Despite all of what you've heard and read about in surveys, research reports, and whatnot about the high failure rate of CRM implementations and the low rate of customer satisfaction with the most popular CRM packages, I have the solution: the three-point pledge.
Before you take this three-point pledge, however, you've got to qualify:
Promise #1: Don't adopt new technology without a clear understanding of how it can generate economic benefit, given its potential risks and rewards and your organization's design, strengths and weaknesses.
"I promise not to adopt new technology without a clear, viable strategy to use the resulting functionality to either improve revenue and profits, and/or reduce costs to a degree which substantially exceeds the total amount of investment required to make the technology work in my organization. By viable, I mean that this strategy will be grounded in a deep and real knowledge of customer needs, interests and behaviors; the core competencies of my staff; the competitive strength of my offerings; the cohesiveness of my corporate culture and organization, and architecture of my technical infrastructure."
Does this seem silly to you? Well, it represents a major mind shift to most of your corporate counterparts. Many organizations seem to buy software packages as the magic bullet to their problems, believing that, once installed, the software will mysteriously make their people, their business processes, and their collective organization so much smarter and better.
Think I'm kidding? Just consider all those organizations that bought CRM packages and painfully and meticulously reconciled, cleansed and integrated customer data, and recreated all of it in a brand new data model - just so these businesses could achieve an integration of customers across different customer-facing processes and channels.
And what did many of these same companies do to recoup their costs of such a massive investment? Did they create self-service Web sites so customers could view and manage their accounts, in order to lower servicing and handling costs? Did they provide value-added analysis at the request of customers to offer them superior value and better deals in generate added revenue?
No, many did not. They simply spent a lot of time and money, only to achieve a better internal view of customers. While an integrated view of customers gives companies the potential to offer better service and/or deliver superior value, an integrated view doesn't really generate any economic benefit by itself.
Promise #2: Use a portfolio management matrix with quantitative performance criteria to prioritize, coordinate, consolidate and streamline CRM initiatives across different business groups within your organization. Respect the fact that different businesses have different needs, and understand what technical and business processes can be shared and/or standardized and which ones should not.
"I promise to embrace a portfolio management approach to my CRM initiatives from my various business units and/or operating groups. I will integrate and consolidate these efforts to avoid overlapping, duplicative and contradictory technology development efforts. Moreover, I promise to evaluate these initiatives on the basis on solid, short-term as well as longer-term performance metrics, and will assign the highest priority to those initiatives that offer the great economic benefits, relative to cost and ease of implementation"
At most large, multidivisional corporations, the problem is not that there is no CRM strategy. The problem is that there are dozens of CRM strategies and initiatives, many of which are duplicate their efforts and and overlap each other.
Some run contradictory to the organization's IT strategy and architecture. For example, while the IT division of an organization is committed to open standards and Internet-based technology to ease integration and global deployment as well as lower maintenance costs, business groups will go ahead and buy a CRM package which is based on a proprietary data model and business objects.
The good news is that many organizations recognize this problem. The bad news is how they often "solve it." One way is the low-tech "workshop" approach, while egos, tribal instincts and corporate pecking orders prevail at establishing priorities - what initiatives get funded and how they are rolled out.
A more high-tech method involves a corporate-wide effort to gather all the business requirements and cram them into a single, enterprise-wide solution framework. This forces different operating groups to adhere to the business process design and workflows of the software application. The bad news is that, in many cases, different operating groups have very different ways of conducting business (some for good reasons, some for not so good reasons).