. As the network grows, more sites are added including of macros, micros and pico cells specifically designed for building Radio Network Optimisation coverage improvement. In such a scenario, it is necessary to separate frequency bands between macros and to build micros with better master interferences. Adopting this technical choice becomes more and more difficult when the number of operators grows and frequency bands become shorter (sharing constraint). More efficiency in resource management is then required. The C/I (carrier/interferer) ratio gives the minimum acceptable level of a carrier compared to an interferer having the same or an adjacent frequency. Interference constraints between two cells are translated into high or low factors in the interference matrix. Field knowledge on interference factors between two cells can make frequency planning more accurate and of higher quality. The introduction of synthesised frequency hopping simplifies planning but requires rigorous sectorisation of cells. Many planning tools now offer the option of automatic frequency planning (AFP). AFP does not need any subscriber distribution or radio wave path prediction. It uses real mobile measurements reported on subscribers' locations and an experienced interference level. It has, however, three limitations: quantisation and truncation; only six neighbours reported; BSIC decoding uncertainty. AFP has shown in trials some 10 % improvement from the initial plan quality. Adjacency Planning Handover automatic handling is also based on mobile measurements. Deletion of an adjacency is based on NMS statistics. Some benchmark criteria need to be carefully chosen in order to help the system decide whether to delete an adjacency or not. For example, when a few attempts are performed between two cells with reference to the maximum handover attempts of each one, the tool can advise deletion of the relationship. This, indeed, can be done only after checking the geographical positioning of each cell according to the other in terms of dist