformation office. The design authority really needs to be the teeth that prevent rebuild complexity. So approve or reject designs against TM forum and ODA and open API standards, enforce anti-customization and anti-point-to-point integration policies. So they need to make sure that they're not building technical debt again.
Own the reference architecture and the technology radar, and they must veto non-conformant vendor solutions, including within the Huawei build. Why is it decisive? Huawei BSS 9.x, which is the one, right, is not ODA aligned. By default, conformance is a choice that must be governed. Half of Huawei coverage is partial, largely because of these conformance gaps. And the biggest single risk is rephrasing case customer point-to-point estate in the new technology stack. Since items, go ahead. I'm saying they bought a massive customization project and if they don't apply the standards, they're gonna end up exactly where they are today.
I agree. Yes. So the areas that need to help them make conformance, firstly, catalog-driven decomposition, proven on a live kind of FMC order. They are not catalog-driven from a fulfillment perspective. So they need to prove us wrong if this is wrong, but nothing in the conversation showed that, right? All the architecture pictures on catalogs shows only offering capturing and no service capturing. It's a commercial catalog and nothing more. It's a version of the UBC that we implemented in Nigeria, that technically implemented in Nigeria. Then there must be TM forum open API, CCA, ODA conformance, and it must be contractual because you remember the message we got, Yakko and Ashwita from, what's the name from Dr. Knox?
She said, we expect the vendors to be compliant. Right. So this is the point we're making. You've got to bind MDocs decommissioning plans with the owners. There must be a single product menu model, convergent billing end-to-end, one bill, one AR, one GL, single OCS consolidation roadmap. You know, I think that the, one of the things, Klovis, that is going to kill this thing is the fact that they have no blueprint. They don't have a data architecture and you're going to end up creating a disaster. Now they're designing it, so it's not there. But you've implemented the first phase of the... Prepaid.
Yeah. So without a customer model, you're going to have to go and rework that later on. Correct. Okay, they have to drive change through our architected blueprint. You've got to work to a single architected target blueprint. It should turn the 98 pixels and a vendor build into a coherent end state, not a set of disconnected changes that quite recreate today's complexity. The architecture review has to be the mechanism that drives change. So there has to be a target to move towards. What I will be enhancing in the slide will be the issue of, in enhancing this, what they have to have is they have to be experience-driven, customer-focused, and built on creating agility and flexibility for the future, right?
There have to be explicit system decisions, what transitions, what stays, what doesn't go. Because they're still implementing the integration workshop. There wasn't that clarity, if you remember, Ko. Yes. Then architecture review has tried the design all the way. You know, Nigeria's got a very nice design authority that reviews all these changes going in the regular cadence in terms of how they do those design authority reviews. So nothing is built. It does not move kind of a step towards the target. So don't build anything that's like a point solution. The blueprint must define both the target architecture and the transition path from today, including the disposition of every major system and the integration and data model that binds them.
They don't have the capability to do that. So this is where you guys need to find a way to get and offer something there. Because as much as TechnoTree is going to put a slide that says how TechnoTree can help, I think we as A1L need to put a slide that says how we as A1L can help them. Then the current state estates, what's exists today, that must be the starting point for every move. Target state must be ODI API convergent. That's your destination and endgame. And the transition path and disposition has to be retained, transition, replace, retire for each system with a sequence of dependencies.
That's what, this is very similar to what Avi did for the MTN project, Yakov. Yeah, he did it very nicely. So that's something we need to look at how we can do. The together covers after our discussion that output that Avi did for us. Yes, yes. Okay, so let's pull this in. Okay. Then we have to anchor the transformation on a business capability architecture. So this is where I'm bringing in the fact that they lack a business architecture. And that must be a stable technology agnostic model of what consumer and small business unit does. It's a missing layer that connects strategy to the blueprint and the system disposition.
It keeps, it should keep the architecture coherent as delivery changes in, changes the detail. So technology as an agnostic anchor, common language, a business reasonable, the same capabilities, not competing system names, prioritization and investment, you know, where do you put your money and remove duplication and gaps. A business capability model would really kind of cut across all these domains. So you look at engagement in customer, core BSS and operations, and then enabling and shared like data analytics, integration and APIs, ERP, security, identity, architecture, and engineering. Target architecture with system state, transition, replace, and retire. So you retain and integrate, we'll put a list, we'll put a list of systems.
What transitions and modernizers will put a list, you know, list, replace, we'll put a list and then retire, we'll put a list. This is just illustrative here. It's not the, it's not necessarily the correct picture at this point in time. Then we have to anchor the transformation on a business capability architecture. So this is where I'm bringing in the fact that they lack a business architecture. And that must be a stable technology agnostic model of what consumer and small business unit does. It's a missing layer that connects strategy to the blueprint and the system disposition.
It keeps, it should keep the architecture coherent as the delivery changes in, changes the detail. So technology as an agnostic anchor, common language, a business reasonable, the same capabilities, not competing system names, prioritization and investment, you know, where do you put your money and remove duplication and gaps. A business capability model would really kind of cut across all these domains. So you look at engagement in customer, core BSS and operations, and then enabling and shared like data analytics, integration and APIs, ERP, security, identity, architecture, and engineering. Target architecture with system state, transition, replace, and retire.
So you retain and integrate, we'll put a list, we'll put a list of systems. What transitions and modernizers will put a list, you know, list, replace, we'll put a list, and then retire, we'll put a list. This is just illustrative here. It's not the, it's not necessarily the correct picture at this point in time. Then a living, this is a living blueprint that has to be updated as transformation delivers because architecture is never constant, right? You, you often hit bottlenecks with vendors which requires to revisit your architecture and, and, and redefine certain components, right? And any way in which they can keep the stuff with it, it must be owned and version controlled by the design authority.
Every change by architecture review, so no off blueprint goals. Each registered item must link to a target component that is traceable and published as a single reference, one architecture visible to all. So if something is not on the blueprint, then it isn't in the architecture. They need to track every item to closure, you know, based on what we will give them in the end report. Now, a number of these things will change in terms of numbers because the, the, we haven't done the final domain kind of completion yet. Then what, what, what would a register capture the issue lifecycle from raise to closure?
Then we talk about managing risks, managing assumptions, managing issues, and managing dependencies. I still think that on the dependencies, they claim that everything is documented and passed, but you know, business is very dynamic. There's changes happening all the time. Are those getting into the transformation office and, and how are they getting into the transformation office? So, you know, a lot of that, we're not able to get clarity on because there are some very broad statements saying they keep a register. The governance cadence we talked about, escalations, you know, to ensure everything gets resolved and assurance accountability and benefits in a low phase can, can proceed until independent assurance confirms the evidence.
And, you know, if any gate shows that something is partial, then there must become proven. So they can get like what I would call temporary approval, but they have to resolve the issue before they can get to live or whatever. Then there's a racing model that one would look at. They have to track delivery health. So how do they do the maturity uplift, backlog burn down? How do they do high priority closure? How do they prove conformance and how do they move from partial to direct with Huawei? And then CMS and duplicate billing. You know, how are they going to decommission legacy?
Now, please note that, you know, as you can see from the Swift box, there's nothing we're telling them that Huawei doesn't meet your requirements. It's a choice they would need to make. Technically, we would need to defend their values, value add. But essentially, what we want is that whatever solution they put, if they stay with Huawei, they must move from partial to direct. They need to improve the level of compliance. What are the things that they fix first? What are some of the contractual things they need to do and what are the eight critical kind of priority areas?
I mean, this is, this is more, it's not going to happen in 90 days. I think it's going to be, it's going to be a much longer task. So in those, in those videos, they talk about a statement of work that they don't show. But there's some agreement as part of this contract where there's a statement of work to get to some level of alignment, which we're just not privy to see. But why are they not sharing that statement of, why are they not sharing that? Ah, that's, but I mean, that's the contract, effectively. Your statement of work is everything Huawei must do to, to complete this contract.
And I think there's an incredible lot of work that they promised there. That's, that's my impression. Okay, then I want to show you the, the maturity scorecard, right? Let me just show you what I have. It's not here. So if you look at this, this is a combined scorecard. So this is the program summary, right? Which is some of the dashboard, which shows what we were saying across cutting themes, the contributing capacity capability areas by theme. If you look at single customer view, it's an architecture issue. It's a customer support issue. It's a transformation program issue.
It's a prepaid journey and base management issue. It gets down to that level of detail. Architecture. I'm, I'm the most uncomfortable here, Corvus, because I still don't get a view of how good and sound is the as-is, how good and sound is the to-be, and do they have a clear roadmap of what stays, what goes, you know, and do they have everything down to a level of detail in terms of how journeys or how processes flow across systems? Have you been able to see any of that? Because when we were talking to that architect yesterday on the as-is, what's his name, the Indian guy?
They definitely don't have as-is flows documented. And if you remember in the interview... So how are they doing the transformation if you don't even have that? That's the point. That's the point. They have to point to which into which system, right? In the very first architecture session, the one question was, is the business architecture documented and do you have a customer journey? And I said no. No, they don't, but they have system flows, right? So you can see a transaction coming through a channel, it goes through a CRM, it goes through there. We have the technical flows, the functional flows.
Okay, there is some of that, but I mean, I got some diagrams out of Abacus as well. But it doesn't... But how detailed and how accurate are they? Well, the problem is it doesn't give you the picture. You can't see a transaction flowing end to end. It's just showing you connections. Yeah, but Globus is supposed to take all this data, dump it into EcoGenia and see what you can come out with. Have you started doing that? Okay, we can attempt that. Yeah. So I'll be as interested in the information for us. So I think Globus, we must just set up a session so it's been ingested, so we can get the result.
Yeah, okay. But we do need to, please, this is the one that is going to have some impact on the overall, right? So please let's move with that. Okay. Then I've got beyond connectivity. So there's a theme, there's a capability area, the current level, maturity stage. Well, how do we evidence that? What are the detailed gaps? What are the priorities and suggested owner? What's the horizon to fix that? Also got a column saying how much of what we covered, those things, can they meet and coverage basis. So, like, you know, it's out of scope for them, etc. So this is a good view to show to them what they had not considered as part of this program.
If you look at customer support, we do the same. We go through theme, capacity capability area, current maturity stage, evidence, detailed gap, priority. Here we look at Huawei coverage. So if you look at for data and foundations, it's kind of maybe almost 100%. But then it gets selectively. And I think this gives them a good view of how complete, incomplete it is and how much work they need to do. So my view is they've got the work cut out for them, Globus. We do the same for broadband. But they really didn't do a lot of the broadband detailed workshops, right?
I think it's still going to be more coming. I want to show you an interesting one here. So we do that for every domain. But this is what I also got. So Huawei BSS coverage and transformation recommendations. So we take each of these. This is a summary of what you saw in each of the pages. What is the recommendation? One is proof catalog driven. Huawei must show you that they are catalog driven. The single product model. ETM form open API. So Globus, stay on the product model. Are they saying that they expose the same catalog to the channels or are they saying they replicate the catalogs to the channels?
They don't replicate. They want to publish to the channels. Publish from the catalog itself. So if you look at that. Yeah, but Globus is supposed to take all this data, dump it into EcoGenia and see what you can come out with. Have you started doing that? Okay, we can attempt that. Yeah, so I'll be as interested in the information for us. So I think Globus, we must just set up a session so it's been ingested so we can get the result. Yeah, okay. But we do need to... Please, this is the one that is going to have some impact on the overall, right?
So please let's move with that. Then I've got beyond connectivity. So there's the theme. There's a capability area, the current level, maturity stage. Well, how do we evidence that? What are the detailed gaps? What are the priorities and suggested owner? What's the horizon to fix that? Also got a column saying how much of what we covered those things, can they meet and coverage basis. So, like, you know, it's out of scope for them, etc. So this is a good view to show to them what they had not considered as part of this program. You look at customer support, we do the same.
We go through theme, capex capability area, current maturity stage, evidence, detailed gap, priority. Here we look at Huawei coverage. So if you look at for data and foundations, it's kind of maybe almost 100%. But then it gets selectively. And I think this gives them a good view of how complete, incomplete it is and how much work they need to do. So my view is they've got the work cut out for them, Globus. We do the same for broadband. But they really didn't do a lot of the broadband detailed workshops, right? I think it's still going to be more coming.
I want to show you an interesting one here. So we do that for every domain. But this is what I also got. So Huawei BSS coverage and transformation recommendations. So we take each of these. This is a summary of what you saw in each of the pages. What is the recommendation? One is proof catalog driven. Huawei must show you that they are catalog driven. The single product model. ETM form open API. So Globus, stay on the product model. They're saying that they expose the same catalog to the channels or they're saying they replicate the catalogs to the channels.
They don't replicate. They want to publish to the channels. Publish from the catalog itself. So if you look at that. What's the customer wants to perform an engagement, they will call the catalog. Yes. Well, if you see, there's a diagram where they show that this Dixie platform is like a centralized platform where all the channels. Yeah, but the issue is that if they start doing millions of transactions once the entire transformation is done, is that catalog going to scale? Or is it going to just continue to throw more hardware at the problem? Yeah, so that's that's the big question.
And that's why I said maybe we must still have a session on Dixie. And what's the other one? It's fine. You can set up that session. I don't see a problem with that. Kamunda and Dixie. Kamunda is the BPM solution that drives the steps. I think that'll be useful. And then we can understand what is the capability of expanding that into a higher volume. There's one other presentation I had. Give me a minute. I just want to quickly show that. I think I shared that with you this morning, Globus, if I remember. Let me go through that.
Let's see. You know, I got too many emails. One of these days I'm going to kill, I'm going to probably be my own worst enemy. Let me just see what I sent to you this morning. Yeah, I'm just trying to quickly get to that. It should be here. Or it could be, it could have even come from my email.com. I think it's in this one. Just let me look at that. Yeah. So if I can quickly share this, this is probably the last thing I'm sharing. If you look at the transformation and the conformance, let me go through a report that says this is what they do.
Yeah, yeah. So I get them. Based on what happened was that Huawei built this design map to eight areas of non-conformance, right? And those are things that they need to look at and consider. So if they all marked it as non-conformance, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. And each one is covered in the next slide. And the four findings along that. You know, what they hold and what they've not evidence, what they've committed, what's absent. The conformance index in terms of what it looks like. The maturity distribution. Now they're really committed of average maturity of two, but in terms of conformance and what they claim, they said at 1.8 because it's not proven.
Then we go through each of the key areas. The older conformance architecture is, this is what it should look like, right? If you consider that. And really the big things in catalog decomposition, commercial office, CFS, RFSM, source and provisioning. You know, I don't know why they can't do this Globus given that they own the whole value chain, right, as a network vendor. So I find that very, very strange. Then we look at what, we just at a very high level recommend a future state one telecom digital architecture. And that's the other big issue. There's nothing in the transformation program that tells me the goal is one telecom.
Yeah, that's a strange one. You mentioned it to Dr. Knox as well, right? Yeah, but the issue is that every, every action, every architectural initiative you take should be, should be building towards that one telecom. And the way they're doing it, I'm really struggling in the readiness part, what they need to do, because the end game is a composable techco given all the digital ambitions and based on what Lanyard and the others said, right? There's a heat map. There's the, how do we, you know, how can you deliver to kind of techco ambition? I don't believe that Huawei is going to get there.
The whole thing of looking at, you know, financial lens in terms of decommissioning, saving costs, recommendations and decision gates. Now, the issue is that I've built these as all separate initiatives. What I need to do is once we've completed all the maturity ratings, I'm going to stop sharing now. Once we've completed all the maturity ratings, what we have to start doing is bringing this whole thing together. So I think, you know, we're 70% there, but there's a lot more to do. Then we want to sit with TechnoTree and let TechnoTree Listen, I know that testing techniques will be pulled together, but there is a storyline emerging.
There is a high-level strategic intent and overview we will give, which will then talk to all those issues of it must be a one, and it'll take our full inputs from this strategy, the presentation to the market and the strategy, and try and link everything back to that. Comment from anyone? One thing, if you can see my screen. Yeah, I can see it. Put it in slide mode, please. Slideshow. Present. Yeah, let it go bigger. Let me see why it's not. There it goes. So, in the overall landscape, and the text is too small to read, but this thing in the middle is the BSA score capabilities, and everything that's green is part of the BSA migration scope.
It effectively just tells me above it sits the telecom integration layer, and up there are all the channels. But effectively, what it says is that the complete channel approach and the integration is outside of the YW scope. I mean, because you need to absorb all the specs and come back and say what is the problem and what needs to be done. So, the point I want to make is that even though there's a convergence which might work plan in the overall Greenpeace here, there's nothing in the migration that's going to focus on making the channels work in a consistent way.
And there's no... No, but even the convergence piece, right? Yes, I know you've got... I see, I don't see what they're going to do to converge customer records, how they're creating a customer golden record. Correct, correct. How are they doing against customer, against the catalogs? There's a whole lot of gaps that are not visible. There's a lot of gaps. And a lot of this is pre-work that needs to be done. Correct, so there's a lot of gaps. All I'm trying to say is that apart from this project, the channel layer is not even in the scope of the project.
Yeah, but see, what I'm looking for, Corvus, is that you guys need... I hear what you're saying. I need this to go into EcoGeni for EcoGeni to come out with all this intelligence. Okay. Okay, I'm not used to that, so... Including giving a view on what should stay, what should go, what should be fixed, what should be refactored, and then the last thing would be to say, what should your order compliance target architecture look like for a telco, not a telco? The architecture itself is a big body of work. Yeah, so just have a pencil and a genie team, and then we'll show you how it works.
Yeah, yeah, we'll do that as a priority. So can I work towards seeing an output coming out by Tuesday next week, at least the first view? Should be fine, thanks. And so I would like to have something to show to Dr. Knox in the Monday meeting, if we can. A preliminary, arbitrary, but at least you can show some insights. So can EcoGeni absorb and read the details from a diagram? From anything. Okay. Diagram, picture. Okay, that's important because otherwise there's a lot of processing. So to put the diagrams on the table, I've got a lot.
You know, I've even pulled out some of it in the videos. I think EcoGeni, Venzel, can you guys put some dedicated effort? Because if I look, what is our sessions tomorrow? Tomorrow is product catalog. We've canceled that thing tomorrow, right? Yeah, we have time tomorrow. Can you guys put energy in getting this so that I can get something for the Monday report? Because our next session is on Monday. What is the finance engagement? I'm trying to understand that or the BI stuff, the reporting stuff. And then there's something on Wednesday. No, no, there's nothing on Wednesday.
Can you guys put energy in getting the report? Can you also try, Jaco, can you guys dump all the documentation they gave us and see if we can make sense of it out of EcoGeni? Yeah, for sure. So focus on that tomorrow, Venzel. Yeah. I mean, what we're also starting to do is we're building a toolkit that will help us in future work, you know, similar to this. Good. And also, don't forget, Jaco, you guys owe me to put that dashboard into... What we have to do is not... We have to pull the entire journey of the consulting exercise into EcoGeni once we're done.
Oh, yes. Not for this exercise, but we need it for the next exercise. I've got Claude keeping my version control and stuff for me at the moment, so I don't have a problem. Yeah, okay. Can you drive that one as well? Yeah, I think we're in a really good place platform-wise to start looking at that as well. So, yeah, I think I have it. Yeah, but let's focus on getting the architecture out. And then the other thing you guys need to look at, and you can do some one-on-ones if you need, Corvus, is that whole demand management process and prioritization and whether they're living in a constant backlog, you know, and by the time they get to that item, you know, as things move on in the business cycle.
Okay. Okay, so I don't know if there's any questions or what you've looked at now makes sense to you. Yeah, it's very good, Chatty. Thanks. Brilliant. I've just one thing. Should we perhaps have some sessions with the architecture team, Corvus? That's what I've been asking you all to do. Go and spend some time with them. If there's new rich insights coming, make sure you record the conversations so you can transcribe them and pump them into EcoGeni as well. Yeah, because I wonder if we shouldn't do a recommendation on that. You know, it's a lot of architects sitting there, but it's very academical and you don't really get... But you know what the architecture team is so fragmented.
You're the guy yesterday talking about product catalog. You know jack shit about what's going on in the transformation project. Exactly. It's scary. I don't know what... And we have Serena there, right, Corvus? And Elmerie. But this is the issue. I think that people are saying that the older... Some of the older people are becoming a bottleneck to what needs to be transformed. You heard that comment yesterday. Look, Serena is very strong on this line. I don't know how much she drives of what actually happens, but there's an architect... The impression I got that Serena seems to be in the driving seat and she doesn't get any input.
Well, there's an architect permanently assigned to the transformation, which I think is Nicolette Meyer. And I know her from previous... But Nicolette cannot work in isolation of the broader architecture team, right? That's where there's a problem. Okay, I think she knows a lot that we haven't explored. Okay, so you guys have a very big task ahead of you. And please, let's put some fire under that. I'm continuing to work, refine and make this look better and better. And then we will set up a meeting with Technogy after that. Sorry, I forgot. I was saying that that will also talk to the opportunity for A1L, right, from an architecture perspective.
Once we present the report, then we'll see this is how we can help. Yes, it's a service, even on the PMO. But I think that the team already would be thinking along those lines. Yes, I think that. I mean, have you guys got any other feedback from the internal people, Kovas, that you know? No. In terms of the process and journey we're going through? You mean direct contact with people? Yeah. Yeah, I'm getting a lot of comments. Oh, okay, good. I have... Positive, negative, confused, not sure. No, very positive, Chati. As we said, they love that we actually know their business and it's not just an academic exercise.
The guy yesterday that ever was from the business, wasn't he? Yeah. He was very cooperative. He wants to build his own products. Yeah. There is a lot of business frustration, but I guess the people are scared to voice their opinion. The telecom's always been that kind of organisation. People are not vocal, you know, it's the be nice to each other culture. There's only me and Johan and Marie that used to punch each other in the face all the time. I still remember the... You know, when Johan Marie walked into my office and we closed the door, everyone ran.
But again, he came from a technical background and he tried to do what IT should be doing. Interesting days. But I think so far people have been very cooperative. I'm still trying of time to understand what has Deloitte guys done. I'm not sure. It's a good question. There's no clarity on what they've done. That feedback on Friday, it just blew their minds. Like Deloitte was there for months. He did that after two weeks. Well, which feedback? You don't have the Monday one. Is it Monday? Yeah, sorry. The one with Dr. Knox? Yes. Yeah, they were very surprised at how much we had cleaned in that short period of time.
But you know, this is why I made the point. We come from operations. That's why we understand this. We've worked for MNOs. Yes. In MNOs, not for in MNOs. And that makes all the difference because we have a very operational outlook. Yes. Yeah. My guess is Deloitte did a as is to be wish list through a lot of people and combined that and gave them back to them. And that kind of... I see the same issue with PWC. Maybe Accenture is a little bit more muscle in the game, but they never get to implement what they do.
What was interesting today when I was in the Axiom defense, RFP defense session, the group CTIO came in. His name's Jerome. He works from Tanzania. And the first thing he said is, I know that Maya and you did wonderful things in MTN, so I really look up to you. Oh, wow. So like out of the blue. And then during the break, he told me that he's been following me for years. And I've never been active on social media until recently on LinkedIn. But it's interesting, you know, because I think that the credibility probably gives us a step in through the door.
For sure. I was telling somebody, it's amazing what they share with us. Because they basically give us visibility into everything. And that probably comes from your weight, actually. I think it's trust, right, more than anything. Also, we didn't go into that arrogant, we know it all attitude. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It was, tell us what you're doing. Yeah. You know, that makes all the difference. And you know, the one thing I've learned, never denigrate people, never denigrate what they've done. So I always say, there's no right or wrong. We know in our days to Quovers, we made decisions that probably we would have never made, you know, from an architectural standpoint.
But we were moving and we had to make decisions. And I think that's what's good. And what ties into what you said, right? At the end of the day, we're not dictating that you need to get rid of Huawei. We're basically saying, if you stick with them, this is option A. If you don't stick with them, then this is option B. So maybe we come in and project manage Huawei for you. Exactly. That's a good suggestion. Actually, after this session, one of the sessions where you had the testing team, right? Right. That Omar sent me this long mail.
He's like, are you, you're the guy that sat with me over every night and over weekends doing WFM and CMSS implementation and testing. So he said, are we going to do it again for this project? I think that's a lot that is left to be desired. And I think that, I just think the architecture function is weak. I think the CIO is not as strong as she could be. But you know, when I had the interview with Lunga, you know, and I sent the notes to you, he really articulated the transformation is a little bit all over.
Yeah. Exactly. Cobus, one more thing. Can you check through all the transcripts whether you got the CFO one? That's the only one I'm missing. And that was a good session. Yeah, please, if you can find that transcript. If not, I'll go back to Google. CFO. It was the first week on the Friday, I think. We were in the, at Telcom and you, I think you struggled to hear Cobus, you said. Oh, that was the one where all the echo was. I don't think we recorded that. So we had the CMO session. We had the other pre-paid session.
And the next day we had the CFO session. I'll tell you the exact date we had it. It was, I think, around the 9th or 10th. I think it was the Wednesday. Yeah, but the Friday was the, Friday was the, I missed it. I was sick. It was on the 10th, Wednesday. The 10th, yeah. And then we had the CTIO session. You remember, Ashuta, we waited forever and again. Yes. Okay, let's go through. I just wanted to make sure we took stock. We understood what's outstanding. For me, the big thing now really is the, is the area of architecture.
Because that's the beginning and the end of everything. So please, okay, if you guys can just get to, you know, try and pump what you can into eco-gene. Check if eco-gene comes up with any gaps so that we can go back to Telcom for that information. Yeah, actually, there's a lot of diagrams that I pull out out of the workshops. Okay, that's good. And then on the other side, Bensal, remember we discussed getting to Almerie to look at all the other tools. Okay, then I got a second problem, guys. We have jack shit on SMB.
There's a problem there and I need to raise that with Blessing and Port. So I'm going to try and call them. But otherwise, I think we, we made good progress in two weeks, right? I mean, this is week three, but week two was a short week. Yep. Generally, I think we're in a good place. Yep. Jaco? Yeah. Just getting back to your comment to get you out of here with all the tools. So I've been busy after hours on eco-gene, just kind of making the meta-model management stuff. And yesterday when I showed Robby, his first comment was, if you show this to Almerie, she's going to jump up and down with excitement.
And I mean, now they have two, three other tools. Yes, it's ArcEA, they have Abacus, and they have the other one. Because there are three enterprise architecture tools. Yes. They're implementing OPEX. Yeah, but I think that we must, we must use eco-gene, the architecture stuff when we get to it. But, you know, this is... Definitely. Definitely. You know, we need to say we were able to do this work quickly because we had these AI tools at our disposal. Perfect. And we can use that. Yeah, and we can even say in consolidating the feedback from the sessions, et cetera, as well, we used our homegrown kind of EcoGenie tool.
I'm excited. Let's get it done. Okay, so guys, please, I really want to get a good view on that. You have to do two things. One, EcoGenie overlay, then the Huawei transformation agenda overlay, then a view on what needs to retire, move, change, the finding around the channel and experience layer, and the issue around catalog, you know, all those things need to come out in the findings of architecture. Because that gives you the evidence, right? Yes. Okay. Shathi, if you have any questions, I will try and, you know, see where I can help and what needs to be done.
Good. We will do. Okay, we need to take another review midweek next week. Okay. And then I want to immediately after that, I want to set up something with the Technotree team. Okay. I will chase in the meantime, the SMB issue, and then I did tell you all that Parishka came back saying S9 wanted a presentation of the Technotree system, right? Yeah, so they're not responding, but I sent her a message again today. I copied you guys, right? Okay. Let's see where that goes. Are you creating the folders? I'll start putting everything there. But remember, it'll get updated all the time, because every time I add a new spreadsheet or a new domain, the whole thing regenerates.
Yeah. I created a folder there, deliverables. We already have this folder. Yeah, I have access to load and do things there. You should? I'll check. I'll check later. Okay. Chatty, I don't think we have the CFO transcript, because I looked through my mails as well. So I think we have to ask Blessing. I think the team session was on. Yeah, I think we have to ask Blessing. Yeah, Blessing is not responding. I think he's very sick. Oh, shame. Okay, no problem. I've got to join another call now. All right, thank you so much. Thank you so much.
Bye. Thanks everyone. Bye.
- The team discussed their experiences with recording and transcribing meetings, expressing dissatisfaction with Teams recordings.
- Positive updates were shared from a meeting with Axion regarding the POC, highlighting Danny's willingness to progress commercially.
- Concerns were raised about Huawei's software performance and commitment compared to TM Forum assessments.
- Insights from architecture meetings with Technotree indicated a need for help in architecture from Axion's team.
- A detailed analysis of Huawei's transformation recommendations highlighted major issues related to compliance and catalog-driven processes.
Content:
Hi, how are you? Hi, good afternoon. You know what I did in the last meeting? I was recording the trans... when I joined, I started recording it, and then I finished and then I got out of the thing and it deleted. Okay, no, I got it, I sent it to Jyoti. I'm used to that. I record just about everything, but she's got a different app, but it's fine. Thank you, because yeah, then I was like, oh my God, I finally recorded it and then I deleted it. Okay. Actually, that's okay. I got the transcript anyway, so it's fine.
Yeah, I got it. Because I was just telling you how stupid I am. Well, there's still the recording as well in Telkom if we must, but I don't find Teams recordings very good. The transcript... Yeah, it's not very good. Okay, we're waiting for Jakob or Yusuf, okay? He should be joining, I think. He said he was going to. Okay, no problem. By the way, on a side note, we met with Axion this morning, Jyoti, for defining the POC and stuff like that. And it's a really positive conversation so far. So Danny is very keen to move ahead and get things going from a commercial perspective as well.
I've got something else that's very keen too. I was in an Axion RFP defense session with Technotree, right? Yeah. And I met Nadal and there was another Axion guy, they saying they may need help with architecture. Okay, nice. But they fit in the group context. So I am going to try and set up a meeting at some point. I don't get through the defense because I don't want to talk about it while we're doing that. Yeah. Okay, so I want to share some data once we kind of get through today's conversation. But the first thing I need to know, Quobus, in the documentation you're going through, is there anything emerging that's very different from what we know?
No, it's just, I think, Huawei is doing a little bit better than the TM Forum assessment that you sent me, which is really a devastating one. But no, there's a lot of promises and a lot of things. Yeah, you see, and Huawei performs badly in the discussion also, is that what they promise you and what their software can actually do is two different things. They're still really running their old ITS stack, Quobus. Yes, yes. The whole phase one is based on what they have. It's just the uplift of what Telkom has already got. Yeah, and they never want to uplift more than that because they're not investing in BFS.
And that phase two of them is the moon, the stars and the rest come with it and they're going to develop everything and delivery there and it's going to be promotions and everything. Yeah, I got it. Because I was just telling him how stupid I am. I was telling him how stupid I am. Well, there's still the recording as well in Telkom if we must, but I don't find the Teams recordings very good. The transcript. No, it's not very good. Yeah. Okay, we're waiting for Jakko. He should be joining, I think. He said he was going to.
Okay, no problem. By the way, on a side note, we met with Axion this morning, Jyoti, for defining the POC and stuff like that. And it's a really positive conversation so far. So Danny is very keen to move ahead and get things going from a commercial perspective as well. I've got something else that's very keen too. I was in an Axion RFP defense session with Technotree, right? Yeah. And I met Nadal and there was another Axion guy. They're saying they may need help with architecture. Okay, nice. With the group, but they fit in the group context.
So I am going to try and set up a meeting at some point. I don't get through the defense because I don't want to talk about it while we're doing that. Yeah. Okay, so I want to share some data once we kind of get through today's conversation. But the first thing I need to know, Quobus, in the documentation you're going through, is there anything emerging that's very different from what we know? No, it's just, I think, Huawei is doing a little bit better than the TM Forum assessment that you sent me, which is really a devastating one.
But no, there's a lot of promises and a lot of things. Yeah, you see that even Huawei performs badly in the discussion also is that what they promise you and what their software can actually do is two different things. They're still really running their old ITS stack, Quobus. Yes, yes. The whole phase one is based on what they have. It's just the uplift of what Telkom has already got. Yeah, and they never want to uplift more than that because they're not investing in BFS. And that phase two of them is the moon, the stars, and the rest come with it.
And they're going to develop everything and delivery there and it's going to be promotions and everything. Yeah, I got it. Because I was just telling him how stupid I am. I was telling him how stupid I am. Well, there's still a Teams recording as well in Telkom if we must, but I don't find Teams recordings very good. The transcript. Yeah, it's not very good. Yeah. Okay, we're waiting for Jaco. He should be joining, I think. He said he was going to. Okay, no problem. By the way, on a side note, we met with Axian this morning, Jyoti, for defining the POC and stuff like that.
And it's a really positive conversation so far. So Danny is very keen to move ahead and get things going from a commercial perspective as well. But I've got something else that's very keen too. I was in an Axian RFP defense session with Technotree, right? Yeah. And I met Nadal and there was another guy and they saying they may need help with architecture. Okay, nice. With the group, but they sit in the group context. So I am going to try and set up a meeting at some point. I don't get through the defense because I don't want to talk about it while we're doing that.
Yeah. Okay, so I want to share some data once we kind of get through today's conversation. But the first thing I need to know, Quobus, in the documentation you're going through, is there anything emerging that's very different from what we know? No, it's just, I think, Huawei is doing a little bit better than the TM Forum assessment that you sent me, which is really a devastating one. But no, there's a lot of promises and a lot of things. Yeah, you see, that is why Huawei performs badly in the discussion also is that what they promise you and what their software can actually do is two different things.
They're still really running their old ITS tech, Quobus. Yes, yes. The whole phase one is based on what they have. It's just the uplift of what Telkom has already got. Yeah, and they never want to uplift more than that because they're not investing in BFS. And that phase two of them is the moon, the stars, and the rest come with it and they're going to develop everything and delivery there and it's going to be promotions and everything. Yeah, I got it. Because I was just telling him how stupid I am. I was telling him how stupid I am.
Well, there's still a recording as well in Telkom if we must, but I don't find Teams recordings very good. The transcript. No, it's not very good. Yeah. Okay, we're waiting for Jaco. He should be joining, I think. He said he was going to. Okay, no problem. By the way, on a side note, we met with Axian this morning, Jyoti, for defining the POC and stuff like that. And it's a really positive conversation so far. So Danny is very keen to move ahead and get things going from a commercial perspective as well. I've got something else that's very keen too.
I was in an Axian RFP defense session with Technotree, right? Yeah. And I met Nadal and there was another guy. They saying they may need help with architecture. Okay, nice. With the group, but they sit in the group context. So I am going to try and set up a meeting at some point. I don't get through the defense because I don't want to talk about it while we're doing that. Yeah. Okay, so I want to share some data once we kind of get through today's conversation. But the first thing I need to know, Quobas, in the documentation you're going through, is there anything emerging that's very different from what we know?
No, it's just, I think, Huawei is doing a little bit better than the TM Forum assessment that you sent me, which is really a devastating one. But no, there's a lot of promises and a lot of things. Yeah, you see that even Huawei performs badly in the discussion also is that what they promise you and what their software can actually do is two different things. They're still really running their old ITS stack, Quobas. Yes, yes. The whole phase one is based on what they have. It's just the uplift of what Telkom has already got. Yeah, and they never want to uplift more than that because they're not investing in BFS.
And that phase two of them is the moon, the stars, and the rest come with it and they're going to develop everything and delivery there and it's going to be promotions and everything. Yeah, I got it. Because I was just telling him how stupid I am. I was telling him how stupid I am. Well, there's still the recording as well in Telkom if we must, but I don't find the teams And then it's an implement a business configurable master catalog in the personalization and AI layer on the data foundation and in possible cross-functional SLAs and operating model disciplines in place.
So there will be more meat around this, but these are the high-level things coming out for the work done to date. What happens there? Then you can go to each section which says what is each of the domain, you know, the domain scores, what are the gaps and what are the recommendations and what's the priority, right? As we told them we would do. And you will see that for digital and beyond connectivity, you will see that for customer support, etc. So it goes. Once I put it on the web, once I put it on the SharePoint, you guys can look at that.
I'm not very happy with this heat map because it doesn't give a title to each of the boxes. So I'm working on this to improve that. But here's what you see coming out of this whole thing. There's eight critical items, you know, must fit for foundation. There's 48 high priority items. There's 80 medium high. There's 37 quick starts they could begin now and get some value out of that, and 42 kind of at the floor, which I had two or less, right? So that needs to be worked through. Then from a finding standpoint, some of the things that come up is program strengths, cost to serve and workforce management.
I think the guys are doing a very good job there and really trying hard to get things to work. Fulfillment and provisioning, I think, I don't know if you agree with me, Kovas, immensely is much better than we've seen in other operators, right? It's a bit hidden in open surf. Yeah, but the issue is that from open surf to them, it's very much an automated process, right? Yes, yes. There's not been a lot of manual maneuvering, which is always a problem. But it is preventing them from doing true catalog driven fulfillment. It is, yeah. There's no flow through there.
You know, is a big issue. I want to put down here one other thing that the web journey for postpaid, I think, is really good. I really like what I saw that day. The catalog management is a problem. Customer retention maybe at fixed broadband is a problem. You know, I can't believe that in one organization, there's a postpaid function that can both, a mobile function, that can build something so wonderful on the web, and then there's a fixed broadband journey that is a disaster from start to finish. Yeah, but one caveat, though, is that the portal is only for one customer journey, and that is a new order.
Yeah, but the issue is that from open surf to them, it's very much an automated process, right? Yes, yes. There's not been a lot of manual maneuvering, which is always a problem. But it is preventing them from doing true catalog driven fulfillment. It is, yeah. There's no flow through there. You know, is a big issue. I want to put down here one other thing that the web journey for postpaid, I think, is really good. I really like what I saw that day. The catalog management is a problem. Customer retention may be at fixed broadband is a problem.
You know, I can't believe that in one organization, there's a postpaid function that can build both a mobile function, that can build something so wonderful on the web, and then there's a fixed broadband journey that is a disaster from start to finish. Yeah, but one caveat, though, is that the portal is only for one customer journey, and that is a new order. No, no, the whole issue of the approach to how they're providing various functions across various channels, I think, leaves a lot to be desired. Well, the recommendation is going to be to look at what journeys are critical and really prioritize those, either at each channel level or across multiple channels.
Then customer retention in fixed broadband, then RA, governance is, sorry, someone's saying something? Yeah, sorry, Joti. Just one thing that I also picked up in other sessions from the checkout perspective from the web was that you can only check out one contract at a time when you're doing postpaid. So I don't know if that's also something that we... Okay, that was for the fixed broadband. It was not for postpaid. Postpaid, they said you can do as many as possible. Okay, okay. But I think the issue of a mixed cart is something that has to come up.
Yeah, there's no dynamic selection. There's no dynamic selection. You're talking about the strengths here. Yeah. Source data reconciliation and independent validation, I think RA does a good job. End-to-end revenue change reconciliation also is a strength. So a lot of RA strengths that come in, even in terms of leakage detection, you know, they do both checks, everything, fraud management, fraud controls. But then if you look at the cross-cutting, that's the same stuff I showed you in the first page and what needs to be done there, right? So that gets down in domain by domain. What do they do in architecture?
What do they do in digital and beyond connectivity? What do they do for customer service and off-ride? So it's that level of detail. Then I've just got the project plan in here to ensure that, you know, when I do the reporting, I'm able to get that into a presentation. Here's an interesting one. So if you look at what I did last night, Govis, and, you know, AI is a wonderful tool. Yeah, I'm amazed with what... I have now got it down to a fine art. What you are getting together here is like, are you ever sleeping or this just AI?
You give very intelligent instructions to get what you want, right? So essentially what I did is I told Claude, take the Huawei report, look at it against the findings of the different work streams, and tell me how many of those will Huawei plug. And this is what you've got. Yeah. Fantastic. Our intention is not to tell them to get rid of Huawei. Our intention is to help them understand how weak the solution is. Yes. So that goes through that. Then I want to share something else that I think you're going to find very interesting in... I feel that after we've gone through that transformation program session, I don't necessarily agree with the way they're doing transformation.
So I have to put a presentation together we need to take to them to say, you know, we can have a workshop with them and we won't get nowhere, right? So I'm putting in instead a recommended operating model to track every, you know, how they work through, right? The first thing will be, we've done the assessment, we've identified the risk, and this deck is now going to tell you what we're going to do, you know, what we're going to recommend you do. We give them the program maturity. We say these are, you know, real findings.
They're broad and they're interdependent. The transformation program itself didn't score too high. Governance, tracking, and benefits discipline are the weakest link and not the technology. Huawei BSS is necessary but not sufficient. It delivers a minority of the agenda. Much of it is partial, pending conformance, and a large share sits outside BSS scope entirely. Without one-track backlog and clear ownership, high-value cross-cutting items will fall between domains and vendors. So one of the problems, Govis, is that Huawei is only addressing a part of this. There is no clear roadmap for the rest other than what we saw for the integration guide, right?
Yes. The second thing I see that is a challenge is that there is no retirement plan for those systems. And therefore, you're not going to get cost of ownership benefits over a period of time. So there needs to be a very robust plan managed through the transformation office. So we said everything needs to be tracked in one view. You've got 198 improvement recommendations per priority, and this is how they look. There's six cross-cutting constraints. There's 10 items. The transformation office is going to have to track this, right? Because if they don't, they're going to get a suboptimal solution.
Then we say five ways that issues can fall through the cracks. There's no single source of truth. You have unclear ownership. You have tracking tasks but not outcomes. You have no design authority with speed. And you are assuming not assuring. You end up assuming not assuring, right? So the model that comes from this slide on actually tries to tell them how they can fix it. So if issues are not tracked to closure, and I think we said that a couple of times in the sessions, you're going to recreate complexity, right? You'll have stranded benefits. Systems are replaced, but journeys, data, and billing states fragmented the business case.
It is exactly a shootout of the MTN case. Yeah, I was going to say, it is a replica. Yeah. Then vendor lock-in to partial. Huawei 33% coverage never converts to deliver it because conformance gaps are never closed. So the transformation office is going to have to manage that and make sure that they commit to closing those gaps. Cross-cutting items often... Customer 360 data deduplication, open APIs, looks between domains, etc. You know, there is no universal view of these things. They're doing it, you know, a value stream by value stream, which doesn't always work. And I think one other added complexity for them is the whole relationship between BCX, OpenServe, and telecom, right?
Because it seems like there's no central way of managing it, which means... No, I don't think that's any... I really didn't see that to be a problem. You don't? No, I think it's just the case of not having defined clear interfaces and clear information requirements. But do you think that if they make different decisions, does it impact the others? Well, they wouldn't make decisions without considering their clients, right? Any change management decisions, any technology changes would necessarily involve telecom and all other clients. So I didn't see that as such a big issue. What I see as a bigger issue is that because they own both these companies, the ability to do my newt is something they're not taking advantage of.
Yeah, that's true. That's another way to see it, actually. The integration between the two needs to be strengthened to provide a significant volume of value information that makes a lot of sense in handling customer calls, etc. Right, so influencing customer experience. There's still a couple of cross-cutting things I want to bring out. No customer experience focus. There is no single view. You know, there's no, you know, there's complexity for the call center to handle customer queries. Therefore, the way they're working is not efficient. So a lot of that will come in. I'm just taking this at a high level right now.
So we're saying if there's an operating model in place, there's a single line of sight. Every issue is owned, it's RAG rated, and visible from the live dashboard. The focus is on convergence and not replication. So the design authority will force standards, complexities removed and not rebuilt. Huawei is governed to deliver. In other words, you watch them to make sure they maturity uplift, you know, uplift that sticks, moving from 2.8 to manage in every domain. And then delivery has become, will become more predictable. What I wonder, and I will not tell you from the meetings, but is when they selected Huawei, how big a voice the architecture guys had.
It was a closed process and I'm 99% sure it was dumped in with the network deal. Yeah, yeah. And it's in its financial model standards. But we're not there to question that. We must understand that. We are not auditors. No, no, but that's the result you're seeing is that it wasn't based on compliance. Yeah, but these are sensitive issues and this is why they're not, they've been very reluctant to share, but we shouldn't be, see ourselves as a judge or the jury here. No, all I'm saying is we're seeing the result of that selection that was not driven by architecture.
We think it's a bad decision. Anyway, but I also think the RFP, they did do some kind of RFP, but it was scrapped. But I think that that must have been very incomplete as well. Okay, in the seven guiding principles in terms of rethinking the transformation, one backlog, one owner per area with due dates and cross-cutting items that get a single lead. There must be focus on outcomes. Standards have to be enforced. They have to assure everything that's delivered. They need to have a deliberate decommissioning focus in terms of retiring MDocs and other systems. And then it must be transparent by default.
What is the new model? So we talk about a steering, this might have to be adapted based on what they do, but this is what it needs to look like. We can debate this, you know, as we finish the assessment exercise. Then the governance bodies and what their roles would be and what they decide. The transformation management office becomes the engine room, has the register and the backlog, the planning and sequencing, the cadence and reporting, rate and escalation, the benefits realization, and gate management. You know, I didn't get a feeling of how that office was properly structured.
I know Blessing has some role and Impo seems to be very important there, but Impo's also got a day-to-day job of being the enterprise architect, right? The whole architecture function. So we would need to see clarity. I mean, we would say that, you know, I will ask Blessing for that kind of information on the structure of the transformation office. The design authority really needs to be the teeth that prevent rebuild complexity. So approve or reject designs against TM forum and ODA and open API standards, enforce anti-customization and anti-point-to-point integration policies. So they need to make sure that they're not building technical debt again.
Own the reference architecture and the technology radar, and they must veto non-conformant vendor solutions, including within the Huawei build. Why is it decisive? Huawei BSS 9.x, which is the one, right, is not ODA aligned. By default, conformance is a choice that must be governed. Half of Huawei coverage is partial, largely because of these conformance gaps. And the biggest single risk is rephrasing case customer point-to-point estate in the new technology stack. Since items, go ahead. I'm saying they bought a massive customization project and if they don't apply the standards, they're gonna end up exactly where they are today.
I agree. Yes. So the areas that need to help them make conformance, firstly, catalog-driven decomposition, proven on a live kind of FMC order. They are not catalog-driven from a fulfillment perspective. So they need to prove us wrong if this is wrong, but nothing in the conversation showed that, right? All the architecture pictures on catalogs shows only offering capturing and no service capturing. It's a commercial catalog and nothing more. It's a version of the UBC that we implemented in Nigeria, that technically implemented in Nigeria. Then there must be TM forum open API, CCA, ODA conformance, and it must be contractual because you remember the message we got, Yakko and Ashwita from, what's the name from Dr. Knox?
She said, we expect the vendors to be compliant. Right. So this is the point we're making. You've got to bind MDocs decommissioning plans with the owners. There must be a single product menu model, convergent billing end-to-end, one bill, one AR, one GL, single OCS consolidation roadmap. You know, I think that the, one of the things, Klovis, that is going to kill this thing is the fact that they have no blueprint. They don't have a data architecture and you're going to end up creating a disaster. Now they're designing it, so it's not there. But you've implemented the first phase of the... Prepaid.
Yeah. So without a customer model, you're going to have to go and rework that later on. Correct. Okay, they have to drive change through our architected blueprint. You've got to work to a single architected target blueprint. It should turn the 98 pixels and a vendor build into a coherent end state, not a set of disconnected changes that quite recreate today's complexity. The architecture review has to be the mechanism that drives change. So there has to be a target to move towards. What I will be enhancing in the slide will be the issue of, in enhancing this, what they have to have is they have to be experience-driven, customer-focused, and built on creating agility and flexibility for the future, right?
There have to be explicit system decisions, what transitions, what stays, what doesn't go. Because they're still implementing the integration workshop. There wasn't that clarity, if you remember, Ko. Yes. Then architecture review has tried the design all the way. You know, Nigeria's got a very nice design authority that reviews all these changes going in the regular cadence in terms of how they do those design authority reviews. So nothing is built. It does not move kind of a step towards the target. So don't build anything that's like a point solution. The blueprint must define both the target architecture and the transition path from today, including the disposition of every major system and the integration and data model that binds them.
They don't have the capability to do that. So this is where you guys need to find a way to get and offer something there. Because as much as TechnoTree is going to put a slide that says how TechnoTree can help, I think we as A1L need to put a slide that says how we as A1L can help them. Then the current state estates, what's exists today, that must be the starting point for every move. Target state must be ODI API convergent. That's your destination and endgame. And the transition path and disposition has to be retained, transition, replace, retire for each system with a sequence of dependencies.
That's what, this is very similar to what Avi did for the MTN project, Yakov. Yeah, he did it very nicely. So that's something we need to look at how we can do. The together covers after our discussion that output that Avi did for us. Yes, yes. Okay, so let's pull this in. Okay. Then we have to anchor the transformation on a business capability architecture. So this is where I'm bringing in the fact that they lack a business architecture. And that must be a stable technology agnostic model of what consumer and small business unit does. It's a missing layer that connects strategy to the blueprint and the system disposition.
It keeps, it should keep the architecture coherent as delivery changes in, changes the detail. So technology as an agnostic anchor, common language, a business reasonable, the same capabilities, not competing system names, prioritization and investment, you know, where do you put your money and remove duplication and gaps. A business capability model would really kind of cut across all these domains. So you look at engagement in customer, core BSS and operations, and then enabling and shared like data analytics, integration and APIs, ERP, security, identity, architecture, and engineering. Target architecture with system state, transition, replace, and retire. So you retain and integrate, we'll put a list, we'll put a list of systems.
What transitions and modernizers will put a list, you know, list, replace, we'll put a list and then retire, we'll put a list. This is just illustrative here. It's not the, it's not necessarily the correct picture at this point in time. Then we have to anchor the transformation on a business capability architecture. So this is where I'm bringing in the fact that they lack a business architecture. And that must be a stable technology agnostic model of what consumer and small business unit does. It's a missing layer that connects strategy to the blueprint and the system disposition.
It keeps, it should keep the architecture coherent as the delivery changes in, changes the detail. So technology as an agnostic anchor, common language, a business reasonable, the same capabilities, not competing system names, prioritization and investment, you know, where do you put your money and remove duplication and gaps. A business capability model would really kind of cut across all these domains. So you look at engagement in customer, core BSS and operations, and then enabling and shared like data analytics, integration and APIs, ERP, security, identity, architecture, and engineering. Target architecture with system state, transition, replace, and retire.
So you retain and integrate, we'll put a list, we'll put a list of systems. What transitions and modernizers will put a list, you know, list, replace, we'll put a list, and then retire, we'll put a list. This is just illustrative here. It's not the, it's not necessarily the correct picture at this point in time. Then a living, this is a living blueprint that has to be updated as transformation delivers because architecture is never constant, right? You, you often hit bottlenecks with vendors which requires to revisit your architecture and, and, and redefine certain components, right? And any way in which they can keep the stuff with it, it must be owned and version controlled by the design authority.
Every change by architecture review, so no off blueprint goals. Each registered item must link to a target component that is traceable and published as a single reference, one architecture visible to all. So if something is not on the blueprint, then it isn't in the architecture. They need to track every item to closure, you know, based on what we will give them in the end report. Now, a number of these things will change in terms of numbers because the, the, we haven't done the final domain kind of completion yet. Then what, what, what would a register capture the issue lifecycle from raise to closure?
Then we talk about managing risks, managing assumptions, managing issues, and managing dependencies. I still think that on the dependencies, they claim that everything is documented and passed, but you know, business is very dynamic. There's changes happening all the time. Are those getting into the transformation office and, and how are they getting into the transformation office? So, you know, a lot of that, we're not able to get clarity on because there are some very broad statements saying they keep a register. The governance cadence we talked about, escalations, you know, to ensure everything gets resolved and assurance accountability and benefits in a low phase can, can proceed until independent assurance confirms the evidence.
And, you know, if any gate shows that something is partial, then there must become proven. So they can get like what I would call temporary approval, but they have to resolve the issue before they can get to live or whatever. Then there's a racing model that one would look at. They have to track delivery health. So how do they do the maturity uplift, backlog burn down? How do they do high priority closure? How do they prove conformance and how do they move from partial to direct with Huawei? And then CMS and duplicate billing. You know, how are they going to decommission legacy?
Now, please note that, you know, as you can see from the Swift box, there's nothing we're telling them that Huawei doesn't meet your requirements. It's a choice they would need to make. Technically, we would need to defend their values, value add. But essentially, what we want is that whatever solution they put, if they stay with Huawei, they must move from partial to direct. They need to improve the level of compliance. What are the things that they fix first? What are some of the contractual things they need to do and what are the eight critical kind of priority areas?
I mean, this is, this is more, it's not going to happen in 90 days. I think it's going to be, it's going to be a much longer task. So in those, in those videos, they talk about a statement of work that they don't show. But there's some agreement as part of this contract where there's a statement of work to get to some level of alignment, which we're just not privy to see. But why are they not sharing that statement of, why are they not sharing that? Ah, that's, but I mean, that's the contract, effectively. Your statement of work is everything Huawei must do to, to complete this contract.
And I think there's an incredible lot of work that they promised there. That's, that's my impression. Okay, then I want to show you the, the maturity scorecard, right? Let me just show you what I have. It's not here. So if you look at this, this is a combined scorecard. So this is the program summary, right? Which is some of the dashboard, which shows what we were saying across cutting themes, the contributing capacity capability areas by theme. If you look at single customer view, it's an architecture issue. It's a customer support issue. It's a transformation program issue.
It's a prepaid journey and base management issue. It gets down to that level of detail. Architecture. I'm, I'm the most uncomfortable here, Corvus, because I still don't get a view of how good and sound is the as-is, how good and sound is the to-be, and do they have a clear roadmap of what stays, what goes, you know, and do they have everything down to a level of detail in terms of how journeys or how processes flow across systems? Have you been able to see any of that? Because when we were talking to that architect yesterday on the as-is, what's his name, the Indian guy?
They definitely don't have as-is flows documented. And if you remember in the interview... So how are they doing the transformation if you don't even have that? That's the point. That's the point. They have to point to which into which system, right? In the very first architecture session, the one question was, is the business architecture documented and do you have a customer journey? And I said no. No, they don't, but they have system flows, right? So you can see a transaction coming through a channel, it goes through a CRM, it goes through there. We have the technical flows, the functional flows.
Okay, there is some of that, but I mean, I got some diagrams out of Abacus as well. But it doesn't... But how detailed and how accurate are they? Well, the problem is it doesn't give you the picture. You can't see a transaction flowing end to end. It's just showing you connections. Yeah, but Globus is supposed to take all this data, dump it into EcoGenia and see what you can come out with. Have you started doing that? Okay, we can attempt that. Yeah. So I'll be as interested in the information for us. So I think Globus, we must just set up a session so it's been ingested, so we can get the result.
Yeah, okay. But we do need to, please, this is the one that is going to have some impact on the overall, right? So please let's move with that. Okay. Then I've got beyond connectivity. So there's a theme, there's a capability area, the current level, maturity stage. Well, how do we evidence that? What are the detailed gaps? What are the priorities and suggested owner? What's the horizon to fix that? Also got a column saying how much of what we covered, those things, can they meet and coverage basis. So, like, you know, it's out of scope for them, etc. So this is a good view to show to them what they had not considered as part of this program.
If you look at customer support, we do the same. We go through theme, capacity capability area, current maturity stage, evidence, detailed gap, priority. Here we look at Huawei coverage. So if you look at for data and foundations, it's kind of maybe almost 100%. But then it gets selectively. And I think this gives them a good view of how complete, incomplete it is and how much work they need to do. So my view is they've got the work cut out for them, Globus. We do the same for broadband. But they really didn't do a lot of the broadband detailed workshops, right?
I think it's still going to be more coming. I want to show you an interesting one here. So we do that for every domain. But this is what I also got. So Huawei BSS coverage and transformation recommendations. So we take each of these. This is a summary of what you saw in each of the pages. What is the recommendation? One is proof catalog driven. Huawei must show you that they are catalog driven. The single product model. ETM form open API. So Globus, stay on the product model. Are they saying that they expose the same catalog to the channels or are they saying they replicate the catalogs to the channels?
They don't replicate. They want to publish to the channels. Publish from the catalog itself. So if you look at that. Yeah, but Globus is supposed to take all this data, dump it into EcoGenia and see what you can come out with. Have you started doing that? Okay, we can attempt that. Yeah, so I'll be as interested in the information for us. So I think Globus, we must just set up a session so it's been ingested so we can get the result. Yeah, okay. But we do need to... Please, this is the one that is going to have some impact on the overall, right?
So please let's move with that. Then I've got beyond connectivity. So there's the theme. There's a capability area, the current level, maturity stage. Well, how do we evidence that? What are the detailed gaps? What are the priorities and suggested owner? What's the horizon to fix that? Also got a column saying how much of what we covered those things, can they meet and coverage basis. So, like, you know, it's out of scope for them, etc. So this is a good view to show to them what they had not considered as part of this program. You look at customer support, we do the same.
We go through theme, capex capability area, current maturity stage, evidence, detailed gap, priority. Here we look at Huawei coverage. So if you look at for data and foundations, it's kind of maybe almost 100%. But then it gets selectively. And I think this gives them a good view of how complete, incomplete it is and how much work they need to do. So my view is they've got the work cut out for them, Globus. We do the same for broadband. But they really didn't do a lot of the broadband detailed workshops, right? I think it's still going to be more coming.
I want to show you an interesting one here. So we do that for every domain. But this is what I also got. So Huawei BSS coverage and transformation recommendations. So we take each of these. This is a summary of what you saw in each of the pages. What is the recommendation? One is proof catalog driven. Huawei must show you that they are catalog driven. The single product model. ETM form open API. So Globus, stay on the product model. They're saying that they expose the same catalog to the channels or they're saying they replicate the catalogs to the channels.
They don't replicate. They want to publish to the channels. Publish from the catalog itself. So if you look at that. What's the customer wants to perform an engagement, they will call the catalog. Yes. Well, if you see, there's a diagram where they show that this Dixie platform is like a centralized platform where all the channels. Yeah, but the issue is that if they start doing millions of transactions once the entire transformation is done, is that catalog going to scale? Or is it going to just continue to throw more hardware at the problem? Yeah, so that's that's the big question.
And that's why I said maybe we must still have a session on Dixie. And what's the other one? It's fine. You can set up that session. I don't see a problem with that. Kamunda and Dixie. Kamunda is the BPM solution that drives the steps. I think that'll be useful. And then we can understand what is the capability of expanding that into a higher volume. There's one other presentation I had. Give me a minute. I just want to quickly show that. I think I shared that with you this morning, Globus, if I remember. Let me go through that.
Let's see. You know, I got too many emails. One of these days I'm going to kill, I'm going to probably be my own worst enemy. Let me just see what I sent to you this morning. Yeah, I'm just trying to quickly get to that. It should be here. Or it could be, it could have even come from my email.com. I think it's in this one. Just let me look at that. Yeah. So if I can quickly share this, this is probably the last thing I'm sharing. If you look at the transformation and the conformance, let me go through a report that says this is what they do.
Yeah, yeah. So I get them. Based on what happened was that Huawei built this design map to eight areas of non-conformance, right? And those are things that they need to look at and consider. So if they all marked it as non-conformance, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. And each one is covered in the next slide. And the four findings along that. You know, what they hold and what they've not evidence, what they've committed, what's absent. The conformance index in terms of what it looks like. The maturity distribution. Now they're really committed of average maturity of two, but in terms of conformance and what they claim, they said at 1.8 because it's not proven.
Then we go through each of the key areas. The older conformance architecture is, this is what it should look like, right? If you consider that. And really the big things in catalog decomposition, commercial office, CFS, RFSM, source and provisioning. You know, I don't know why they can't do this Globus given that they own the whole value chain, right, as a network vendor. So I find that very, very strange. Then we look at what, we just at a very high level recommend a future state one telecom digital architecture. And that's the other big issue. There's nothing in the transformation program that tells me the goal is one telecom.
Yeah, that's a strange one. You mentioned it to Dr. Knox as well, right? Yeah, but the issue is that every, every action, every architectural initiative you take should be, should be building towards that one telecom. And the way they're doing it, I'm really struggling in the readiness part, what they need to do, because the end game is a composable techco given all the digital ambitions and based on what Lanyard and the others said, right? There's a heat map. There's the, how do we, you know, how can you deliver to kind of techco ambition? I don't believe that Huawei is going to get there.
The whole thing of looking at, you know, financial lens in terms of decommissioning, saving costs, recommendations and decision gates. Now, the issue is that I've built these as all separate initiatives. What I need to do is once we've completed all the maturity ratings, I'm going to stop sharing now. Once we've completed all the maturity ratings, what we have to start doing is bringing this whole thing together. So I think, you know, we're 70% there, but there's a lot more to do. Then we want to sit with TechnoTree and let TechnoTree Listen, I know that testing techniques will be pulled together, but there is a storyline emerging.
There is a high-level strategic intent and overview we will give, which will then talk to all those issues of it must be a one, and it'll take our full inputs from this strategy, the presentation to the market and the strategy, and try and link everything back to that. Comment from anyone? One thing, if you can see my screen. Yeah, I can see it. Put it in slide mode, please. Slideshow. Present. Yeah, let it go bigger. Let me see why it's not. There it goes. So, in the overall landscape, and the text is too small to read, but this thing in the middle is the BSA score capabilities, and everything that's green is part of the BSA migration scope.
It effectively just tells me above it sits the telecom integration layer, and up there are all the channels. But effectively, what it says is that the complete channel approach and the integration is outside of the YW scope. I mean, because you need to absorb all the specs and come back and say what is the problem and what needs to be done. So, the point I want to make is that even though there's a convergence which might work plan in the overall Greenpeace here, there's nothing in the migration that's going to focus on making the channels work in a consistent way.
And there's no... No, but even the convergence piece, right? Yes, I know you've got... I see, I don't see what they're going to do to converge customer records, how they're creating a customer golden record. Correct, correct. How are they doing against customer, against the catalogs? There's a whole lot of gaps that are not visible. There's a lot of gaps. And a lot of this is pre-work that needs to be done. Correct, so there's a lot of gaps. All I'm trying to say is that apart from this project, the channel layer is not even in the scope of the project.
Yeah, but see, what I'm looking for, Corvus, is that you guys need... I hear what you're saying. I need this to go into EcoGeni for EcoGeni to come out with all this intelligence. Okay. Okay, I'm not used to that, so... Including giving a view on what should stay, what should go, what should be fixed, what should be refactored, and then the last thing would be to say, what should your order compliance target architecture look like for a telco, not a telco? The architecture itself is a big body of work. Yeah, so just have a pencil and a genie team, and then we'll show you how it works.
Yeah, yeah, we'll do that as a priority. So can I work towards seeing an output coming out by Tuesday next week, at least the first view? Should be fine, thanks. And so I would like to have something to show to Dr. Knox in the Monday meeting, if we can. A preliminary, arbitrary, but at least you can show some insights. So can EcoGeni absorb and read the details from a diagram? From anything. Okay. Diagram, picture. Okay, that's important because otherwise there's a lot of processing. So to put the diagrams on the table, I've got a lot.
You know, I've even pulled out some of it in the videos. I think EcoGeni, Venzel, can you guys put some dedicated effort? Because if I look, what is our sessions tomorrow? Tomorrow is product catalog. We've canceled that thing tomorrow, right? Yeah, we have time tomorrow. Can you guys put energy in getting this so that I can get something for the Monday report? Because our next session is on Monday. What is the finance engagement? I'm trying to understand that or the BI stuff, the reporting stuff. And then there's something on Wednesday. No, no, there's nothing on Wednesday.
Can you guys put energy in getting the report? Can you also try, Jaco, can you guys dump all the documentation they gave us and see if we can make sense of it out of EcoGeni? Yeah, for sure. So focus on that tomorrow, Venzel. Yeah. I mean, what we're also starting to do is we're building a toolkit that will help us in future work, you know, similar to this. Good. And also, don't forget, Jaco, you guys owe me to put that dashboard into... What we have to do is not... We have to pull the entire journey of the consulting exercise into EcoGeni once we're done.
Oh, yes. Not for this exercise, but we need it for the next exercise. I've got Claude keeping my version control and stuff for me at the moment, so I don't have a problem. Yeah, okay. Can you drive that one as well? Yeah, I think we're in a really good place platform-wise to start looking at that as well. So, yeah, I think I have it. Yeah, but let's focus on getting the architecture out. And then the other thing you guys need to look at, and you can do some one-on-ones if you need, Corvus, is that whole demand management process and prioritization and whether they're living in a constant backlog, you know, and by the time they get to that item, you know, as things move on in the business cycle.
Okay. Okay, so I don't know if there's any questions or what you've looked at now makes sense to you. Yeah, it's very good, Chatty. Thanks. Brilliant. I've just one thing. Should we perhaps have some sessions with the architecture team, Corvus? That's what I've been asking you all to do. Go and spend some time with them. If there's new rich insights coming, make sure you record the conversations so you can transcribe them and pump them into EcoGeni as well. Yeah, because I wonder if we shouldn't do a recommendation on that. You know, it's a lot of architects sitting there, but it's very academical and you don't really get... But you know what the architecture team is so fragmented.
You're the guy yesterday talking about product catalog. You know jack shit about what's going on in the transformation project. Exactly. It's scary. I don't know what... And we have Serena there, right, Corvus? And Elmerie. But this is the issue. I think that people are saying that the older... Some of the older people are becoming a bottleneck to what needs to be transformed. You heard that comment yesterday. Look, Serena is very strong on this line. I don't know how much she drives of what actually happens, but there's an architect... The impression I got that Serena seems to be in the driving seat and she doesn't get any input.
Well, there's an architect permanently assigned to the transformation, which I think is Nicolette Meyer. And I know her from previous... But Nicolette cannot work in isolation of the broader architecture team, right? That's where there's a problem. Okay, I think she knows a lot that we haven't explored. Okay, so you guys have a very big task ahead of you. And please, let's put some fire under that. I'm continuing to work, refine and make this look better and better. And then we will set up a meeting with Technogy after that. Sorry, I forgot. I was saying that that will also talk to the opportunity for A1L, right, from an architecture perspective.
Once we present the report, then we'll see this is how we can help. Yes, it's a service, even on the PMO. But I think that the team already would be thinking along those lines. Yes, I think that. I mean, have you guys got any other feedback from the internal people, Kovas, that you know? No. In terms of the process and journey we're going through? You mean direct contact with people? Yeah. Yeah, I'm getting a lot of comments. Oh, okay, good. I have... Positive, negative, confused, not sure. No, very positive, Chati. As we said, they love that we actually know their business and it's not just an academic exercise.
The guy yesterday that ever was from the business, wasn't he? Yeah. He was very cooperative. He wants to build his own products. Yeah. There is a lot of business frustration, but I guess the people are scared to voice their opinion. The telecom's always been that kind of organisation. People are not vocal, you know, it's the be nice to each other culture. There's only me and Johan and Marie that used to punch each other in the face all the time. I still remember the... You know, when Johan Marie walked into my office and we closed the door, everyone ran.
But again, he came from a technical background and he tried to do what IT should be doing. Interesting days. But I think so far people have been very cooperative. I'm still trying of time to understand what has Deloitte guys done. I'm not sure. It's a good question. There's no clarity on what they've done. That feedback on Friday, it just blew their minds. Like Deloitte was there for months. He did that after two weeks. Well, which feedback? You don't have the Monday one. Is it Monday? Yeah, sorry. The one with Dr. Knox? Yes. Yeah, they were very surprised at how much we had cleaned in that short period of time.
But you know, this is why I made the point. We come from operations. That's why we understand this. We've worked for MNOs. Yes. In MNOs, not for in MNOs. And that makes all the difference because we have a very operational outlook. Yes. Yeah. My guess is Deloitte did a as is to be wish list through a lot of people and combined that and gave them back to them. And that kind of... I see the same issue with PWC. Maybe Accenture is a little bit more muscle in the game, but they never get to implement what they do.
What was interesting today when I was in the Axiom defense, RFP defense session, the group CTIO came in. His name's Jerome. He works from Tanzania. And the first thing he said is, I know that Maya and you did wonderful things in MTN, so I really look up to you. Oh, wow. So like out of the blue. And then during the break, he told me that he's been following me for years. And I've never been active on social media until recently on LinkedIn. But it's interesting, you know, because I think that the credibility probably gives us a step in through the door.
For sure. I was telling somebody, it's amazing what they share with us. Because they basically give us visibility into everything. And that probably comes from your weight, actually. I think it's trust, right, more than anything. Also, we didn't go into that arrogant, we know it all attitude. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It was, tell us what you're doing. Yeah. You know, that makes all the difference. And you know, the one thing I've learned, never denigrate people, never denigrate what they've done. So I always say, there's no right or wrong. We know in our days to Quovers, we made decisions that probably we would have never made, you know, from an architectural standpoint.
But we were moving and we had to make decisions. And I think that's what's good. And what ties into what you said, right? At the end of the day, we're not dictating that you need to get rid of Huawei. We're basically saying, if you stick with them, this is option A. If you don't stick with them, then this is option B. So maybe we come in and project manage Huawei for you. Exactly. That's a good suggestion. Actually, after this session, one of the sessions where you had the testing team, right? Right. That Omar sent me this long mail.
He's like, are you, you're the guy that sat with me over every night and over weekends doing WFM and CMSS implementation and testing. So he said, are we going to do it again for this project? I think that's a lot that is left to be desired. And I think that, I just think the architecture function is weak. I think the CIO is not as strong as she could be. But you know, when I had the interview with Lunga, you know, and I sent the notes to you, he really articulated the transformation is a little bit all over.
Yeah. Exactly. Cobus, one more thing. Can you check through all the transcripts whether you got the CFO one? That's the only one I'm missing. And that was a good session. Yeah, please, if you can find that transcript. If not, I'll go back to Google. CFO. It was the first week on the Friday, I think. We were in the, at Telcom and you, I think you struggled to hear Cobus, you said. Oh, that was the one where all the echo was. I don't think we recorded that. So we had the CMO session. We had the other pre-paid session.
And the next day we had the CFO session. I'll tell you the exact date we had it. It was, I think, around the 9th or 10th. I think it was the Wednesday. Yeah, but the Friday was the, Friday was the, I missed it. I was sick. It was on the 10th, Wednesday. The 10th, yeah. And then we had the CTIO session. You remember, Ashuta, we waited forever and again. Yes. Okay, let's go through. I just wanted to make sure we took stock. We understood what's outstanding. For me, the big thing now really is the, is the area of architecture.
Because that's the beginning and the end of everything. So please, okay, if you guys can just get to, you know, try and pump what you can into eco-gene. Check if eco-gene comes up with any gaps so that we can go back to Telcom for that information. Yeah, actually, there's a lot of diagrams that I pull out out of the workshops. Okay, that's good. And then on the other side, Bensal, remember we discussed getting to Almerie to look at all the other tools. Okay, then I got a second problem, guys. We have jack shit on SMB.
There's a problem there and I need to raise that with Blessing and Port. So I'm going to try and call them. But otherwise, I think we, we made good progress in two weeks, right? I mean, this is week three, but week two was a short week. Yep. Generally, I think we're in a good place. Yep. Jaco? Yeah. Just getting back to your comment to get you out of here with all the tools. So I've been busy after hours on eco-gene, just kind of making the meta-model management stuff. And yesterday when I showed Robby, his first comment was, if you show this to Almerie, she's going to jump up and down with excitement.
And I mean, now they have two, three other tools. Yes, it's ArcEA, they have Abacus, and they have the other one. Because there are three enterprise architecture tools. Yes. They're implementing OPEX. Yeah, but I think that we must, we must use eco-gene, the architecture stuff when we get to it. But, you know, this is... Definitely. Definitely. You know, we need to say we were able to do this work quickly because we had these AI tools at our disposal. Perfect. And we can use that. Yeah, and we can even say in consolidating the feedback from the sessions, et cetera, as well, we used our homegrown kind of EcoGenie tool.
I'm excited. Let's get it done. Okay, so guys, please, I really want to get a good view on that. You have to do two things. One, EcoGenie overlay, then the Huawei transformation agenda overlay, then a view on what needs to retire, move, change, the finding around the channel and experience layer, and the issue around catalog, you know, all those things need to come out in the findings of architecture. Because that gives you the evidence, right? Yes. Okay. Shathi, if you have any questions, I will try and, you know, see where I can help and what needs to be done.
Good. We will do. Okay, we need to take another review midweek next week. Okay. And then I want to immediately after that, I want to set up something with the Technotree team. Okay. I will chase in the meantime, the SMB issue, and then I did tell you all that Parishka came back saying S9 wanted a presentation of the Technotree system, right? Yeah, so they're not responding, but I sent her a message again today. I copied you guys, right? Okay. Let's see where that goes. Are you creating the folders? I'll start putting everything there. But remember, it'll get updated all the time, because every time I add a new spreadsheet or a new domain, the whole thing regenerates.
Yeah. I created a folder there, deliverables. We already have this folder. Yeah, I have access to load and do things there. You should? I'll check. I'll check later. Okay. Chatty, I don't think we have the CFO transcript, because I looked through my mails as well. So I think we have to ask Blessing. I think the team session was on. Yeah, I think we have to ask Blessing. Yeah, Blessing is not responding. I think he's very sick. Oh, shame. Okay, no problem. I've got to join another call now. All right, thank you so much. Thank you so much.
Bye. Thanks everyone. Bye.