The Need for Customized CRM

Ann All

I recently blogged about some analysts' bullish expectations for CRM, with both Datamonitor and KensingtonHouse citing the growing interest in and adoption of CRM delivered through a software-as-service model.

 

In an October interview with IT Business Edge, AMR Research analyst Robert Bois noted that growth rates for SaaS "continue to dramatically outpace that of licensed software."

 

With CRM, which has been traditionally hampered by low adoption rates, SaaS is appealing because of its lower up-front cost, reduced risk and because "in a true SaaS environment, there should be no such thing as unused seats of software," said Bois. He added:

While double-digit growth rates can't continue forever in SaaS, we think this model has a lot of legs. This isn't the ASP flash-in-the-pan we saw in the early 2000s, this is truly changing the software landscape, and forcing traditional software vendors to rethink how they develop, sell and support their products to remain competitive.

With similar remarks from other analysts dominating recent media coverage of CRM, it's easy to forget that at least some companies continue to develop their own highly customized CRM software. JPMorgan Chase, for instance, recently migrated from Siebel CRM to an in-house system.

 

Ken Janssens, the Chase executive that led the project, tells Bank Technology News that the conversion yielded increased functionality for users, cost efficiencies and "consistent performance in the many different parts of the world that we operate."

 


Chase adapted a CRM system that had been developed for Bank One, which it acquired. The project benefited from the fact that both companies used Web services. Janssens says:

We had to re-write the services, but it was a modification more than a start from scratch. We had to fit into a new data model, which was the hardest thing. But we improved performance in the process. There was an up-front expense; in the end we were able to cut ongoing costs by half, reduce head count and free up dozens of servers.

Customization was necessary not only because of the need for consistency in the company's multi-national footprint, says Janssens, but also because investment banking lacks a "singular sales model." A customized system is the best way to drive user adoption in such an environment, he says.

... putting something in front of (the investment bankers) that is good enough so that they will actually want to use it (means) you've got to embed yourself with these bankers, know exactly how they work, and develop something fairly custom. ...Any package you have to modify more than 20 percent, I challenge that that is the right thing to do.

I believe Chase's willingness to determine what its users needed to do their jobs better had just as much to do with the project's success as the software customization. As I blogged in August, the best CRM technology won't do any good without solid underlying processes in place.

 

In his IT Business Edge interview, AMR Research's Bois told me that many users eschew CRM because of a perceived lack of benefits. He said:

Much of the software on the market today helps automate process, but doesn't necessarily provide incremental value back to the user. Sales people often complain that CRM or SFA (salesforce automation) is just an administrative burden, and does little more than prove to their boss that they are doing their job. So adoption wanes, and users go back to using familiar tools like spreadsheets, databases or even just Rolodexes.

While this was a problem at Chase, Janssens says, it was solved by improving the system's usability and by integrating it with e-mail. He says:

(The problem is) if you're a smart front-office person, the last thing you want to do is share with people. Your Rolodex is yours. So (the bank needed to) build in features where it's super-easy to contribute and it's easy to find that information, then you lower those barriers. So we integrated it with e-mail. It's linked to the client central system. That creates that single view. Our CRM is much more about client scorecards, using internal and external market data.


Add Comment      Leave a comment on this blog post
Feb 4, 2008 5:27 AM Tom Greenberg Tom Greenberg  says:
If you take a deep look at the on-demand CRM solutions available today such as Salesforce.com, Netsuite, Salesboom.com, RightNow... you will find that these systems are highly customizable via a configuration-based point-and-click style that is hard to find in Oracle or SAP. Reply
Feb 6, 2008 2:35 AM Jim Love Jim Love  says:
We hooked up with SugarCRM and became an implementor thinking that you are right. Companies are going to push the envelope and want to move beyond SaaS. Sugar allowed us that seemless transition. On one hand we have an on demand, fast setup and easy to use system with all the advantage of SaaS. At the intermediate level we have the ability to create custom modules easily to extend the function if "bolt ons" aren't available. At the opposite end, we can go through SOAP (best case) or use some of the pre-established hooks. We could even go right to the source code to make modifications if we really ever had to.I'm an admitted Sugar bigot. I love it. But the brand is not the point. All vendors should be embracing standards and a flexible architecture if they want to handle the "big time". That's my take on it anyway. Reply
Feb 6, 2008 3:59 AM Thomas Thomas  says:
I co-developed an in-house CRM system several years ago that was deployed to 6 countries around the world. The solution was scalable from a 13 user sales team in 1 country to a 250+ sales organization with overlapping territories, complex buying groups in multiple segments, dynamic sales teams, and a myriad of other complexities in another. The reason for in-house development was that available CRM systems were riddled with features that would not be used (could not be removed), they required extensive customization to fit our business model, and global support was limited. The CRM industry has improved taking some wind out of this argument but at its core it still has merits. It is true SaaS vendors are providing more configuration options requiring less customizations and it is true the traditional SW vendors are modularizing their products offering greater flexibility. It is also true both camps have greatly improved global support as well. The issue remains that a generic approach to sales carries multiple assumptions about a sales process which may not fit. When it does not fit and cannot be altered or removed, users become distracted by features they do not need or want. This distraction is even greater when a work around - real or percieved - is required for the fit. The need to develop in-house is certainly becoming less but it is not gone yet. Reply
Jul 30, 2010 3:51 AM Intelestream Intelestream  says:

I agree that building a customized CRM that perfectly fits your business needs and business processes is the best option. However, the entire system does not need to be built in house from scratch (this can be extremely time consuming and costly).  There are numerous low cost web based CRM options available for purchase, which can then be customized to link with your website or other external systems.  Some examples include intelecrm, info@hand, Zoho, Vtiger, etc.  All of these options are built on similar models, are low cost, and the code can be customized as needed.  As a company that specializes in small, medium, and large business scale CRM implementations, Intelestream has found that the combination of open source software plus customization has yielded successful results. We have published a white paper on the subject of CRM User Adoption Challenges. You can read it at http://www.intelestream.net/en/whitepapers/crm-adoption.html

Reply

Post a comment

 

 

 

 


(Maximum characters: 1200). You have 1200 characters left.

 

 

Subscribe to our Newsletters

Sign up now and get the best business technology insights direct to your inbox.


 
Resource centers

Business Intelligence

Business performance information for strategic and operational decision-making

SOA

SOA uses interoperable services grouped around business processes to ease data integration

Data Warehousing

Data warehousing helps companies make sense of their operational data