Why sales won’t use the CRM system – and what to do about it
The evalution centre recently published one of my articles, which can be found at the following location, in a nice PDF format with a smiling photo of yours truely, or you can read the slightly rawer, longer paragraphed, less bullet pointed, unedited version below:
The recent review by Conspectus Magazine revealed only 14% of companies surveyed felt their CRM applications had been very successful; 39% felt there had been some benefits, and 25% saw no benefits. So why the relatively lacklustre returns? I don’t believe there is anything inherently wrong with the technology. CRM applications have been around since the late eighties and there are plenty of stable, functionally rich, well supported applications to choose from. For many the heart of the issue is the struggle for user adoption. You can have the greatest CRM system in the world but if you can’t get people to use it in a consistent and structured way then it will generate no value. And nowhere does usage seem to be more of an issue than in the sales area. I’ve long lost track of the number of conversations I’ve had with anguished executives bemoaning their non-performing CRM systems that ‘sales just won’t use’.
Before some of you move on because - of course our sales team are using it – I’d like to tell the story of one of the first system audits I ever undertook. The client had engaged us to help identify areas where their system could add more value. We were given the tour of the offices, met a couple of bright system administrators, discussed the money the client had invested in enhancing the system, and how they were now an active reference site for the vendor from whom they had purchased it. Trouble was it quickly became apparent that virtually no-one was actually using it. In the previous month only a handful of a sales-force of nearly a 100 had even accessed the system, and the accumulated data for a system that had been running for a couple of years was negligible. Yes, an extreme example perhaps, but a situation we’ve seen replicated in some form many times over the years.
So why is user adoption such an issue? One reason I believe, is that the approach to training is fundamentally flawed. Standard operating practice seems to be for staff to receive a day’s classroom training and then be left to fend for themselves. Some do indeed take to it straightaway, however most don’t. This practice is frequently exacerbated by a tendency to deliver training in vanilla form, out of context of the individual’s role and related processes. Staff who join after the initial implementation of the system are often even less well catered for, with many organizations seeing a steady dilution of knowledge over time.
The most effective approach to training is a proactive one that doesn’t just rely on a one off training event. Classroom training has its place, though it must be in context to the user’s role and the processes they are expected to perform. Organizations need to look for trouble. The system will tell who is and isn’t using it. This information needs to be used to target a sequence of initiatives, including further classroom training and one on one tuition, until each user is verified as active. This sort of programme may take several months, but needs to be sustained until the habit of using the system is deeply ingrained. Thereafter potential training issues need to be picked up through a regular review process, and resources need to be in place to ensure new employees benefit from the same induction to the system.
Another key reason that salespeople shy away from CRM systems is that there are often no particularly compelling reasons for them to use them. A lot of systems fail the ‘what’s in it for me’ test. They simply don’t provide salespeople with sufficient pay-back for the time they have to invest in updating it. Rather like the marketer researching for a potential new product, the CRM implementer needs to perceive and deliver the features that are going to prompt users to buy in to the system. In essence anything that helps the sales team earn more commission, or makes their lives easier, is likely to be attractive. Anything that doesn’t, isn’t.
A second aspect is that all too often little attention is given to embedding key sales processes within the system. If the only way to provide a sales forecast, to get a discount authorized, to get access to pre-sales resources, to submit an order etc, is through the CRM system, then, no surprises, the system is going to get used. If reporting is all done external to the system and the CRM data isn’t used, and the last time the management team ventured into the application was by accident in 2002, then, make no mistake, the salesperson’s scarce resources are going to be allocated elsewhere.
On this point, the management team has a critical role to play, one of the fundamental differences between failing and successful CRM systems is that in the latter case executives use the system as a key tool to run the business, in the former they don’t. This is such a powerful predictor of ultimate success that if as a manager your involvement in the system is to be no more than signing off the purchase order then, frankly, I’d save your money because the odds are strongly against you seeing a return on your investment.
The third reason salespeople fail to engage with CRM technology is that they are inherently time poor and many systems fail to take account of this. It’s not unusual, for example, to find remotely based salespeople whose only means of access to the CRM system is when they are in the office. It shouldn’t really surprise anyone that when Jane from sales drops by the office for her fortnightly visit, that diligently inputting the details of the previous thirteen days worth of interactions that she still remembers may not be number one on her priority list. The range of remote access options available in the market, including through the web and PDA devices, should make convenient remote access to the system a relatively simple proposition.
The whole set up of the system needs to balance the need to capture information with the need to minimize the time demands on the salesperson. This is the other side to the time to returns equation I mentioned earlier. If we want sales to be active users then the returns need to be higher and the time investment should be kept as low as possible. Several years ago I visited Nissan’s immensely successful factory in Sunderland and was struck by the care and attention given to maximizing productivity. Every tool was precision placed so that a worker on the production line only had a put out a hand to grasp what they needed to perform the next task. It’s a lesson that many CRM systems might benefit from. I still see systems where the addition of a new contact record takes an age to perform because the input screen is excessively demanding on information and key strokes. The net effect - staff are loath to add new information.
One challenge that has plagued many CRM implementations is keeping the system relevant to the business over time. The pay-back from a CRM system will accrue over the life of the system. We live however in an ever changing world. Many systems start out successfully, but fail to adapt to changing circumstances. Sometimes this is because CRM is seen as a one off project where the investment of funds and energy are front-loaded to the implementation stages and the system is starved of resources thereafter. In other cases the resources may be there, but there just isn’t the change management programme in place that facilitates the necessary adaptations. The pressurised, impatient world of sales takes no prisoners in this respect – if it can’t be done within the system the sales-team will likely get it done outside it.
Some aspects of the non-use of the CRM system are more ticklish to address. Salespeople can be sensitive about exposing information for fear it will be misused by other staff. It’s important therefore that care is taken to build trust, and that attention is given to the concerns around sharing data. A key part of this is helping them understand how their data will be used and the benefits that will occur from sharing that information. When salespeople start receiving leads from the marketing campaigns which included their contacts, then fears tend to quickly evaporate.
Boiled right down, implementing a CRM system is relatively simple. Define what you want to achieve with the technology; ideally something of significant bottom line value in order to attract attention and resources. Determine the business processes required to deliver the anticipated benefits. Choose the appropriate technology. And then focus like mad on the people to ensure they use it. The problem has often been that the technology part attracts a disproportionate part of our attention. It may be because we find technology exciting, or perhaps that the millions spent by the vendors on marketing their wares has blinded us to some of the more unglamorous aspects of the implementation process. The nub is that technology can’t do it on its own. As one senior executive who was in the process of re-implementing a failed system ruefully noted to us - ‘We saw CRM like we saw the email system – it was essentially just a case of switch it on and it would work.’ When we start to look at CRM rather more three dimensionally – people, process, and technology – the user adoption issue becomes a lot less intractable. And yes, even sales can be persuaded to use the system.
The recent review by Conspectus Magazine revealed only 14% of companies surveyed felt their CRM applications had been very successful; 39% felt there had been some benefits, and 25% saw no benefits. So why the relatively lacklustre returns? I don’t believe there is anything inherently wrong with the technology. CRM applications have been around since the late eighties and there are plenty of stable, functionally rich, well supported applications to choose from. For many the heart of the issue is the struggle for user adoption. You can have the greatest CRM system in the world but if you can’t get people to use it in a consistent and structured way then it will generate no value. And nowhere does usage seem to be more of an issue than in the sales area. I’ve long lost track of the number of conversations I’ve had with anguished executives bemoaning their non-performing CRM systems that ‘sales just won’t use’.
Before some of you move on because - of course our sales team are using it – I’d like to tell the story of one of the first system audits I ever undertook. The client had engaged us to help identify areas where their system could add more value. We were given the tour of the offices, met a couple of bright system administrators, discussed the money the client had invested in enhancing the system, and how they were now an active reference site for the vendor from whom they had purchased it. Trouble was it quickly became apparent that virtually no-one was actually using it. In the previous month only a handful of a sales-force of nearly a 100 had even accessed the system, and the accumulated data for a system that had been running for a couple of years was negligible. Yes, an extreme example perhaps, but a situation we’ve seen replicated in some form many times over the years.
So why is user adoption such an issue? One reason I believe, is that the approach to training is fundamentally flawed. Standard operating practice seems to be for staff to receive a day’s classroom training and then be left to fend for themselves. Some do indeed take to it straightaway, however most don’t. This practice is frequently exacerbated by a tendency to deliver training in vanilla form, out of context of the individual’s role and related processes. Staff who join after the initial implementation of the system are often even less well catered for, with many organizations seeing a steady dilution of knowledge over time.
The most effective approach to training is a proactive one that doesn’t just rely on a one off training event. Classroom training has its place, though it must be in context to the user’s role and the processes they are expected to perform. Organizations need to look for trouble. The system will tell who is and isn’t using it. This information needs to be used to target a sequence of initiatives, including further classroom training and one on one tuition, until each user is verified as active. This sort of programme may take several months, but needs to be sustained until the habit of using the system is deeply ingrained. Thereafter potential training issues need to be picked up through a regular review process, and resources need to be in place to ensure new employees benefit from the same induction to the system.
Another key reason that salespeople shy away from CRM systems is that there are often no particularly compelling reasons for them to use them. A lot of systems fail the ‘what’s in it for me’ test. They simply don’t provide salespeople with sufficient pay-back for the time they have to invest in updating it. Rather like the marketer researching for a potential new product, the CRM implementer needs to perceive and deliver the features that are going to prompt users to buy in to the system. In essence anything that helps the sales team earn more commission, or makes their lives easier, is likely to be attractive. Anything that doesn’t, isn’t.
A second aspect is that all too often little attention is given to embedding key sales processes within the system. If the only way to provide a sales forecast, to get a discount authorized, to get access to pre-sales resources, to submit an order etc, is through the CRM system, then, no surprises, the system is going to get used. If reporting is all done external to the system and the CRM data isn’t used, and the last time the management team ventured into the application was by accident in 2002, then, make no mistake, the salesperson’s scarce resources are going to be allocated elsewhere.
On this point, the management team has a critical role to play, one of the fundamental differences between failing and successful CRM systems is that in the latter case executives use the system as a key tool to run the business, in the former they don’t. This is such a powerful predictor of ultimate success that if as a manager your involvement in the system is to be no more than signing off the purchase order then, frankly, I’d save your money because the odds are strongly against you seeing a return on your investment.
The third reason salespeople fail to engage with CRM technology is that they are inherently time poor and many systems fail to take account of this. It’s not unusual, for example, to find remotely based salespeople whose only means of access to the CRM system is when they are in the office. It shouldn’t really surprise anyone that when Jane from sales drops by the office for her fortnightly visit, that diligently inputting the details of the previous thirteen days worth of interactions that she still remembers may not be number one on her priority list. The range of remote access options available in the market, including through the web and PDA devices, should make convenient remote access to the system a relatively simple proposition.
The whole set up of the system needs to balance the need to capture information with the need to minimize the time demands on the salesperson. This is the other side to the time to returns equation I mentioned earlier. If we want sales to be active users then the returns need to be higher and the time investment should be kept as low as possible. Several years ago I visited Nissan’s immensely successful factory in Sunderland and was struck by the care and attention given to maximizing productivity. Every tool was precision placed so that a worker on the production line only had a put out a hand to grasp what they needed to perform the next task. It’s a lesson that many CRM systems might benefit from. I still see systems where the addition of a new contact record takes an age to perform because the input screen is excessively demanding on information and key strokes. The net effect - staff are loath to add new information.
One challenge that has plagued many CRM implementations is keeping the system relevant to the business over time. The pay-back from a CRM system will accrue over the life of the system. We live however in an ever changing world. Many systems start out successfully, but fail to adapt to changing circumstances. Sometimes this is because CRM is seen as a one off project where the investment of funds and energy are front-loaded to the implementation stages and the system is starved of resources thereafter. In other cases the resources may be there, but there just isn’t the change management programme in place that facilitates the necessary adaptations. The pressurised, impatient world of sales takes no prisoners in this respect – if it can’t be done within the system the sales-team will likely get it done outside it.
Some aspects of the non-use of the CRM system are more ticklish to address. Salespeople can be sensitive about exposing information for fear it will be misused by other staff. It’s important therefore that care is taken to build trust, and that attention is given to the concerns around sharing data. A key part of this is helping them understand how their data will be used and the benefits that will occur from sharing that information. When salespeople start receiving leads from the marketing campaigns which included their contacts, then fears tend to quickly evaporate.
Boiled right down, implementing a CRM system is relatively simple. Define what you want to achieve with the technology; ideally something of significant bottom line value in order to attract attention and resources. Determine the business processes required to deliver the anticipated benefits. Choose the appropriate technology. And then focus like mad on the people to ensure they use it. The problem has often been that the technology part attracts a disproportionate part of our attention. It may be because we find technology exciting, or perhaps that the millions spent by the vendors on marketing their wares has blinded us to some of the more unglamorous aspects of the implementation process. The nub is that technology can’t do it on its own. As one senior executive who was in the process of re-implementing a failed system ruefully noted to us - ‘We saw CRM like we saw the email system – it was essentially just a case of switch it on and it would work.’ When we start to look at CRM rather more three dimensionally – people, process, and technology – the user adoption issue becomes a lot less intractable. And yes, even sales can be persuaded to use the system.
posted by Richard Boardman at 2:01 pm
<< Home