Mobile Network Rollout Success Story Which Might Be Used as Lesson Learnt
Autor: tektonia • February 5, 2017 • Presentation or Speech • 902 Words (4 Pages) • 1,033 Views
Page 1 of 4
																
								Initial State – 1/3
Situation on arrival
- On management request xxxx was delegated/escalated out of his former project as PgM/AMS in xxx (where he was leading the xxx account) to take over the role as „Network Implementation Manager“ (NIM) in xxxx Project in Jakarta
- Project far behind schedule at this stage and LDs (~50MUSD) most likely to happen
- No Network Implementation Manager (NIM) in place
- Once in project role as NIM was not implemented fully but split into two functions
- Site Acquisition and Civil Works
- Implementation and Integration and handover to managed service
- Local/Regional setup
- Regional Managers acting mainly as civil work managers rather than overall responsible per region
- Project mainly „numbers“ driven instead of having clear focus on building network in intelligent way (most sites were civil work had been completed could not be connected to network)
- Regional Implementation staff reporting to Regional Manager whereas NIM was held responsible for ensuring rollout targets
- Conflict of interest as regional targets not in line with Implementation targets
- Data in project reporting tool not accurate
- No accurate forecasting/planning in place
- No clear directions were given to Implementation staff in the field from regional manager
Initial State – 2/3
Responsibilities taken over on arrival - Targets
- Network Implementation Manager
- 1000 BTS plus additional 1000 PDH links to be deployed in Java/Bali island within 6 months - succeeded
- All sites to be optimized and handed over to MS within same timeframe – succeeded
- Backbone Rollout
- 91 Backbone sites to be deployed over Java and Bali within 9 months time – succeeded
- In-Building – Overall responsibility
- No consistent reporting; project organization not clear; two project managers in place
- lead of In-Building department handed over to xxx
- Re-organizing of Inbuilding department
- At point of arrival no Inbuilding site had been integrated eventhough project was running since more than 8 months
- ~ 30 sites could brought into service until 12/2006 – succeeded
Rollout: xxx Project Jakarta
Achievements from July’06 to January‘07
[pic 1]
Rollout: „Mushroom Farming“ - Effect
Result if network not build in intelligent way
[pic 2]
Customer Relationship – 1/2
Customer lost trust in project organization as
- Promises could not kept
- Lack of transparency
- Lack of clear visibilty on project progress and reasons for delay
Regaining of customer trust through
- 100% transparency (see following slide)
- Ensuring clear visibilty on project bottlenecks
- Accurate forecasting (in 10 month rollout Implementation forecast twice not met)
- Active involving of customer in project monitoring
Customer Relationship – 2/2
Full transparency towards customer – example report
[pic 3]
Resource Management (1/4) - Subcontractor
Situation:
- Available Subcontractors working for other xxx project with higher margins for same SoW
- As a results - no committments from subcontractors towards xxx xxx project
- Difficult to improve performance as key subcontractors only available when work in other projects slowed down
- Mainly „secondary“ teams available for xxx rollout
- As a consequence 21 different Subcontractors had to be utilized for Implementation
Solution:
- Close monitoring of subcontractor available resources
- Constant training of available subcontractor resources
- Proactive subcontractor allocation based on rollout requirements (see next slide)
- Accurate forecasting and scheduling of work towards/with Subcontractors
Resource Management  (2/4) - Subcontractor
Close monitoring and allocation of available resources
[pic 4]
Resource Management  (3/4) – Impl. staff allocation
[pic 5]
[pic 6]
Resource Management (4/4) – Overall
[pic 7]
Managed Service
Status in November 2006 
Situation:
- Interface between Rollout and Managed Service not defined
- Handover from Rollout to MS not defined
- At the time when majority of sites have been brought in service MS has not been fully operational for handling this amount of sites
- End of 2006 – 517 Sites Integrated but only 263 Sites on Air
- No alarm monitoring in place
Approach:
- Defining and Implementation of Handover process
- Training of MS (NOC) staff in integrating sites, alarm monitoring
- Re-defined of alarm monitoring on NOC
- Support in re-structuring of NOC
- Implemenation of Netviewer
Status February 2007
- 901 Sites on air target achieved in December
- Around 1130 Sites on Air by mid February
- Backbone up and running for existing sites
- Managed Service up to speed
- Netviewer progress under control
- Customer trust regained
- Teams exhausted
...but then →
Acceptance – xxx project
- New Contract amendment signed between customer and xxx where possible LDs have been linked to
- 901 Sites conditional accepted by 1st of March 2007
- 1300 Sites on Air by 1st of March 2007
- 1543 Sites conditional accepted by 30th of April 2007
- Due to limited resources and immense pressure from customer, site rollout focus has been on integrating sites rather than accepting sites (common problem)
- By Januar 2007 - 33 Sites had been accepted by the customer
- By 1st of March 2007 – 911 Site acceptance had been achieved
- By 30th of April 2007 – 1491 Site acceptance had been achieved (~100 Sites could be excluded due to missing building permit)
- While achieving above mentioned LDs have been avoided
Acceptance – xxx project
[pic 8]
Acceptance – xxx project
- Major challenges faced in providing site documentation
- Deliverables from Subcontractor
Solution:
- Daily meetings with Subcontractor on site-by-site
- Strong support from procurement department
- Addressing high management on subcontractor site
- Strong support from Project documentation department (7/24 during peak)
- from PAC to FAC
- Due to the high amount of sites accepted in short time, major concern was loosing track on site clearance
- „Punchlist“ database introduced where site clearance could be tracked on site per site basis
Acceptance: Punch List Database
[pic 9][pic 10]
...
