A wise man once said “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you just might find you get what you need.” That wise man was Mick Jagger, but his point readily applies to the selection and deployment of RMS solutions for cell sites!
TowerXchange has seen many RFPs for RMS come back to market 18-24 months after an initial trial and rollout failed, so we thought we’d look at some of the most common reasons why RMS deployments fail, and how those challenges can be overcome.
Too many RMS deployments fail because the specification is driven by what can be done instead of what needs to be done.
Too many RMS deployments fail because of a lack of structure in the procurement process.
Too many RMS deployments fail because of a conflict of interests within the supply chain.
Too many RMS deployments fail because, let’s be honest, some lower cost solutions are not suitable to meet the demands of deployment at remote cell sites in emerging markets.
TowerXchange has collected numerous examples of the substantial operational efficiency improvements possible through RMS, but it remains critical that RFPs and RFQs (Requests For Proposal and Requests For Quotation) are aligned with the MNO or towerco’s specific requirements, that a structured process is followed during trials, and that the right partner is selected to implement the solution.
The specification must be driven by what needs to be done instead of what can be done.
There can be a law of diminishing returns as the specs for RMS get more complicated and the quotations more costly. Fuel tank and power system monitoring is a no-brainer at off-grid and unreliable grid cell sites, and often pays for itself within six months. Access control solutions pay a handsome dividend particularly if you have a problem with pilferage from within the supply chain. CCTV adds considerable cost and competes for scarce bandwidth, so may be best deployed at sites where third party theft and vandalism problems are particularly acute.
RMS requires maintenance itself, such as dealing with power surges that get through surge protection, so the more RMS equipment you install, the more components can fail, and the more ongoing maintenance opex you are going to incur.
Buyers need to ask themselves what the focus of their deployment should be, where they will find the best RoI, and whether they need full functionality at every site, or whether a simplified specification could be implemented with less cost, complexity and risk.
“We’ve seen some RFPs that call for highly specified systems and, unsurprisingly, the quotes from robust, proven RMS vendors come in over budget. Some buyers try to monitor everything on a triple digit budget per site, so they do it with lower quality equipment that isn’t robust enough to work in the field. Too often we see those RFPs back again a couple of years later after a failed implementation,” said Chris Begent, Commercial Director at Telemisis.
A structured procurement process
Define the requirements of RMS from different internal stakeholders: the O&M team, your refueling subcontractor and business management. Whether managed in-house or outsourced, all your stakeholders have got to share their requirements and ‘buy-in’ to the RMS deployment. Rank requirements with priorities 1-10 to help you ensure only functionality that will actually be of use makes it into the spec; there’s no place for ‘nice to know’ data, it’s only going to make the solution more costly and complex.
Shortlist RFP recipients. Give vendors an indication of budget if you can, as vendors will then be able to give you a better idea of what functionality you’ll be able to achieve, and to what extent you may have to standardise your approach versus customising for different sites.
You don’t need to break-in an unproven RMS provider. There are a handful of ‘telco-grade’ RMS vendors whose solutions have been proven at thousands of cell sites in Africa, Asia and Latin America – read interviews with the key players at www.towerxchange.com/category/whos-who/monitoring-management, contact each company that seem to be able to meet your needs, and ask for references from their clients. If you ask vendors to propose a solution, rather than ask for a quote for a specific component, they may have a variety of ways in which they can solve similar problems at different price points.
Take a structured approach to trialing RMS over a period of at least two months to sort out which suppliers can meet your requirements, and make a commitment to weed-out suppliers that fall short.
Narrow the field down to two or three vendors that you know are going to work, then look at costs.
As if selecting and trialing an RMS solution weren’t difficult enough, next comes the most challenging step of all: implementation.
Conflicts of interests within the supply chain
One of the most common reasons that RMS deployments fail is in cases where MNOs and towercos subcontract the installation of sensors to their O&M partners, often the same company that manages fuel logistics. There is logic in that these companies know the specific conditions and requirements of individual sites. However, it may not be in that contractor’s interests to optimally install and maintain an RMS solution that will contribute to the reduction of maintenance truck rolls and diesel consumption.
Therefore it is increasingly common for MNOs and towercos to ask the RMS manufacturer to install the solution in-country. However, this solution only works some of the time. There are one or two RMS vendors that have their own substantial team of field engineers, or who are affiliated with multi-country turnkey infrastructure subcontractors, but several of the most reputable RMS manufacturers are just that – expert manufacturers – they don’t necessarily have deployment resources or experience in every country.
Towercos and MNOs original thinking, to use trusted installation companies with a local footprint, is certainly more economical than flying in a RMS engineers just for that job. But it’s a conflict of interests to ask the vendor of fuel to monitor itself. Most towercos and MNOs have two or three preferred vendors. They may allocate refueling and O&M to Company A, Company B may have tendered and not got the contract – so ask Company B to deploy the RMS – they have a strong incentive to ensure Company A are kept honest! Keeping your alternate supplier happy is also handy when it comes to contract renewal!
Finally, a note of caution for RMS entrepreneurs and investors seeking contracts with emerging market MNOs and towercos. MNOs and towercos like to contain their risk by contracting as a local OpCo, with limited if any exposure to the Group HQ entity. It’s the oldest advice in the book, but contract with the parent company if you can.
Selecting and deploying an access control and CCTV solution to meet your needs
2000L of diesel is a very ‘liquid’ asset at remote cell sites, and represents a big temptation for thieves and, let’s be honest, for staff and contractors. If you have a problem with pilferage, you need to select and invest in a solution that addresses your specific problem.
Before investing in CCTV, decide what will you do if you see someone breaking in. Can security reach the site in time to intervene? Would you want your security contractor to intervene with a thief who might be armed? What is your priority? Are you trying to prevent theft of fuel and equipment from sites, or is the priority simply to know that fuel is missing so you can refuel before the battery bank is discharged and the site does down – if so, a fuel sensor gives you the fuel level, delivery confirmation, and theft alarms, all at fraction of cost of an access control system or CCTV.
Using conventional padlocks on gates and shelters provides negligible security given the number of cloned keys that will quickly enter circulation, particularly if you have to grant access to multiple subcontractors from multiple tenants. It can therefore be useful to use a centrally programmable key, which means you need an electric lock. Using an electric lock on gates often means the power cable may be exposed, so make sure you make the best choice to meet your needs: FailSecure systems lock if the power is cut, FailSafe systems unlock if the power is cut. The correct type of lock needs to be fitted for the purpose as fitting a “standard Mag Lock” is insufficient for a gate as it is easily forced open with a kick but a purpose designed gate lock will hold but requires gates to be in good condition. Investing in premium electric locks will achieve only so much if old, wobbly gates in perimeter fencing make it difficult to line up the bolts and lock.
You need to understand your problem. Is your gate lock for logging who enters the site, is it a deterrent for an opportunistic thief who has a means of cloning old fashioned keys, or are you trying to thwart a more determined thief who will simply ram, climb or cut through your perimeter fence if he can no longer use his key?
Telemisis’ experience of how RMS is bought and sold
Chris Begent, Commercial Director Telemisis: “I’m glad to read that TowerXchange are advocating a structured, appropriate approach to buying RMS that focuses on ROI – even if it’s not always in our interests for simpler spec systems to be ordered! I think it’s in everyone’s interests that whoever wins an RMS tender comes out other side with a system that meets the customer’s requirements and is installed right first time.”
“Done right, RMS saves a lot of money, done wrong it costs more than it’s worth,” continues Begent. “I’m always happy to put prospective customers in contact with any one of Telemisis’ existing clients. Telemisis’s SitePro is a solid, reliable, quality solution and it does what we say. Telemisis use our experience and technical knowledge to provide cost effective solutions for all markets”
“As specialists in RMS with many years of experience in designing systems we find that receiving RFPs with details of what information is required, rather than orders for specific sensors, enables us to create intelligent and efficient designs using proven sensors designed by us or sourced from trusted specialist manufacturers and combining data to create a cost efficient design to meet the client’s needs.”
“Too often we see RMS solutions come back up for tender 12 to 18 months after an initial vendor selection, which must be incredibly frustrating and costly for buyers. We whole-heartedly support TowerXchange’s assertion that a shift in focus to a structured vendor selection process would improve the situation. A structured RMS vendor selection, which includes a trial phase with clearly defined success and selection criteria, that must be met by the successful vendor, is the most likely process to deliver a solution that fulfils the true needs of carriers and towercos,” concludes Telemisis’ Begent.
