Blown to bits: CRM 1.0 losing relevance in customer operations

We all know  about large CRM 1.0 implementations that do not come close to realizing their promised benefits and wasted a lot of money.

We can blame the vendors all we want, but if enterprises did not commit to the project and make the investment, those vendors would not have had the opportunity to fail.

And yes it is true: there are implementations where managers and endusers are satisfied.

And still something has gone wrong with CRM 1.0 in many large-sized companies.

It is  not that many CRM 1.0  systems have limited themselves to contact registration.  Or that CRM 1.0 has become merely a metaphor for cost reduction, focusing on e.g in contact centerson average handle time, first contact resolution and so on.  These management approach were, are and will be important.

It was Donna Fluss who triggered me. She mentioned in a post the so called Siebel effect that

“The “Siebel effect” is a fear of large, expensive and often very lengthy projects intended to revamp all aspects of an enterprise’s customer-facing solutions. For contact centers or customer service organizations, it’s about a “rip and replace” of the customer service and support application. This process could also involve sales, marketing and analytics”.

She continues that :

The CRM era taught managers a few things they already should have known:

1. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is
   
2. Speak to references and find out what does and does not work before signing a contract
   
3. Include rewards and penalties in system contracts; if vendors won’t commit, neither should you
   
4. Systems cannot change culture
   
5. Selecting system implementation resources is at least as important as selecting the system

Quite a number of companies stopped their implementation efforts and tried to make the best of what they had.

As an operational manager I always mention that in our large sized operations we only can thrive (and therefore strive) for organic growth.  Big bang approaches are deemed to fail in advance or have a huge  impact – temporarily – on customer satisfaction.

Preferring an implementation approach in stead of an adaption approach still seems for me to be the road to disaster.

It is great to realize that – at least in my opinion – Enterprise 2.0 and Social CRM  fit much better in an approach of organic growth.

And yes I know, there is still a disconnect between the strategists and the vendors in these emerging areas.
Or is this – as I assume – a necessary productive friction?  Resulting ultimately in the convergence to organic growth, needed to adapt continuously and smoothly to the changes in the external world.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Crm seminar wrapup trends and avanguarde solutions richard lefebvre (slideshare.net)
• Syntellect Launches CT Connect for Siebel: A Cost-Effective CTI Solution for Siebel CRM Users (eon.businesswire.com)
• Mongoose Metrics Announces Phone Call Integration with CRM Vendor Microsoft Dynamics (prweb.com)
• Implementing crm projects in romania nicoleta macovei (slideshare.net)
• CRM 2.0 – What’s New Here (slideshare.net)
• What’s Coming Up Next for Social CRM and Enterprise 2.0? (cloudave.com)
• ‘Social CRM’ Should be a Redundant Phrase (fastforwardblog.com)

Related articles by Zemanta

• What’s Coming Up Next for Social CRM and Enterprise 2.0? (cloudave.com)
• ‘Social CRM’ Should be a Redundant Phrase (fastforwardblog.com)