Pending Items of MergeCo Drive Test & Acceptance

Procedures
Details of Pending Items & ZTE Response
 OSS KPIs pre post comparison issue for acceptance purpose. According to SLA
acceptance will be on site level & 10 days pre-post OSS KPIs comparison will be required for acceptance.
PMCL Remarks :- Cell BH against each cell will be used to calculate one value for Acceptance KPIs
against
each site for 10 days window.
ZTE Response :- According to SLA , acceptance is on site level , so site level KPIs (i.e. one single
value for site) should be used for tabular pre post comparison. As in previous swap project acceptance was
on cluster level & tabular comparison was made on cluster level not cell level. We can use cell level KPIs for
monitoring purpose but acceptance should be on site level as mentioned in contract.

 Additional Drive Test & KPIs Issue in 4G swap SSV Report. Additional drive tests & KPIs
(DL/UL Max Throughput & PCI(idle),Events, Resource Block Plots, CQI, Throughput, MIMO,
Modulation Scheme plots) issue.
PMCL Remarks :- Above mentioned tests , plots & KPIs should be included in 4G swap SSV report
ZTE Response :- These additional Drive tests , plots & KPIs were not the part of acceptance report
locked earlier. Adding these items will delay the submission deadline of SSVs along with addition in testing
mobile & post processing activities. Moreover these items are not part of acceptance report locked with
other vendor (HW). It is kindly suggested to exclude these items from the SSV.

 Drive Test with NEMO KITs Issue. PMCL wants all drive tests activities with NEMO kits.
ZTE Response :- ZTE proposes to do the drive test with TEMS Kits & MOS testing with NEMO kit as
we did earlier in swap project. Given Technical comparison of TEMS & NEMO kits in next slides will further
strengthen our stance.

2
TEMS Investigation & NEMO Outdoor
TEMS Investigation
 TEMS was initially introduced by Ericssson, pioneer in 
Telecom Equipment manufacture ring, resulting in
better product support.
 More User friendly Graphical User Interface.
 Much appreciated procedures/options for Indoor Walk 
Test and IBS support.
 Better data export support for MapInfo or Post
Processing, no additional Post Processing tool
required for effective output.
 Much higher sampling rate, provides better on field 
results.
 Provides SQI for speech quality.
 Event Explanation is very clear.
 Unified (Joint) Log-file creation, provides easy
analysis even UE’s connected to simultaneously.
 Due to better After Sales product support, along
with above mentioned advantages TEMS is widely
used globally specially Middle East to Europe along
with Americas
NEMO Outdoor
NEMO is a product of Anite, not with a better product
support.
 NEMO GUI is not user friendly. A lot of difficult steps
involves even for a simpler test case.
Indoor Walk tests for IBS not simple enough to
perform with NEMO.
 For better Post processing support NEMO Analyzer or
Actix Required, consequently requires additional
licensing.
Less sample rate decoding, causing ignorance from
bad samples.
 Doesn't provide SQI.
 Event Explanation is not very clear like TEMS.
 Separate Log-files for different user terminals (UEs).
Not a good choice of analysis purpose as multiple UE
DT Logs cannot be analyzed simultaneously.
 Due to lack in this department NEMO has less
market share in Network Testing Tools market as
compared to TEMS.
3
Conclusion/Recommendations

 TEMS Investigation is as per ITU/3GPP standards like NEMO. But with previously discussed
advantages TEMS is a better choice over NEMO outdoor. TEMS gives more reliable results and
smooth drive test/post processing experience which comforts field Engineers as well Optimization
Team for analysis of field results. ZTE proposes to do the drive test with TEMS Kits & MOS testing
with NEMO kit as we did earlier in swap project.

 According to SLA , acceptance is on site level , so site level KPIs (i.e. one single value for site)
should be used for tabular pre post comparison. As in previous swap project acceptance was on
cluster level & tabular comparison was made on cluster level not cell level. We can use cell level
KPIs for monitoring purpose but acceptance should be on site level as mentioned in contract.

 These additional Drive tests , plots & KPIs (DL/UL Max Throughput & PCI(idle),Events,
Resource Block Plots, CQI, Throughput, MIMO, Modulation Scheme plots) were not the
part of Acceptance report locked earlier. Adding these items will delay the submission deadline of
SSV along with addition in testing mobile & post processing activities. Moreover these items are
not part of acceptance report locked with other vendor (HW). It is kindly suggested to exclude
these items from the SSV.

4
Thanks