You are on page 1of 30

CCR-TOOL USER SURVEY

RESULTS 2010-Q4
Please specify which organization you are working in:
(Trend Last user survey results)
250

200

150

100

50

0
HLR/Au LTE MSC-
09-Q2 09-Q4 10-Q2 10-Q4 APG EDA BSC GGSN C, IS product M-MGw Server, SASN SGSN WRAN
HLR/Au s MSC,
Group IT & Test Environments (Group IT, R&D IT, BETE) 4 1 2 1
Global Service Center - Mexico 2 0
Global Service Center - China 3 10 1 6 3
Global Service Center - Romania 0 1 1
Global Service Center - India 1 3 1 2
China & North East Asia (RCNA) 17 9 9
South East Asia & Oceania (RASO) 44 19 1 5 6 7
India (RINA) 9 10 1 4 3 2
Sub-Saharan Africa (RSSA) 15 7 5 1 1
Middle East (RMEA) 19 8 1 1 2 2 1 1
Northern Europe & Central Asia (RECA) 22 20 2 6 2 1 9
Western & Central Europe (RWCE) 19 18 1 5 6 2 4
Mediterranean (RMED) 23 29 1 1 9 2 1 3 12
Latin America (RLAM) 27 19 8 4 7
North America (RNAM) 5 19 1 5 1 4 8

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 2
In what area are you working?
(Trend Last user survey results)

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
HLR/A LTE MSC-
M-
09-Q2 09-Q4 10-Q2 10-Q4 APG EDA BSC GGSN uC, IS produc Server, SASN SGSN WRAN
MGw
HLR/A ts MSC,
Mainly working with test configuration management (TCM) 2 8 3 10 2 3 5
Mainly working with system support 41 47 31 22 1 1 1 1 9 2 7
Mainly working with product configuration and integration 164 156 118 95 1 2 38 21 1 6 26
Mainly working with network design 73 67 60 51 2 1 6 14 7 5 16

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 3
How would you grade the usage of CCR-tool in your
team/organization?
(Trend Last user survey results)

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
HLR/A LTE MSC-
M-
09-Q2 09-Q4 10-Q2 10-Q4 APG EDA BSC GGSN uC, IS produc Server SASN SGSN WRAN
MGw
HLR/A ts , MSC,
Not used, CCR-tool is only used for evaluation 5 10 5 5 1 1 1 2
Low, some people are using CCR-tool for handling of 78 81 61 40 1 2 1 10 7 4 15
configuration data
Medium, most people are using CCR-tool for handling of 108 112 89 78 1 1 3 34 17 4 18
configuration data
High, everybody using CCR-tool for handling of configuration 89 75 57 55 1 4 19 9 3 19
data

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 4
How would you grade the usage of CCR-tool in your
team/organization?
(Products: APG, IS, M-MGw, MSC-Server, MSC, IP-STP, HLR/AuC,
HLR/AuC-Server)
100%

2
90%

1 1
80%
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
70% 5 5
2 2

60%
11
50% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2

40%

2 2
30%
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
20% 3 3
1 1
4
10%

0%
Australia

Bangladesh

Brazil

Camerun

Canada

Chile

China

Congo

Croatia

Denmark

Egypt

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Guatimala

Hungary

India

Indonesia

Ireland

Israel

Ivory Coast

Japan

Kenya

Malaysia

Mexico

Netherlands

Panama

Philippines

Portugal

Romania

Russian Federation

Saudi Arabia

Serbia

Singapore

South Africa

Spain

Sudan

Sweden

Turkey

Ukraine

United Kingdom

United States

Viet Nam
High, everybody using CCR-tool for handling of configuration data Medium, most people are using CCR-tool for handling of configuration data
Low, some people are using CCR-tool for handling of configuration data Not used, CCR-tool is only used for evaluation

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 5
How would you grade the usage of CCR-tool in your
team/organization?
(Products: GGSN, SASN, SGSN)

100%

90%

1 1
80%

70%

60%

1 1 1 1 1 1
50%

40%

2 2
30%

20%

10%

0%
Canada

Ireland

Lebanon

Netherlands

Romania

Spain

Sweden

United States
High, everybody using CCR-tool for handling of configuration data Medium, most people are using CCR-tool for handling of configuration data
Low, some people are using CCR-tool for handling of configuration data Not used, CCR-tool is only used for evaluation

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 6
How would you grade the usage of CCR-tool in your
team/organization?
(Products: GRAN, WRAN, LRAN)
100%

90%

4
80% 2
1 1 1 1
4
70%
2 2

60%

50% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1

40%

9
30%

1 1 1 1
2 3
20%
1 1

10%

0%
Argentina

Australia

Azerbaijan

Brazil

Canada

Chile

Colombia

Egypt

Finland

France

Greece

India

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Kazakhstan

Kenya

Malaysia

Mexico

Morocco

Netherlands

Panama

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russia

Saudi Arabia

Serbia

Singapore

Spain

Sweden

Tunisia

United States

VietNam
High, everybody using CCR-tool for handling of configuration data Medium, most people are using CCR-tool for handling of configuration data
Low, some people are using CCR-tool for handling of configuration data Not used, CCR-tool is only used for evaluation

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 7
How much time do you estimate that using CCR-tool saves
you?
(By Working Area)
35 34

30

25
25

20 19

15
15
13

11
10 9
8
7 7
6
5
5 4
3
2 2 2 2 2
1 1
0
No time saving 1 to 8 hours per month 9 to 24 hours per month 25 to 40 hours per month 41 to 80 hours per month More than 80 hours per
month

Mainly working with network design Mainly working with product configuration and integration
Mainly working with system support Mainly working with test configuration management (TCM)

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 8
How much time do you estimate that using CCR-tool saves
you?
(By Product)
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
HLR/A LTE MSC-
M-
09-Q2 09-Q4 10-Q2 10-Q4 APG EDA BSC GGSN uC, IS product Server, SASN SGSN WRAN
MGw
HLR/A s MSC,
More than 80 hours per month 14 14 13 11 3 4 4
41 to 80 hours per month 19 17 15 8 2 2 2 2
25 to 40 hours per month 57 62 58 45 1 2 19 10 4 9
9 to 24 hours per month 83 87 89 56 1 20 16 4 15
1 to 8 hours per month 66 75 72 44 1 4 16 4 2 17
No time saving 28 25 31 14 1 1 2 1 1 1 7

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 9
Are you using the CCR-forms (produced by CCR-tool) as
the collection method of data towards your customers?
(Trend)
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
HLR/A LTE MSC-
M- WRA
09-Q2 09-Q4 10-Q2 10-Q4 APG EDA BSC GGSN uC, IS produc Server SASN SGSN
MGw N
HLR/A ts , MSC,
No. We are using a own format of collection method towards 137 135 85 94 1 2 5 39 17 1 6 23
our customers.
No. Another Ericsson organisation is collectiong configuration 46 41 37 27 1 2 9 8 1 6
data input for CCR-tool.
Yes. Our customers delivers the CCR-form with some key data. 58 88 74 45 2 12 8 4 19
Ericsson completes the CCR-form to 100%.
Yes. Our customers delivers the CCR-form 100% complete. 39 14 16 12 1 2 3 6

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 10
How would you grade the CCR-tool helpdesk regarding
response times and knowledge?
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Mobile Mobile Mobile Mobile Packet Packet Packet Packet WRAN WRAN WRAN WRAN
09-Q2 10-Q4 10-Q4 10-Q4 Core, Core, Core, Core, Core, Core, Core, Core, , 09- , 09- , 10- , 10-
09-Q2 09-Q4 10-Q2 10-Q4 09-Q4 10-Q2 10-Q2 10-Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 Q4
Not Acceptable 9 20 15 14 7 13 9 8 0 0 0 0 2 7 5 6
Acceptable 54 55 45 34 43 35 32 21 3 5 2 2 8 15 11 8
Good 118 99 80 60 71 54 55 33 9 12 6 5 37 33 19 17
Excellent 27 26 25 31 17 19 12 21 3 2 5 2 6 5 8 7

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 11
How would you grade the CCR-tool helpdesk regarding
response times and knowledge?
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
HLR/Au LTE MSC-
09-Q2 10-Q4 10-Q4 10-Q4 APG EDA BSC GGSN C, IS product M-MGw Server, SASN SGSN WRAN
HLR/Au s MSC, IP-
Not Acceptable 9 20 15 14 1 6 1 6
Acceptable 54 55 45 34 1 2 12 9 2 8
Good 118 99 80 60 2 3 20 13 5 17
Excellent 27 26 25 31 1 16 5 2 7

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 12
How would you grade the CCR-tool quality?
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Mobile Mobile Mobile Mobile Packet Packet Packet Packet WRAN WRAN WRAN WRAN
09-Q2 10-Q4 10-Q4 10-Q4 Core, Core, Core, Core, Core, Core, Core, Core, , 09- , 09- , 10- , 10-
09-Q2 09-Q4 10-Q2 10-Q4 09-Q4 10-Q2 10-Q2 10-Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 Q4
Not Acceptable 16 20 11 6 11 8 8 3 2 7 1 1 3 5 2 2
Acceptable 54 74 43 36 31 46 29 19 6 9 1 1 16 19 12 13
Good 169 151 124 103 102 89 76 59 13 16 8 7 53 46 39 29
Excellent 41 33 34 33 27 21 20 16 5 3 4 3 9 9 10 10

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 13
How would you grade the CCR-tool quality?
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
HLR/Au LTE MSC-
09-Q2 10-Q4 10-Q4 10-Q4 APG EDA BSC GGSN C, IS product M-MGw Server, SASN SGSN WRAN
HLR/Au s MSC, IP-
Not Acceptable 16 20 11 6 2 1 1 2
Acceptable 54 74 43 36 1 1 1 1 10 8 1 13
Good 169 151 124 103 3 1 4 37 22 7 29
Excellent 41 33 34 33 4 14 2 3 10

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 14
Do you find that the CCR-tool products are released in
time for your need?
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Mobile Mobile Mobile Mobile Packet Packet Packet Packet WRAN WRAN WRAN WRAN
09-Q2 10-Q4 10-Q4 10-Q4 Core, Core, Core, Core, Core, Core, Core, Core, , 09- , 09- , 10- , 10-
09-Q2 09-Q4 10-Q2 10-Q4 09-Q4 10-Q2 10-Q2 10-Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 Q4
Not Acceptable 14 22 8 7 8 10 5 3 3 5 0 1 3 7 3 3
Acceptable 79 70 51 44 49 44 29 19 8 10 3 4 25 16 19 17
Good 143 139 112 90 89 81 76 58 13 16 9 4 39 42 27 19
Excellent 44 47 39 37 28 29 22 17 2 4 2 3 14 14 14 15

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 15
Do you find that the CCR-tool products are released in
time for your need?
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
HLR/Au LTE MSC-
09-Q2 10-Q4 10-Q4 10-Q4 APG EDA BSC GGSN C, IS product M-MGw Server, SASN SGSN WRAN
HLR/Au s MSC, IP-
Not Acceptable 14 22 8 7 1 2 1 3
Acceptable 79 70 51 44 1 1 2 12 7 4 17
Good 143 139 112 90 1 3 1 5 37 20 4 19
Excellent 44 47 39 37 2 13 4 3 15

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 16
How well does the CCR-form meet your needs with
regards to user friendliness?
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
HLR/Au LTE MSC-
09-Q2 09-Q4 10-Q2 10-Q4 APG EDA BSC GGSN C, IS product M-MGw Server, SASN SGSN WRAN
HLR/Au s MSC, IP-
Not Acceptable 16 15 11 5 1 1 1 1 1
Acceptable 72 85 50 45 1 1 1 12 9 4 17
Good 157 142 126 96 1 3 1 5 34 19 6 27
Excellent 35 36 25 32 2 16 4 1 9

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 17
How would you grade the CCR-tool homepage and
supporting documentation?
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
HLR/Au MSC-
LTE
09-Q2 09-Q4 10-Q2 10-Q4 APG EDA BSC GGSN C, IS M-MGw Server, SASN SGSN WRAN
products
HLR/Au MSC, IP-
Not Acceptable 7 7 6 5 1 1 1 2
Acceptable 66 62 38 36 1 1 1 8 5 1 19
Good 167 171 130 108 1 3 1 5 41 23 1 10 23
Excellent 40 37 38 29 2 13 4 10

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 18
How would you grade the CCR-tool performance?
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
HLR/Au LTE MSC-
09-Q2 09-Q4 10-Q2 10-Q4 APG EDA BSC GGSN C, IS product M-MGw Server, SASN SGSN WRAN
HLR/Au s MSC, IP-
Not Acceptable 15 20 19 5 2 1 1 1
Acceptable 56 68 40 39 1 2 1 1 9 10 1 14
Good 163 147 121 91 2 1 4 35 15 7 27
Excellent 46 43 32 43 4 17 7 3 12

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 19
What is the most valuable CCR-tool function?
(Trend Last user survey results)
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
HLR/A LTE MSC-
M-
09-Q2 09-Q4 10-Q2 10-Q4 APG EDA BSC GGSN uC, IS produc Server SASN SGSN WRAN
MGw
HLR/A ts , MSC,
Automated test loading of generated config 14 14 11 9 4 1 1 1 2
Node import 42 38 40 44 1 19 14 1 9
Automated process for CCR-form and script generation 128 118 94 70 1 4 30 4 6 25
Global CCR-forms as a collection method from customers and 32 28 23 13 1 2 2 4 4
detailed network design format
Global storage and possiblitity to share projects 13 15 13 8 1 2 2 1 2
Official tool with helpdesk and updated products 31 30 14 15 1 2 2 3 1 6
One way of working with different products 19 26 16 18 1 1 4 5 1 6

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 20
What new function would be of highest priority for your
need?
(Trend Last user survey results)
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
HLR/A LTE MSC-
M- WRA
09-Q2 09-Q4 10-Q2 10-Q4 APG EDA BSC GGSN uC, IS produ Server SASN SGSN
MGw N
HLR/A cts ,
Support for adding new features to customer in-operation nodes 15 14 8 6 3 2 1
Support for delete scripts 23 22 16 21 1 13 3 1 3
Support for hardware expansions 26 15 17 14 7 2 5
Reporting functionality to compare parameter values between CCR-tool 8 3 5
projects
Automatic test loading of generated scripts for more products (in real or 37 39 21 25 1 2 9 3 1 1 8
simulated nodes)
Automatic collection of node data from customer network via 12 8 1 4 1 1 1
IBMS/ADC/RSG systems
Import Node data for more products to re-use for new CCR-projects 49 56 37 24 1 10 4 2 7
Customize CCR-form content per operator (specify market default values, 25 28 23 20 1 1 3 4 2 3 6
select which parameters to collect etc.)
Improved CCR-forms (scope of parameters, structure, comment fields, 83 74 56 46 1 1 2 8 11 2 21
version handling etc.)

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 21
Do you use additional tools to support your work with
configuration?
If yes, please specify the tool(s) and purpose

General Office tools Local tools


Text editors Home-made tools
Excel MGW TDM Today: This tool compares MSC-S and MGw printouts
and builds the routing allocation for each board. It is a well-proven
Supply and R&D tools time saving tool and is widely used for expansion projects (in order
to check current route configuration) and network design double-
IE Select DB checks.
CANDI, Network Dimensioning Network Reverse Engineering Design Tool (NETREV): it turns CS
moshell network configuration data into a Network Design from
BOB WCDMA/GSM, AXE or IMS networks.
Moshell, to run scripts extracted from working nodes and modified, home cooked tools : ) But CCR tool is more and more powerful
because scripts generated from CCR-tool would not run. than before.
EMAS, for running manually written MO scripts since CCR-tool Hardware Analyser - To asses the hardware configuration fron the
scripts would not work. CV
SEA tool-verification of configuration files License checker - to determine which features are actie on the
TEIT and TEI MGw
Moshell explorer LTE GMO Tool - update parameter delta scripts for eNodeBs,
neighbor relations, SIU scripts
CPI GMO
PHTOOL TND and RND_CIQ
DELETE_RNC is a tool that creates an script to delete an RNC
SD tools based only on the configuration file.
ETRAN, to produce CCRs. Aligner, is a tool that align the configuration file to the customer
DTSS some AXE commands are not supported by CCR default values.
GMO, ETRAN Sigtran_Migration, is a tool that help us to create the script that will
DTSS, because it can translate only one printout command be use during the Sigtran migration from Narrrow band to
SPMA IP.CREATE_RNC IP/ATM, those two tools help us to create scripts
to add a new RNC based on the configuration file and few other
basic parameters.
CLONE_NODE, is a tool that help us to create the configuration for
an SGSN/MME based using another node as a reference and
changing only those parameters that required a different value.
Yes, a local tool called GMO for RAN script generation.
KEdit, WinMergeU

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 22
How could we improve the process, tool or helpdesk to
support your needs and make your work more effective?
(Summary)

Functionality
Adding GUI on CCR tool for fast changing parameters as it was before
Please enable the Undo option in the CCR.

Usability/Quality

Support/Training

Positive feedback
no need , already provide excellent service
keep up the good work, thanks
I'm completely satisfied with it's performance.
no need , already provide excellent service
keep up the good work
First, really thanks a lot for your fully support and hard work during the last year. And the helpdesk is also help a lot to our work!
Thank you!
Doing OK so far, just perfect processes.
Very useful
There were some delay in script /CCR template generation . These issues we had experienced in Q3,2010. I got communication from IBM
india /CCR team that increase in the server capacity has improved the performance . I don't see these issues these days . Well Done CCR
team

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 23
How could we improve the process, tool or helpdesk to
support your needs and make your work more effective?
(MSC-Server, MSC, IP-STP, HLR/AuC)

Increased functionality
Support all commands used in AXE
Comments from CCR form should be visible in config files. User should have option to decide to include comments.
improve online performance
The processing time should be shorter.
Produce a set of printout commands for node import
Enable the user to customize the DT generation of MML commands in AXE product.
The CCR-Tool for MSC-Servers are NOT very usable. Cmds are missing (e.g 98% of all ISDN-E cmds).
B NUMBER IS BIGGER AND THE CCR DOWN
Would be good that all default parameter will be add in the CCR. For example SCTP parameters, Role=Server/Client,.... for the scripts. In
that case CCR can be used for the complete configuration without manual updates.

Increased Quality/Support
Some commands in the CCR-form cannot be generated. It would be much better to fix this problem.
Make the helpdesk more transparent: give status (is someone working on the problem, could problem be reproduced etc.) and indicate
when problems will be fixed (date and release version).
Separate Helpline number needs to be provided to support the & there.
Please describe the problem in the answer email. Actually it is not easy to recall the initial problem because it normal takes long time to get
the answer from ccr-tool helpdesk and during that time we have a lot of various things to work on.

Release and Training


more tailored instruction for printout of AXE nodes to get data imported into CCR forms: such as MSC-S, and MSC-S BC, MSC-S in Pool,
and depending on the transport such as IP, ATM or TDM.

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 24
How could we improve the process, tool or helpdesk to
support your needs and make your work more effective?
(M-MGw)

Enhanced functionality
Recently a had to implement SRP function in the MGw. I could not find specific "sheets" for this and I had to make my own sheets
while importing node data to the tool, why do I need to fill the node characteristics again (like sw version)? The tool is able to detect it
automatically.
please improve MGW test load process, now is taking too long time to get the test load result...
It should include all the port details required for NW design... e.g. all the MAIN - GPB64 Cards are not included in the current MGW CCR.
Node import functionality for MGW, enable user MO-id should be the default value, otherwise, the mo-id can't be imported to CCR-forms.-
The Reference-id column in CCR-form is not needed.
test loading of modified scripts

Increased Quality/Support
Quicker respond to TR
CCR tool is full of bugs and quite often we have a lot of problems with it. Tickets have been raised but without answer. Mail tool was better
tool.
I have a problem mapping ERI-SD ID and WIH ID. I would like to ask CCR-tool helpdesk to include ERI-SD ID information if possible.
Test Load should be improved. Sometimes there are no real errors but the test load fails and there is no indication of what is wrong in the
data of CCR-Form. Errors like MO script not found is one such example.

Release and Training


For the improve, because of the update of the node version (such as MGW), if the CCR tool can effective following the update, the tool will
be more excellent!

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 25
How could we improve the process, tool or helpdesk to
support your needs and make your work more effective?
(SGSN, GGSN, SASN)

Increased functionality
GGSN-MPG and CPG CCR Tool would be very desirable -- especially script generation !!!!! NOTE for the GGSN/MPG - this could easily
be achieved by updating the existing R4 generator - but not including SACC component
Possibility to change parameters online as minor parameter changes requires exporting CCR form, perform changes and again import.
More understandable CCR form, customers having hard time to understand the structure.
For the tool itself I would like the GUI interface incorporated again.
To be able to customize and save network specific data pertaining to each customers network design
Also standardize CCR revisions as it pertains to new s/w rollouts for Ericsson node elements. Keeping up with what has been GA'd for
each customer and revise CCR against it.
SASN CCRs that are not really good. It's not customer friendly (we have to take into consideration that SASN is a "new" node and
customers normally have a limit knowledge in this node) and no SASN configuration is generated automatically which makes this tool kind
of useless.

Increased Quality/Support
Most SGSN engineers do not trust completely the scripts generated by CCR-Tool. It's not always reliable and has some faults when
validating some cells. Some values that should be accepted are not. In general, the sheet is not too friendly.

Release and Training


adding more complex CCRs filled like examples.

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 26
How could we improve the process, tool or helpdesk to
support your needs and make your work more effective?
(Product: WRAN)

Increased functionality
Generate Many XML scripts instead of one script for one nodeB
Node data import for P7 RNCs, and MO script generation from Node data import instead of from xml script.

Improved quality and Support


There are many parameters that we have already mapped which are not included in the CCR for RNC/RXI/RBS and are mandatory for
node integration. We reported it some time ago but no actions have been taken... So we are forced to use other files to make sure the
implementation team will be able to finish their work.
noticed the CCR tool gave me EricssonSpecificAttributes.10.22in a create cells script when in actuality we
requiredEricssonSpecificAttributes.10.32
Improve coding and testing quality. The tool contains far too many bugs at time of release.
We have been using CCR Tool for SGSN & M-MGw for a couple of years. We have just started using CCR Tool for WRAN and we find
that the quality of CCR Tool is poor for WRAN products compared to SGSN and M-MGw. The XML files generated by CCR tool are
sometimes not loadable (missing parameters ... ) . We feel that a lot of improvement could be done for WRAN products.
We are using CCR for generating Scripts for NodeB & RNC-Add cell scripts & External Hardware (Onsite) Scripts. In this in Add HSDSCH
scripts we have add cells manually & in External HW scripts we need to add manually "SectorCapabilitySettings please see if these can
be generated automatically
My negative experience with CCR-Tool helpdesk is back from the year of 2009. Things might have changed.
More accurate script generation
CCR does not come on time when new releases are delivered
It seems that it is not carefully tested when relates to new HW or SW releases (for instance, RNC 3820).
Past errors have not been corrected and therefore are still present.
Send the acknowledge of the ticket and the person of contact who will make the corrections. I have to write to my contacts to rush the
attendance of my tickets.
Improvement in the Relations in the AddCell CCR-Form, and a lot of changes that I would like to explain you, but I need a Person of
contact to tell them all the issues I've been experiencing.

Release and Training


Provide more helpful documents & web based learning's for beginners
More interactive with users and strengthening support documents.

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 27
How could we improve the process, tool or helpdesk to
support your needs and make your work more effective?
(BSC)

Increased functionality
longer logon kick out timer. Current feels too short.
Stop email notice, or user configurable.

Increased Quality/Support
Put help link on the tools page point to one who can fix the problem.
Collect input of improvement as routing job.

Release and Training

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 28
How could we improve the process, tool or helpdesk to
support your needs and make your work more effective?
(LTE)

Increased functionality
Reduce the duplicate data required in multiple forms.
Make the format of the forms more user-friendly. Our customer hates the CCR forms and will not use them.
BSIM delete scripts can be provided.

Increased Quality/Support

Release and Training


Better documentation of the CCR forms - explain what all the fields are.

CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 29
CCR-tool User Survey Results 2010-Q4 | Ericsson Internal | EAB-11:030567 Uen, Rev A | 2011-05-23 | Page 30