Conventional wisdom on CRM requirements doesn't work
The final major flaw with the functionality led approach to CRM requirements gathering is the Rumsfeldian notion of the unknown unknowns. Users, who invariably haven’t used CRM technology before, are expected to articulate a complete vision of what they want from a system, and invariably are only able to produce a handful of bullet points.
Even those who have been exposed to CRM technology before, generally because the system they used wasn’t well set up, and/or the deterioration of memory over time, and/or their exposure to a limited sub-set of functionality, tend to struggle to produce meaningful requirements.
On the other extreme, this approach does occasionally produce users who can create a very detailed but ultimately Frankenstein-esque vision of a system out of all context with what’s deliverable from conventional CRM technology.
The implications of the above are that:
The stated requirements are so limited that most packages in the market can meet them, and so the meaningful comparison is nigh on impossible.
Key functional requirements are missed which increases the risk of purchasing a CRM package that doesn’t meet the ‘real’ needs. For example I’ve seen a lot of organisations with very sensitive data security needs fail to document any data security related requirements.
Or in the ‘Frankenstein-esque’ situation the stated requirements are so ‘unusual’ that vendors are discouraged from bidding, and those that are received have huge price tags. I know of several expensive CRM tendering exercises that produced no responses at all, with all invited vendors deciding to ‘no bid’.
Anyway, that rounds out why the functionality led approach to requirements gathering doesn’t work, next time I’ll try and articulate a better way…
Even those who have been exposed to CRM technology before, generally because the system they used wasn’t well set up, and/or the deterioration of memory over time, and/or their exposure to a limited sub-set of functionality, tend to struggle to produce meaningful requirements.
On the other extreme, this approach does occasionally produce users who can create a very detailed but ultimately Frankenstein-esque vision of a system out of all context with what’s deliverable from conventional CRM technology.
The implications of the above are that:
The stated requirements are so limited that most packages in the market can meet them, and so the meaningful comparison is nigh on impossible.
Key functional requirements are missed which increases the risk of purchasing a CRM package that doesn’t meet the ‘real’ needs. For example I’ve seen a lot of organisations with very sensitive data security needs fail to document any data security related requirements.
Or in the ‘Frankenstein-esque’ situation the stated requirements are so ‘unusual’ that vendors are discouraged from bidding, and those that are received have huge price tags. I know of several expensive CRM tendering exercises that produced no responses at all, with all invited vendors deciding to ‘no bid’.
Anyway, that rounds out why the functionality led approach to requirements gathering doesn’t work, next time I’ll try and articulate a better way…
Related Compare Accounting Software Articles
Hidden Costs of Cloud Computing
George Lawton recently provided a post describing how "as with SOA, some development costs obscured by cloud computing." He extensively quotes iTKO’s John Michelsen and this is greatly appreciated. George writes that while cloud computing holds...
Read more about Hidden Costs of Cloud Computing...
Make it Simple, Fun and Relevant - Part 2
Last week we discussed the three pillars on which we build our user experience. In addition to those three pillars, there are eight guidelines that we follow to ensure that our user interface is fun, simple, easy to use, and relevant to the enduser....
Read more about Make it Simple, Fun and Relevant - Part 2...