Over the past 10 years, much has been written on the topic of CRM and the failure of CRM projects.  Failure or under performance can constitute different forms: the original ROI not being reach, poor user adoption or a general dissatisfaction amongst adopters.

Whilst the definition of this may be subjective, it is worthwhile looking into the current-state of CRM in organisations that have implemented CRM systems over the past few years:

• CRM systems have morphed into the broader domain of staff support systems. Many CRM projects were born as a way for organisations to generate revenue through better sales processes. As such, CRM systems had functionality to manage the opportunity pipeline, track sales, perform marketing campaigns, etc.
• Many CRM systems have user adoption issues because they are difficult to use with lots of redundant clicks, difficult search and non-linear workflows.
• Highly customised: since it was not fit-for purpose, the package was modified substantially making it difficult to upgrade.

CRM systems have now become embedded in customer service and sales processes, often integrated with other capabilities and systems in the organisation (product application processes, self-service portals, BI applications and data warehouses, etc.). Many CRM packages were designed with the internal sales processes in mind, not focussing on the tasks that staff need to do to serve the customer let alone the customer themselves. The internal processes that the CRM systems supported originated from the mid 1990’s. They failed to consider the impact of different channels, efficient workflows and self-service.

In remediating old CRM systems we need to turn the subjective view of CRM failure into a fact-based view. The first step is to apply the 80-20 rule. What is the core purpose of your CRM System? Is it what the business case intended it to be 5, 6 or 7 years ago when the project was commenced and what do you staff actually use it for today? Which parts are really used? Is it really enabling the business process as it is predominantly conducted today?

Once you know the answers to these questions you can then look at a remediation strategy. How do you find this out? The use of a simple on-line survey can allow you to gather this information quickly (it is surprising how many staff will be willing to offer their opinion – many have not been asked before and it only takes a few minutes). Observation is also a good technique. Based on this data, build some hypotheses on where the investment should go to remediate and improve useability. You cannot fix everything. Especially in a timeframe that you stakeholders will accept. Test your hypothesis with your super-user community. Fix 3 things that have major user impact. Build your story. It should be self-explanatory.

Related story:

http://www.customerexperience.com.au/139.html