Original Message:
Sent: Jan 26, 2026 20:14
From: Chirag Raval
Subject: From Autonomy to Value: Should Centricity and Decision Autonomy Together Define the Next Operations Roadmap?
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
Original Message:
Sent: Jan 21, 2026 20:55
From: Ngoc Linh Nguyen
Subject: From Autonomy to Value: Should Centricity and Decision Autonomy Together Define the Next Operations Roadmap?
At VNPT, as part of our national-scale network transformation program, we have been actively deploying network automation through an Automation Factory, standardized frameworks, and multiple real operational use cases. In parallel, we are building a new operations model based on centralized control, distributed execution, and data-driven operations.
In this journey, we have found that two major evolution processes are happening simultaneously. One is well captured by TM Forum's Autonomous Network Levels L0–L5, which describe how decision autonomy and closed-loop intelligence mature over time. The other, equally strategic but less formally modelled, is the evolution of operational centricity: from network-centric to service-centric and ultimately value-centric operations.
These two dimensions are often addressed separately. Autonomy defines how decisions are made, while centricity defines what the system is optimizing for. From our practical experience, we believe that high autonomy without centricity transformation risks optimizing network elements while missing service, experience and business objectives.
This leads us to an open question for the TM Forum community: should the future roadmap for Network Operations be defined along two complementary axes – Decision Autonomy (L0–L5) and Operational Centricity (network / service / value-centric) – to guide the design of next-generation Network Operations Operating Systems?
*We would greatly appreciate insights from the community on:
Whether TM Forum has already considered an explicit integration of centricity evolution with Autonomous Network maturity models, and
Whether there is value in defining a unified two-axis evolution framework to help operators align autonomy maturity with long-term service and business transformation objectives.*
We believe this could become an important complement to the existing Autonomous Networks framework and a practical guide for operators embarking on large-scale intelligent operations transformation.
#DigitalTransformationMaturity
------------------------------
Ngoc Linh Nguyen
Vietnam Posts and Telecommunications Group (VNPT)
------------------------------