© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
Chapter 3
Linking Revenue 
Assurance to Fraud 
Synergyof Billing Verification 
David Leshem
In this article, I would like to provide a dierent perspective on the supposedly
separate disciplines of fraud management and billing verication and to show that
there is signicant synergy to be gained by an integrated approach�
Fraud management systems (FMSs) and billing verication (BV) systems are
among the technologies available to revenue assurance (RA) managers at commu-
nication providers� Each technology tackles a dierent aspect of RA� Fraud man-
agement handles mainly external attacks on the communication provider’s revenue,
while BV handles internal failures due to human error, misspelled product/tari
specications, or misinterpreted business rules
Fraud management is a cat and mouse” game between fraud perpetrators, who
are usually well-organized and technologically sophisticated criminal groups, and
the telecom service providers they seek to defraudFraud management comprises
a large family of techniques that aim to tackle the wide variety of types of fraud�
28  ◾  Revenue Assurance
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
However, there is no nal victory possible over fraud� is is true for two reasons:
(i) New types of fraud are regularly invented, and new fraud opportunities
are created by the service and technology advancements of communication
(ii) Finite technological and manpower resources set an upper limit on the capa-
bilities of fraud management to either prevent or detect fraud�
Fraudsters are inventive and are always exploring new techniques to exploit
the weaknesses of communication providers� As communication providers develop
new products and implement new systems, the fraudsters search for new loopholes
to exploit� At the same time, FMSs only discover new types of fraud after the
damage has been done� ey are expensive to purchase� ey are also expensive to
operate, as the user needs to be highly skilled to get the most from the FMS� One
major shortcoming of FMSs is that they cannot accurately prioritize on the basis
of a quantied valuation of the fraud threat� As a consequence, fraud management
teams may waste much time chasing the less costly frauds�
RA and BV systems have traditionally been viewed as nancial audit tools�
ey have not been typically been used to supplement fraud management� I would
like to show that BV systems could enhance the capabilities of existing FMSs in
the following ways:
(a) Detecting frauds missed by the FMS
(b) Detecting suspected fraud patterns earlier
(c) Helping tune the FMS’s detection algorithms in relation to changes in legiti-
mate customer behavior to avoid false alarms
(d) Assisting with content and e-commerce fraud prevention
e BV system’s ability to monitor and reconcile all of the communication
providers revenue streams is important� Also important is the BV system’s pri-
oritization of the sources of revenue loss� Together, they enable the commu-
nication providers fraud management experts to focus their eorts in fruitful
Both FMS and BV systems process CDRs at a dierent stage and format�
FMS process mainly raw CDRs or SS7 events, while BV systems process CDRs
that are revenue-bearing events and contain customer-related information for
billing (e�g�, calling circle discount indicators, cell information, package informa-
tion, and much more)� After the initial step of CDR collection, the information
is processed quite dierently in these systemsIn addition, technological experts
usually operate FMS, while personnel with a nancial background operate the
BV systems
I want to think that the performance of FMS can be improved by eectively
using the capabilities and information available from BV systems�

Get Revenue Assurance now with O’Reilly online learning.

O’Reilly members experience live online training, plus books, videos, and digital content from 200+ publishers.