« Customer centricity requires technology investment | Main | Should CMOs blog? »



I think the problem is tied to the issues in your earlier post referring to Peter's paper. Business needs to restate the strategy to develop new sets of requirements for the technology folks. In fairness to them we have not done an adequate job at explaining the needs in this new world and how technology is expected to support marketing in a multi channel world that sees customers using at least 2 channels weekly, and 3 - 4 every month.

Then the issue of internal or outsourcing technology is just a matter of reliability, price, capability etc.

PS .. welcome to blogging by the way. These are the right questions.



We have a challenge to justify expenditure on new marketing technology. But it perhaps isn't the challenge that most people associate with technology business cases. It is much broader than that.

The three most recent, robust, independent studies of CRM (carried out by CRMGuru, Wharton & Insead) all show that the choice of technology is not a critical success factor for the approx. 1,000 CRM projects that were surveyed. (For the sake of discussion, let's assume that these findings applies equally to marketing projects as a major subset of traditional CRM.)

Note, that the studies don't show that technology isn't important or unnecessary, just that it is an enabler, rather than a driver of CRM success. It just needs to be there in sufficient quantity to enable the business, not any more.

We now recognise that a company's CRM capabilities are made up of complementary combinations of business processes, technologies, information flows, organisational routines, work climate and other intangible assets. It is in applying these capabilities that a company creates mutual value for customers and for itself.

We are slowly learning how these complementary combinations fit naturally together in groups (capability maturity levels), and how applying them generates value. But we are a long way off having even an adequate understanding.

The implication of this capabilities view is that the combinations matter a great deal. If we implement whizz-bang marketing technology without developing the complementary business processes, information flows, organisational routines, work climate and other intangible assets, then we are in danger of just raising business costs without generating sufficient additional value to cover the costs. Or as we used to say at PwC; OO + NT = EOO. (Old Organisation + New Technoolgy = Expensive Old Organisation.)

This type of one-sided, technology-driven implementation is all too common in CRM.

And therein lies the challenge: to balance how much new CRM or marketing technology the rest of the business can use effectively, with how we must develop the rest of the business to use the new technology we would like to implement.

And all this with an iron-clad, cashflow-based business case.

Qute a challenge I am sure you agree.

Graham Hill
Independent CRM Consultant

Pritesh Dubey

This article is very relevant to the change management in organization, and it depicts that how people are stubborn in organization and it is difficult to implement new technology.

The comments to this entry are closed.