Finding out the true facts about what makes CRM tick and how fast it circles the ROI clock—if it indeed reaches ROI—has long frustrated potential CRM implementers looking for answers. And getting good answers really matters, because their only alternative to being forewarned may be leaping into enterprise-wide, mega-bucks, change management-laden CRM implementations—and testing the depth of the water with both feet.
For the first time, there are statistically-based, substantive answers to many questions about CRM.
Actually, answers have been very easy to come by. Too easy. The problem has been getting the same answers from any two sources. That's ranged from difficult to impossible, depending on the question. At least it has been until now. But after the recent release of the findings from a comprehensive study of 448 completed CRM implementations, confusion no longer reigns. Or more realistically, now that accurate data is available confusion should no longer reign.
This new study, The Blueprint for CRM Success1, evaluates real-life implementation approaches relative to real-life ROI performance, and does so across a sufficiently high number of implementations to leave but minimal margin of statistical error. Moreover, the research sponsors, Caribou Lake Customer-1 and CRMGuru.com partnered with an "outcome-neutral" statistical research firm, Mangen Research Associates, to assure that the data collection methods and statistical analysis would conform to rigorous professional standards.
In fact, the impetus for this research project arose from a desire by some CRM professionals to cut through the ubiquitous claims and counterclaims surrounding CRM, many germinating from "studies" conducted by parties picking up the telephone and dialing twenty CIOs or Marketing VPs with known opinions and biases.
1 - The Blueprint for CRM Success; Dick Lee (author of this article), David Mangen, Ph.D, Bob Thompson; HYM Press 2003.
Inaccuracies abound in information about CRM from supply-side sources
Not surprisingly, these claims come mostly from organizations or individuals with something to sell—whether market information, CRM application software, consulting services, conferences, books, magazines, webzine subscriptions or anything else pulled along by CRM. And played back together, they sound so cacophonous that they conjure up audible images of CRM running full speed across the business stage pulling a long string of tin cans behind it.
For example, how can one software vendor enjoy a 99% implementation success rate and own dominant market share both, while only 30% of all implementations are successful? Pick any two, but not all three. Or how about two industry analyst firms releasing "expert" opinions on CRM success rates within one week of each other—one saying 80% of implementations succeed, the other saying 70% fail? Gee, wonder what that's about? And how about when "house" research says a vendor enjoys customer satisfaction ratings over 90 but independent research sings a different tune, reporting satisfaction ratings 30 points lower? Clearly something is up (and it's probably not customer satisfaction).
Unfortunately, most misstatements like the ones above are what we might term "motivated misstatements," as opposed to simple misunderstandings or mistakes from unknowingly basing opinions on statistically insignificant data. The very fact that so many claims about CRM from so many sources don't square with each other—after years of empirical if not statistical evidence gathering—indicates that many CRM claims-makers are hearing what they want to hear—and no body of data, no matter how substantial, will deter some from saying what they're motivated to say in order to sell their wares. Especially when these data say things some absolutely don't want to hear—and don't want their potential customers to hear. "Blueprint's" individual data points, while adding up to good news for CRM implementers, contain more downside than upside for those CRM vendors accustomed to creating a false picture of CRM tailored to suit their own purposes. That's even true of the study's positive findings on ROI.
For the first time, there are statistically-based, substantive answers to many questions about CRM.
Actually, answers have been very easy to come by. Too easy. The problem has been getting the same answers from any two sources. That's ranged from difficult to impossible, depending on the question. At least it has been until now. But after the recent release of the findings from a comprehensive study of 448 completed CRM implementations, confusion no longer reigns. Or more realistically, now that accurate data is available confusion should no longer reign.
This new study, The Blueprint for CRM Success1, evaluates real-life implementation approaches relative to real-life ROI performance, and does so across a sufficiently high number of implementations to leave but minimal margin of statistical error. Moreover, the research sponsors, Caribou Lake Customer-1 and CRMGuru.com partnered with an "outcome-neutral" statistical research firm, Mangen Research Associates, to assure that the data collection methods and statistical analysis would conform to rigorous professional standards.
In fact, the impetus for this research project arose from a desire by some CRM professionals to cut through the ubiquitous claims and counterclaims surrounding CRM, many germinating from "studies" conducted by parties picking up the telephone and dialing twenty CIOs or Marketing VPs with known opinions and biases.
1 - The Blueprint for CRM Success; Dick Lee (author of this article), David Mangen, Ph.D, Bob Thompson; HYM Press 2003.
Inaccuracies abound in information about CRM from supply-side sources
Not surprisingly, these claims come mostly from organizations or individuals with something to sell—whether market information, CRM application software, consulting services, conferences, books, magazines, webzine subscriptions or anything else pulled along by CRM. And played back together, they sound so cacophonous that they conjure up audible images of CRM running full speed across the business stage pulling a long string of tin cans behind it.
For example, how can one software vendor enjoy a 99% implementation success rate and own dominant market share both, while only 30% of all implementations are successful? Pick any two, but not all three. Or how about two industry analyst firms releasing "expert" opinions on CRM success rates within one week of each other—one saying 80% of implementations succeed, the other saying 70% fail? Gee, wonder what that's about? And how about when "house" research says a vendor enjoys customer satisfaction ratings over 90 but independent research sings a different tune, reporting satisfaction ratings 30 points lower? Clearly something is up (and it's probably not customer satisfaction).
Unfortunately, most misstatements like the ones above are what we might term "motivated misstatements," as opposed to simple misunderstandings or mistakes from unknowingly basing opinions on statistically insignificant data. The very fact that so many claims about CRM from so many sources don't square with each other—after years of empirical if not statistical evidence gathering—indicates that many CRM claims-makers are hearing what they want to hear—and no body of data, no matter how substantial, will deter some from saying what they're motivated to say in order to sell their wares. Especially when these data say things some absolutely don't want to hear—and don't want their potential customers to hear. "Blueprint's" individual data points, while adding up to good news for CRM implementers, contain more downside than upside for those CRM vendors accustomed to creating a false picture of CRM tailored to suit their own purposes. That's even true of the study's positive findings on ROI.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment