1. Has TM Forum explicitly integrated "centricity evolution" with Autonomous Network (AN) maturity?
**Short answer:** *Not explicitly as a first‑class, orthogonal dimension - but the building blocks already exist across several TM Forum frameworks.*
Where autonomy is well covered
TM Forum's **Autonomous Network Levels (L0–L5)** are intentionally focused on *decision autonomy*:
* Who/what makes decisions
* How closed loops are formed
* The role of AI/ML
* The reduction of human intervention
This is a **vertical maturity model**: moving from assisted operations to fully autonomous intent-driven systems.
Where centricity appears - but implicitly
Operational centricity evolution (network → service → experience/value) is currently *distributed* across several TM Forum assets rather than explicitly modeled as a progression axis:
1. **ODA (Open Digital Architecture)**
* ODA promotes a **customer- and service-centric decomposition** through domains, components, and Open APIs.
* However, ODA does not explicitly describe *when* or *how* an operator transitions centricity over time.
2. **eTOM → Business Process Framework**
* The shift from Resource Fulfillment/Assurance to Service and Customer layers reflects centricity evolution.
* Yet this is structural, not maturity-based.
3. **ZOOM (Zero-touch Operations & Management)**
* ZOOM emphasizes *closed loops* and *intent*.
* The "intent" concept is inherently service- or outcome-oriented, but ZOOM does not explicitly classify operators by centricity stage.
4. **Customer Experience Management (CEM) and Value-based Assurance**
* TM Forum has increasingly focused on experience KPIs, business outcomes, and monetization.
* These initiatives imply value-centric operations but are not integrated into the AN Levels model.
TM Forum has *acknowledged the importance of centricity*, but it is **not explicitly modeled as an evolution axis alongside autonomy**. Your observation is accurate: the two evolutions are addressed in parallel, not together.
2. Is there value in a unified two-axis framework (Autonomy × Centricity)?
From both a **practical operator perspective** and a **framework design perspective**, the answer is **yes - and increasingly so**.
Why autonomy alone is insufficient
Your experience at VNPT reflects a common pattern:
* High autonomy applied at **network or resource level** can:
* Optimize element KPIs
* Improve MTTR
* Reduce OPEX
* But still fail to:
* Improve service experience
* Align with customer SLAs
* Support differentiated business models
This leads to what many operators quietly experience:
> *"We automated a lot, but the business impact is unclear."*
3. The case for a two-axis evolution model
two-dimensional framework** would explicitly separate:
* **How decisions are made** (Autonomy)
* **What the system optimizes for** (Centricity)
### Axis 1: Decision Autonomy (existing)
* L0: Manual
* L1–L2: Assisted / Partial closed loop
* L3: Conditional autonomy
* L4: High autonomy with human governance
* L5: Full intent-driven autonomy
### Axis 2: Operational Centricity (proposed)
A possible evolution path could be:
1. **Network-centric**
* Focus: Elements, resources, topology
* KPIs: Availability, utilization, alarms
* Typical early automation wins
2. **Service-centric**
* Focus: End-to-end services, SLAs, service models
* KPIs: Service performance, SLA compliance
* Requires service inventory, correlation, intent abstraction
3. **Experience / Value-centric**
* Focus: Customer experience, revenue impact, business outcomes
* KPIs: NPS, churn risk, ARPU protection, enterprise SLA penalties
* Requires analytics, customer context, and policy-driven prioritization
Why two axes matter together
A two-axis view helps explain **real-world maturity states**, for example:
* **High autonomy + network-centric**
→ "Fast, efficient, but blind to business impact"
* **Low autonomy + value-centric intent**
→ "Clear goals, but manual and slow"
* **High autonomy + value-centric**
→ True *autonomous operations aligned with business outcomes*
This mapping is useful for:
* Roadmap planning
* Investment prioritization
* Executive communication
* Vendor evaluation
4. Implications for "Next-Generation Network Operations OS"
Your reference to an **Operations Operating System** is particularly important. A two-axis framework naturally drives architectural clarity:
Network Ops OS capabilities by centricity level
| Centricity | Key OS Capabilities |
| --------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Network-centric | Domain controllers, topology awareness, rule-based loops |
| Service-centric | Service intent models, cross-domain orchestration, SLA analytics |
| Value-centric | Experience models, business policies, AI-driven prioritization |
Autonomy then becomes an *overlay*
* Autonomy determines *how automatically* the OS acts
* Centricity determines *why* it acts and *what success means*
This aligns perfectly with:
* Centralized control / distributed execution
* Data-driven operations
* Automation Factory models like the one VNPT is building
------------------------------
Chirag Raval
Lead Consultant
Infosys Ltd
------------------------------