Reporting and the two great fibs of the CRM industry...

The reporting aspects of CRM technology produce two of the great fibs of the CRM industry:

Fib number one – ‘The CRM system comes with 200 standard reports which will meet most of your needs’ (cue the salesperson to point to a long and seemingly exhaustive list of reports on the screen). In reality each organisation’s processes and informational needs are unique and are rarely met by the out of the box standard reports. This is exacerbated by the fact that many CRM software developers seem to have been rather more rather more focused on developing the long list of standard reports, rather than ones that might be useful or insightful.

Fib number two – ‘You just need to use our report wizard/third party reporting package and you can extract any information you like’ (cue the more skilled salesperson to demonstrate putting together a simple report). I guess this is less of an outright lie than misinformation. In reality you probably can build most reports that you want as long as you are sufficiently trained and have the time to do so. The reality however for the reports people actually end up wanting, even seemingly simple ones, are generally difficult and time consuming to produce.

You might figure that the vendors would be interested in developing reports as an additional revenue stream. However this seems to be far from the case for a number of reasons:

Firstly, because vendors seem to struggle in applying their technology in ways that adds value and see reports therefore as a nice to have add-on rather than a fundamental part of a value generating system.

Secondly, writing reports can prove a fairly toxic activity from a vendor viewpoint. It’s very easy for the vendor to lose money a) because most customers want a fixed price up front, b) because seemingly easy reports can be very complex, c) because customers tend to want their reports displayed ‘just so’, d) because it’s a bit of an exacting science - the report either displays the desired information or it doesn’t, and e) because it can expose flaws in the set up of the CRM system itself which the vendor may then find themselves on the hook to resolve.

Thirdly, creating custom reports for customers is invariably an expensive activity, and as many clients are working to tight budgets, this tends to be the part of the project it’s easy for the vendor to cut in order to win the deal.

In conclusion if you are running an existing CRM system which doesn’t produce meaningful reporting, then chances are you have a system that’s not set up to add organisational value, and you might want to consider re-implementing in a way that does. If you are looking to purchase a new system, then don’t be persuaded that report generation is some inconsequential activity that can be tacked on at some later point; it’s the lifeblood of an effective system.

CRM and great aunt Edith...

Sitting in on a series of CRM short-list presentations this week, I became acutely aware of just how much we seem to rely on acronyms and jargon. I had to stop a couple of sessions because it was obvious that the audience wasn’t following what was being said. Even when you ask presenters to stop using jargon it’s amazing how quickly they can lapse back into it. I’d love to say I’m clean on this point, but while it’s something of worked hard on over the years, it something I still catch myself doing.

If you can’t convey points in a way that your great aunt Edith would understand (if you don’t have a great aunt Edith feel free to substitute a similar non IT savvy friend or relative) then stop and re-word it in a way she can. Ultimately the buyers and users of CRM technology are rather more like great aunt Edith than most people in the CRM industry seem to realise. If we are to be effective in getting CRM technology used to add business value, ditching the comfort blanket of CRM industry speak is a key first step.

Fully managed CRM...

I’ve been reading CRM RFP responses for much of the week and I’ve seen a number of references to ‘fully managed systems’. This caught my attention at first because it seemed to support the suggestion in my last post that outsourced of administration of CRM systems may prove a new growth area. Further reading however indicated that ‘fully managed’ was nothing more exotic than the ability to host the technology externally.

It strikes me that the whole area of administering systems is a somewhat confusing and misleading one. While one of the attractions of hosted CRM is that someone else is tasked with maintaining the availability of systems, and there is no doubt this is beneficial if you are an organization without a depth of IT resource, it should be noted however that if a system is deployed effectively, the bulk of system management and administration still resides with the user regardless of whether the system is hosted or on premise. The following is a fairly random and small sample of administration tasks which may have to be performed regardless of whom is managing the physical server:

Adding new users
Retiring old ones
Changing security rights and user profiles
Importing and exporting data
Querying the database
Creating reports
Adding new mail-merge templates
Adding tables/fields
Managing pick-lists
Identifying and managing incomplete data
Identifying and managing duplicate records
Addressing user queries and questions
Performing training for new users
Collating issues and potential bugs
Liaising with vendor help desk
Realigning territories
Realigning activities
Setting up and managing remote user capabilities
Checking that defined usage procedures are being followed
Adapting processes
Liasing with vendors over the day to day running and development of the system
Etc. etc. etc.

As the length of this sample list indicates, ongoing CRM administration duties can prove considerably more demanding than might initially meet the eye. Therefore if you see the words ‘fully managed system’, it’s worth questioning what this means in practical terms.

If I’m to be proved right, that there will be an emerging market where all administration tasks are outsourced, then the precursor to this will have to be organizations realizing better value from their investment in CRM technology. If you are only getting two and sixpence back then it’s hard to see organizations inclined towards spending money on external administration, whereas if you have a system that’s hugely value generative, investing to protect the goose that lays the golden eggs makes rather better sense.

Outsourced CRM administration...

Ever since InsideCRM rightly observed that my blog postings were somewhat erratic, I’ve attempted to maintain a certain level of regularity, even if the posts are hardly prolific. However I’ve be on holiday in a rather remote part of France where internet access proved taxing to say the least, so despite my best intentions, blogging was put on hold for a few weeks, so forgive me, but I'm back now!

One of the last conversations I had before I left was around the question of administrative resources for a project due to go live in December. I always ask prospective vendors how much time they recommend a client should allow for administering a system. I rarely get a sensible answer. This perhaps reflects that vendors lack the experience/interest in the real world application of their technologies, and that since most CRM systems are largely unstructured the administrative requirements appear light.

The administrative requirement for CRM systems that ‘do’ things for clients by contrast can be significant. Supporting users so that they are able to follow defined processes in a structured and consistent manner can be both time-consuming and challenging (please note I’m talking about user rather than system administration here, so this point is applicable regardless as to whether it’s a hosted or on premise solution). It is also a critical role; get the wrong person doing it and it can be ‘game over’ in terms of a productive and high pay-back system.

One critical decision that companies need to make when implementing CRM systems, ideally early on in the process – hence my conversation six months ahead of live - is whether this role can and should be performed in-house or outsourced. I think there are four basic considerations in deciding whether to keep administration in house:

Do we have/can we get the right person to do the job? – as I mentioned this is a pivotal role and is often the weakest link in many system deployments. The skills required to be effective are invariably underestimated as the person has to be both comfortable working with the technology, but perhaps more importantly has to be able to win friends and influence people in the battle for effective user adoption.

Do they have the time to perform the role? – as I suggested earlier, ask many vendors and you’d figure this was a minor chore. In practice high pay-back systems are generally demanding on administrative resource, particularly in the early days. Consequently many systems founder because the administrator isn’t allocated sufficient time to perform the role effectively.

Are they motivated to perform the role? – this is a particular issue where administrative responsibilities are shared with other duties. I see many talented administrators who see the non-administration parts of their job as more interesting/rewarding and consequently this is their area of focus to the detriment of the CRM system.

Can we retain them? – as Warren Buffett observed – and I’m paraphrasing here – I like companies that can be run profitably by an idiot, because one day they may be. As I’ve touched on before weak administration is the point of failure for many otherwise successful systems. If you have a constantly revolving door because it’s impossible to maintain interest in the administration role for any duration, so the odds of recruiting a rogue administrator increase.

As a general rule the administrative requirements of effective systems are considerably higher than people realise. In light of this, organisations tend to assign the role in-house because it’s seen as a minor inconsequential chore. A better appreciation of the administration function might lead many organisations to conclude this function was better outsourced. As organisations start to make better use of CRM technology it will be interesting to see if outsourced administration becomes a significant growth market.

Nine ways to improve CRM software demonstrations...

I may well have covered this topic before, but as someone asked me my thoughts on this topic this week, and as I’ve been both sides of the table more times that I’d care to think about, I thought I’d draft a ‘x ways to improve CRM software demonstrations’ post, so here goes:

1. Go SLOW – there’s a strange effect where some of the best CRM software demonstrations I’ve seen are by people new to the organisation because their still getting to grips with the software and as such they move about the application slowly. Invariably you see the same person in action 12 months later, and their presentation is nowhere near as effective for the simple reason that they have reached a point of proficiency with the software such that they now outpace their audience’s ability to keep up. I’ve rarely seen a demonstration done too slowly, but I figure 80% plus are presented too fast.

2.Keep it relevent – the audience want to know how the software will make their lives easier, they really don’t want to spend time looking at arcane capabilities that have nothing to do with their day to day jobs, yet time and time again I see vendors showcasing ‘really cool’ features that are irrelevant to the people they are presenting to.

3. Cut the ‘about us’ presentation right down – yes we need to know who you are and your credentials, but this should be a two to five minute exercise not an hour. Most of these presentations blend into each other with different vendors spending a lot of time saying exactly the same thing. This is the opportunity for vendors to crisply set out why they are different, but 95% of vendors go on way, and I mean waaaaaay too long in this area.

4. Keep to the time-lines – there will either be an explicit or implicit duration for the demonstration, be sure you know what it is and stick to it. Again some vendors, once in full flow, fail to register their audience has either mentally or physically left the building.

5. Interact – the most effective demonstrators foster a dialogue with their audience. They get people involved and talking, and when they are involved they are actively listening, and when they are actively listening they are open to the key messages you are looking to convey (assuming you have key messages of course – see point nine)

6. Check it all works - for every four presentations I see I’d estimate at least one suffers some sort of technical breakdown that badly disrupts the flow of the presentation. Yes, these things happen, but I suspect better preparation would reduce the incidence considerably, and if it does happen the impact is considerably mitigated if the presenter keeps the audience in the loop as to what’s happening rather than staring manically at the lap-top screen muttering over and over ‘but it was working earlier, but it was working earlier’.

7. Don’t answer a question with a demonstration – if someone asks ‘does your software do X?’ the reflex response is to show them just how well it does X – which generally dissuades other people from asking any other questions for fear of landing up with an equally long-winded response. The better answer is ‘yes, would you like me to show you ?’

8. Differentiate – the purpose of the CRM software demonstration should be to explain ‘why you’. Most get used to explain why the software is just the same as everyone else’s.

9. Have knowledge or bring it with you – too many demonstrations founder on the rocks of ‘I’ll have to get back you on that one’. You may get away with it once or twice, but after that your credibility is shot. If the presenter is weak on in depth knowledge, or the audience is likely to be demanding, it’s wise to bring back up. If you do however make a promise to come back to people, keep it.

A rather low tech breakthrough and the implications for CRM technology...

There was an interesting article on the BBC site – and elsewhere I’m sure – which highlighted a breakthrough in significantly reducing the amounts of deaths and complications resulting from surgery. The breakthrough was not as you might suppose a technology related one, but the simple introduction of a check-list. Apparently the check-list drawn up by the Harvard School of Public health on behalf of the World Health Organisation covers areas such as: Do we have the right patient? Are we operating on the correct body part? Have we left any items within the patient that perhaps shouldn’t be there?

Interestingly this introduction of this low/no tech device has proved highly successful. A study in the Lancet indicated that prior to the check-list there was a 64% probability that one of the procedures would be forgotten, and results of a pilot in eight countries showed a substantial decrease in complications and deaths.

So if highly trained surgeons and their teams operating in a ‘mission critical’ fashion in what you would suppose would be a highly process driven environment could make basic errors, then it does raise the question as to how we are faring in the rather less process driven world of sales and marketing. If surgeons, and probably more pertinently their patients, can substantially benefit from the introduction of a check-list could this have implications for how we market and sell?

I know from my own experience that one relatively unsophisticated, but highly effective application of CRM technology, is to help salespeople and their managers better navigate the sales cycle by providing what is in effect a check-list of things that the salesperson should be asking or aware of. For example, how does the sales opportunity fit with defined qualification criteria? what’s the decision making process? what’s the decision time-line? Who’s involved in making the decision? what’s the compelling event, have we passed out contracts to the legal department for review? etc etc. We found that even highly capable and experienced salespeople overlooked basic information which would give them better control of the sales and a higher likelihood of success.

But that’s just one area – how many other areas of our front office endeavours could be beneficially check-listed? From some of the howlers in scrambled email marketing campaigns of which I’ve been a regular beneficiary, I’d suggest there are quite a few marketing managers that wished they’d consulted a check-list before they pressed the send button. Perhaps the nub here is that if you systemise processes effectively there’s substantial scope to improve what you do, and I believe that CRM technology has a much bigger role to play in this respect than people generally appreciate.

Talking CRM requirements gathering...

Strangely I spent a fair proportion of the weekend talking requirements gathering. An old friend of mine is a senior IT manager at a global 500 company, and we were stuck in the car together for much of the weekend travelling to and from a mutual friend’s stag do. So in between pondering on the complexities of delivering a best man’s speech in two languages, one of which I don’t speak, we got to compare notes on what we believe constitutes good requirements gathering practice. There was – surprisingly perhaps - considerable consensus on what we felt was important. The following are the key points – those that I remember at least:

Good requirements gathering is fundamental to the success of any CRM project. Get this right and you are 70% of the way there.

Most organisations do not do a good job of it. Which partially explains why most CRM projects produce at best marginal results.

The starting point for any requirements gathering is to define the vision as to what issues are being addressed or improvements are sought.

The vision has to be defined by senior executive sponsors. No senior executive sponsors, no project.

Senior executives are unlikely to be able to define the vision on their own, they invariably need to supplement their knowledge of the business with what’s achievable through technology. Education plays a key role in requirements definition.

Not all visions require a technology solution; sometimes the answer solely lies in the area of people and process.

Even if the vision requires a technology solution, the dimensions of people and process are vital (though in the main are generally ignored).

Requirements gathering increases in detail over time as the vision is refined and developed. The vision has to be supported by the detail of the processes and associated functionality required to achieve it.

The requirements gathering process is not a 5 minute exercise, done properly it will occupy a substantial proportion of the project.

Requirements should be continually challenged to ensure that they are key to achieving the vision.

Requirements need to be gathered in context to what’s available from technology otherwise potential opportunities may be missed, or there may be excessive elaboration of requirements where the costs clearly outweigh the benefits.

It’s dangerous to define requirements too narrowly; the benefits of implementing technology can often be wider than is immediately apparent. It’s also important to take account what other systems will impact or by impacted by the project.

Phasing is vital – there’s often opportunity to generate considerable value through a relatively simple initial deployment, and then add capabilities over time.

That said beware the ‘let’s go out of the box’ mode of thinking; any effective system has to be tuned to ensure it encapsulates the business processes required to deliver the vision, and that almost always requires some modicum of change.

Understandable but illogical...

I guess my recent posts about CRM vendor’s improving the quality of their RFP responses suggests we put we put huge store in the quality of response we receive. While the quality of response is indicative of the vendor’s interest in the opportunity, the key thing we are interested in is a vendor’s track record with similar projects.

Over the years we’ve worked on a lot of projects with vendors and we get to know their strengths and weaknesses. One thing I would observe is that performance is often inverse to the quality of the sales approach. In general if the salesmanship is slick, the quality of the implementation has turned out to be rather ordinary. Conversely there are companies that we’ve decided to go with despite severe misgivings through the sales cycle, who have proven to be outstanding implementers and people to do business with.

Perhaps this reflects the fact that most CRM vendors aren’t entirely balanced, they are either great at selling, or they are great technically (though there are also a lot that are far from great at either). Inevitably though most CRM purchase decisions are driven by the quality of the sales approach. This is entirely understandable but also entirely illogical given that the salesperson invariably isn’t going to feature much in the client’s life once they’ve cashed the commission cheque. It’s much better to select vendors on the basis of their technical and support organisations because you’ll be relying on them for the life of the system.

So if you accept the observation, then perhaps the secret to a harmonious working relationship with your CRM vendor is to find one who’s technically capable, well respected, and profitable but whose salesmanship leaves a lot to be desired.

Go hard or stay home...

There was a point that I missed when I did my ‘9 ways CRM vendors can improve their RFP responses’ post the other week, and that’s ‘go hard, or stay home’ (as an old athletics coach of mine was fond of saying). In any batch of RFP responses we receive there’s normally a few where the author’s heart clearly wasn’t in it, and while they had taken the time to respond, it was clearly something of a token effort.

It intrigues me why people do this to themselves, after all a poor RFP response is still time-consuming to put together, perhaps not as time-consuming as a good one, but there’s probably not a lot in it in relative terms. Perhaps it’s a triumph of optimism over common sense and respondents figure that at least if they get something in however poor, there’s a chance that all the other competitors will get struck by lightening, or similar freak accident of nature, and they’ll win by default. In many cases it’s clear some poor sole or reseller has been dumped with the task of responding, however pointless they feel the exercise maybe, and go through the motions simply to tick the box with their boss or software author that the task has been completed.

Given that few organisations are going to purchase a CRM system from a vendor who hasn’t taken the trouble to craft a credible response I figure vendors could save themselves a lot of unnecessary effort if they took a more clinical approach to determining if an opportunity is worth chasing. The most successful organisations I’ve worked with pick their shots carefully, and once they’re satisfied its business they want and can win, they’ll throw everything at it. Saying no to an opportunity is not a sign of weakness, and CRM vendor selections exercises are not (generally) lotteries.

CRM - it's not about the customer...

I get to read a fair number of articles written by CRM software vendors. Generally you can tell how new to the organisation, or how close to the front-line the author is, through the number of references they make to customers. If there’s lots of reference to ‘knowing your customers better’ etc it’s a reasonably sure sign the author knows little about the real world application of their technology.

While on the surface the term CRM technology would suggest it’s all about improving customer management – it’s in the name after all - in reality I’d suggest CRM technology is principally about process improvement, and ultimately, and perhaps counter intuitively, the benefits of process improvement may have little to do with the end customer.

I work on around a dozen CRM projects at any one time. If I pick a fairly random selection of core business processes I’m currently implementing, these include:

Management of pre-sales resources
Sales process management
Order process management
Order fulfilment management
Lead logging and tracking
Marketing campaign management
Anti-social behaviour management (local authority)
Complaint handling
Contact management
Account management and planning
Contract renewal management

It’s not that these processes don’t touch the end customer, and in many cases may improve the customer experience, but the reality, rightly or wrongly, is that most organisations purchase CRM technology because it helps them manage their business processes more effectively to generate operational efficiencies. Improving the customer experience is often a desirable side effect, but is not the main objective. Organisations can often significantly increase profitability through the use of CRM technology without moving the needle significantly in terms of what the customer experiences.

Take lead management for example. In many organisations there is no systematic approach to handling sales leads. Often if the opportunity is not short term the lead gets forgotten about and the opportunity is missed. Effective lead handling systems and processes ensure that a higher proportion of leads are converted, increasing sales and profitability. Yes, the customer should have a better experience of working with the company – they didn’t get forgotten about after all - but these systems are implemented because companies want more sales.

Anyway, I’m not sure it’s a hugely insightful observation, but it does strike me there’s a huge gap between what people really buy CRM technology to do, and how it’s portrayed in the media, and I suspect that’s part of the reason so many organisations have failed to embrace it effectively.

9 ways CRM vendors can improve their RFP responses...

As I’ve been writing ‘10 tips…’ type lists, and as I’ve been slogging through RFP responses for several days I thought I would compile a ‘9 ways CRM vendors can improve their RFP responses and make my life a bit easier (and ultimately increase their sales)’ list, so here goes:

1. Develop a coherent structure to the document – In virtually every other field of communication there are accepted structural norms, but for some reason these go out the window with RFP responses, with different sections often randomly sequenced together. Ultimately a RFP response is meant to be a persuasive selling document; few are.

2. Differentiate – I figure most marketing managers don’t get to see the RFP’s that get sent out, but they should - and I suspect they wouldn’t be happy. The fundamentals of marketing are differentiate or sell on price. Few CRM vendors succeed in differentiating themselves. Terms such as easy to use, fast to deploy, scalable, 360 degree view, any time anywhere access are used by everyone. It strikes me there’s plenty of potential to differentiate, but it generally doesn’t happen.

3. Just because you have it don’t feel you need to tell me about it – I see whole swathes of text written about features functions and attributes that are of entirely no relevance to my client. I’m sure it’s wizzy technology but if it’s not relevent I’m not really interested.

4. Customers don’t care about you – sorry, they just care about them. You may have the best help desk in the world or project managers second to none but if the client doesn’t understand if and how these are going to be beneficial to them, it’s meaningless.

5. Which means that… – Clients in the main don’t want technology so much as business solutions. Few RFP responses contain much reference to benefits. If in doubt apply the words ‘which means that…..’ after every feature.

6. Be open about the hidden costs – vendors tend to see the world in terms of their costs not the costs of a project as a whole. Implementations will generally require investment in hardware, database software, administrative resource, reporting software, project team time etc etc. Don’t con the customer and pretend these costs don’t exist – they are going to find out sometime. And before a software as a service (SAAS) vendor pipes up that these costs don’t apply to them, I’ll add a postscript and say and if you are a SAAS vendor don’t pretend that you aren’t going to need implementation services.

7. If it’s going to take 20 man weeks to develop a capability it’s not ‘fully compliant’ – applying the most lateral interpretation of a question in order to indicate compliance is not being open and honest, and as buyers will buy from people they trust, it’s not doing you any favours.

8. Answer the question – questions are posed in RFP’s for a purpose. Answering a different question to the question asked, but one you like better, is not answering the question.

9. I want to read one document – I don’t want to slog through 47 different attachments or yomp through a 500 page technical addendum to find the answer to the questions asked. If you’ve got good relevent material makes sure it’s in the main document where it’s going to get read.

CRM and the cataclysmic event…

A couple of posts ago I mentioned a site visit I attended with a client. One of the interesting aspects of this site was that they had installed the CRM system as the response to a near death experience. They were a long established organisation, a recognised brand, and comfortably making ends meet. Then a cataclysmic event occurred, that effectively dried up their revenues. It wasn’t an event of their own making, and it wasn’t foreseeable, but ultimately they only just survived. Rattled by a close shave they embarked on a full review of the business and launched a series of initiatives to improve operational efficiencies, one of which was the CRM project.

Waiting for the cataclysmic event as a cue for change is a dangerous strategy because survival can’t be guaranteed. Organisations can enjoy a dangerous level of success where despite not being optimally efficient, the business still makes healthy profits, and there is no compelling reason for change. However the lead times to create efficient systems are often such that implementing technology as a means to address sudden change is often unsuccessful.

This is a point I’ve made to many firms over the years, sometimes the successfully and sometimes not. However the point becomes increasingly relevent over time. The speed of technologically, environmental, social, economic, and competitive change ever increases. While there’s no antidote for either the cataclysmic event or rapid dislocating change, optimising efficiency at all points in time is a critical necessity. CRM alongside many other technologies has a key role to play because ultimately they create the infrastructure that generates both the efficiencies and the ability to respond and hopefully benefit from change.

Ten ways to implement CRM on a tight budget…

With the economic environment getting tougher, the need for effective CRM systems increases, but with budgets often getting tighter, the scope to introduce much needed technology decreases. I often work with companies who are looking to implement CRM technology on tight budgets, so in this post I’ll set out ten ways to implement CRM technology more cost effectively:

1. Get your requirements carefully mapped out first – The more detailed a specification of your requirements that you can generate, the better positioned vendors are to provide firm pricing. Firm pricing let’s you identify the most competitive offerings, and helps you identify which capabilities you can do without if you a struggling to hit budget. Many organisations rush to select a vendor with an ill defined set of requirements in the expectation that the vendor will develop the final specification. As it’s in the vendor’s interest to maximise the commercial value of the project, and at this point you are pretty much locked in, you can expect to pay around 50% more by adopting this approach.

2. You don’t need to go for premium brands – While the temptation may be to go for well known CRM brand, they may not be the most cost effective option. A tight requirements specification will help you identify the functionality that you do and don’t need, and you may well find that lower cost options can comfortably meet your needs. Even some of the free open source and low cost commercial open source offerings can represent a viable route forward if your needs are not too sophisticated. It’s advisable to undertake careful due diligence however to give assurance the vendor you’ve selected is likely to remain trading in tougher market conditions.

3. SAAS is not by definition cheaper – Despite what the software as a service (SAAS) vendors may suggest, hosted software may or may not be cheaper than ‘on premise’ alternatives, even when just measuring the year one costs. Unless there’s a compelling need to deploy technology in a certain way, it’s wise to keep an open mind between hosted and on premise options.

4. Shop around – Organisations often pay too much because they unnecessarily limit choice. As a case in point, we recently issued a RFP for a fairly straightforward system, and included several resellers for the same CRM technology. Pricing estimates from those resellers ranged from £30,000 - £150,000. Had we had a more limited distribution we might have ended paying substantially more than we needed, or discounted a potentially attractive technology.

5. Negotiate well – While your budgets may be tighter in a down economy the vendors are likely to be feeling the pinch too, so there’s generally plenty of scope to negotiate. While software costs and day rates tend to be the key target for negotiation, it’s also worth looking the number of service days the vendor is proposing to determine if they are appropriate for the project. If in doubt speak to an independent CRM consultant, they can often add a lot of value in this area for modest outlay.

6. Don’t overload on software – There are already billions of pounds worth of unused software out there sat on shelves gathering dust; don’t add to it. There can be a tendency to buy software for a much wider group than will actually use it. Few CRM vendors penalise you for buying software incrementally, so it often pays to start off small and add licences as you need them. You may well find you need a lot less software than you originally thought.

7. Keep it simple to start – It’s generally best to phase projects. Just implementing the basics can often add a lot of value, and further capabilities can easily be added over time. This reduces the amount of costs up front, and as organisations often only see the realistic potential of technology after they have been using it for a while, it often avoids the development of expensive white elephants.

8. Take on more yourself – There’s little point in paying vendors to perform tasks that you can easily perform yourself. With many of todays CRM technologies being highly user configurable there is plenty of scope for organisations to do the basics themselves and let the vendors handle the more technically demanding parts.

9. Rent a developer - Some of the most cost effective deployments we’ve worked on came when we paid for a developer by the day; got them on site where we could keep an eye on them, asked them to turn off their mobile phone, and told them what we wanted written. It requires a good understanding of the business and functional requirements and knowledge of the technology you’re deploying, and isn’t advisable in all circumstances, but we’ve implemented systems at under 20% of the originally quoted costs by operating this way as opposed to letting the vendor do the initial design work.

10. Use third parties – You don’t have to use the vendor for everything. You can often find capable, well qualified third parties and independent contractors to involve on a project without having to pay a vendor premium. Sites such as Rent A Coder can also expand your options by giving you access to cost effective developers located across the globe. You may have suck it and see a few times before you find people that have the right skills and that you can work with, but as the rates are so competitive you can afford a few false starts.

By using your imagination and defying a few of the conventions of CRM implementation, it’s amazing how cost effectively CRM systems can be deployed. Perhaps sometimes budget constraints can be beneficial; necessity is after all the mother of invention.

Six pieces of CRM implementation advice...

I had the pleasure of going on a CRM site visit during the week. It’s always interesting to discuss other people’s experiences of implementing CRM systems. I always ask what advice they would offer to others about to undertake an implementation, and thought it might be refreshing to pass on some thoughts that weren’t mine for a change. So six pieces of advice for those implementing a CRM system:

1. Be aware that the implementation of new technology also provides a temporary window for more far reaching business change. Use it or lose it.

2. Don’t underestimate the internal resources that CRM projects soak up.

3. It’s easy for key implementation activities such as testing, documentation and training to get crunched at the end of a project as deadlines loom. Make sure these are not compromised.

4. Make sure you engage key users early, this has a big impact on how quickly and effectively the technology is adopted.

5. Don’t try and do too much – phase it.

6. Find the right vendor.