Relationship Dynamics: The Savior of CRMFalling victim to the "silver bullet" syndrome, too many businesses thought a CRM system alone would cure all ills. In truth, the key relationship dynamic is between people and the system — and in tying performance metrics to customer satisfaction and value.
by Terry Jabali Even before the software industry coined, stamped, and marketed the term "CRM" (customer relationship management), many user organizations had already adopted major initiatives aimed at creating customer value and serving their needs effectively and efficiently. Despite the large number of vendors to jump on the bandwagon, most user organizations implemented monolithic CRM systems — and perhaps as a result, found that their CRM initiatives failed to deliver promised results. Industry analysts report that such disappointing outcomes are fueled in part by the limitations of not only the software, but also the vendors and systems integrator consultants. Published surveys, such as a 2002 Nucleus Research report, give us data such as the following:
When we dig deeper into the underlying reasons, we quickly see that "resistance to technology fueled by usage complexity, poor workflow, and architectural inflexibility" are almost always at the heart. For the purpose of framing this article's discussion of the underlying root causes, I will classify these in two dimensions: (1) the people effect and (2) the systems (including process) effect. The "relationship dynamic" existing with these two dimensions is where we find the hidden root cause. Relationship dynamics entail cause and effect; second, relative position and disposition; and third, the domino effect. It will help our discussion to begin with a real-world scenario: A sales professional promises several customer perks, including financial incentives, to make a sale. Later, the customer calls to cash in on promised perks. The customer support representative (CSR) has no records of these additional perks, and calls the finance department. Finance has a different version of what the customer claims, and calls the sales manager to verify and update its records. Luckily, the sales manager confirms the perks per his records. Case closed? Not exactly! Finance asks the sales manager to provide necessary approvals from senior management, compelling the sales manager to complete an internal standard operating procedure (SOP) form. The sales manager then calls the customer to apologize and assures her that all will be right soon. The customer gets frustrated while waiting for several days for senior management's approval and a financial system update; she decides to call the CSR, who then places her on hold while researching the progress. Finally, the CSR comes back and says that the system is not yet updated; he will have to ask the sales manager to get back to the customer. The customer waits another day and then learns that the original CSR is no longer with the company — and that his sales manager is out of town on a road trip. Notified, the sales manager calls the customer and leaves a voicemail. The customer and sales manager play phone tag. The customer gets frustrated and decides to call the company president. A day later, she connects with the president, who promises to look into it and call her back. Many of us can relate to this unfortunate scenario. Again, when we examine the underlying cause we realize that it is not necessarily the fault of the sales team as much as it is the enterprise systems we have allowed to permeate and subsequently imprison us. Cause and Effect: Classical ViewMany relationships among enterprise "entities" are in a state of conflict rather than harmony: one workgroup against another, frustration with processes and workflows, and resistance to technology tools. With the scenario described earlier in mind, let's consider the conflicts more closely: People vs. Process. SOP dictated that any extra perks outside sales guidelines require extra approvals — and depending on the level, senior management approval. Significantly, the sales organization did obtain the necessary approval; however, the financial system was not part of the elaborate CRM system. Senior management reportedly approved the extra perks and forwarded a copy to the sales and finance departments. Yet, a different version appeared in the financial records. The sales organization did not go out of its way to verify the integrity of data at the other departments (nor should they). People vs. Technology Tools. Between senior management approval and the financial system's records, the complete scope of information could not be completed. As it turned out, the financial system, which operated in a silo separate from the CRM solution, had limitations on how much data one can input in the customer record, particularly in the case of extra perks. This forced the representative to note additional data manually elsewhere. People vs. People. The finance department believed that the sales team was giving away the whole ship and did not believe that the sales organization had acted responsibly. The sales organization believed that finance was a bunch of bean counters and was not business savvy. Moreover, sales believed that another reason existed why the customer problem surfaced: Finance was being overly protective of its records, which may have also been why finance was not a party to the CRM system.
|
 |
Most Popular This Week
IE Weekly Newsletter
Subscribe to the newsletter
| |
|
|