Notes on CRM implementation from the Camp Nou...

Just back from spending some time with friends in Barcelona, one of whom is a senior IT executive at one of the larger FMCG companies, and one which I consider to be one of the most effective users of IT technology out there. As they are currently in the midst of a big CRM project not surprisingly conversation turned to the challenges of implementing new systems. So what follows are a few strands of their approach that I figure set them a little apart from the mainstream:

· A lot of effort goes into the planning for any IT project. They spend a lot of time establishing project feasibility and business case before any substantial investment is made.

· An IT deployment nearly always involves a change of business process. They rarely simply automate what they already do. They carefully research industry best practice and look to equal or ideally better it.

· They invest big because they know if things are done properly they will get an even bigger return.

· They place a big emphasis on getting it right first time, because they know re-implementing systems or putting in new systems every few years is a much more expensive route.

· They are prepared to spend a long time getting things right.

· They will occasionally implement short term tactical solutions but only as part of a broader strategic plan.

· Though they are an international company they recognize not all markets are the same. International operations can however generally be grouped based on similar requirements. While there are differences between groups, they ensure each group operates an identical set of processes.

· The change management, i.e. the getting people to use it, aspects of any project is taken very seriously and take up a lot of time and resources.

· Once a system is established the system is further enhanced but this is done uniformly across each individual group. No one is allowed to strike out on their own. If the process is further enhanced, it is further enhanced for everyone.

· The change control process is carefully regulated with a series of checks and balances. They manage it so no single senior executive, perhaps experiencing a rush of blood, can authorise changes without the consent of a broader cross-functional team. The governance function is established right at the start of the project.

While these guys are global FMCG, the points are relevent to virtually any deployment of information technology. I was particularly struck by how infrequently they simply automate an existing process without trying to fundamentally improve it, and how once the new best practice is embedded there’s no option but to follow it. You don’t see individual operations opting out and doing their own thing. The robust governance thinking was also interesting given leadership changes have often led to the demise of many an otherwise sound system.

Overall what comes out is a deep appreciation that IT will have a fundamental bearing on the future profitability of their business. It’s at the very heart of their business strategy, and it’s a key part of how they compete with other companies who see IT as a necessary evil rather than a source of competitive advantage.

A disconnect in desperate need of bridging...

In his post ‘Are we solving the same problem’ Seth Godin brilliantly sums up one of the fundamental problems of the CRM industry even though he’s not actually writing about IT.

The point he makes is that people are much more comfortable discussing the solution to a problem than the problem itself. If we were to understand the problems better the solutions would be better, but this tends not to be the way of the world.

Applied to the world of CRM, I think CRM vendors are great at talking about their product’s functionality, but are considerably more sketchy about the problems their products are actually solving. This would be less of an issue if the purchasers of CRM technology could fill the gap, but not surprisingly perhaps, they often struggle to understand which of their problems CRM can practically solve.

Only when this disconnect is bridged will the true potential of CRM be realized.

One simple way to slash CRM implementation costs...

In the early days of Mareeba we were working with a client to help them create an extension to their CRM system. As we usually do, we had created a detailed specification and circulated it to potential vendors for their proposed pricing. The quotes that came back seemed astronomical compared to what we felt was the modest scale of the work.

I was so convinced that the vendors had over-estimated we decided to take a bit of a gamble and stray away from our tried and tested fixed price approach. We identified a developer who we knew to have a solid track record at one of the vendors and paid for their services on a time and materials basis, on the basis that they would come and work with us on site.

On the first morning we’d stationed the developer in a glass fronted conference room, and it became obvious that he was fielding a large number of calls from his employer. After an hour of this I invited him to turn off his mobile for the duration of his stay with us. His relief was obvious; the guy had a great work ethic and just wanted to get on with things and was tired of getting interrupted for support calls or input on other projects.

With no distractions, a clear specification, and a capable and committed developer we made rapid progress. So rapid in fact we completed the required work, plus some additional ‘nice to have’ capabilities for just 20% of the price of the original proposals.

The key was that the developer worked away from their office environment where they were likely to get distracted by meetings, support requests, other clients, assorted crises etc, etc.. CRM vendors tend to have a pathological hatred of their developers being off site because they are not available to handle meetings, support requests, other clients, assorted crises etc, etc., and will generally come up with an extensive range of reasons that this just isn’t possible.

If it’s fixed price work I’ve tended to go along with it, unless the project time-lines are particularly tight, but for time and materials work it’s generally a condition of the contract that work is on site with the client. This may entail an increase in travel expenses, but these are generally dwarfed by the productivity gains. The time and material approach isn’t right for all circumstances, but, as this example suggests, used appropriately it can be a devastatingly simple way of slashing implementation costs.