'Why MRM implementations fail'
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Following post was done by the MRM logiq guys of MarketingGovernance. It proves that an MRM project needs to be initiated using a marketing process strategy instead of buying software and see what that will bring to improve processes. At XEED we share that view. We think a vendor needs to have a marketing communication background and software needs to be flexible enough to be able to support the intended improved processes so the system will help making the redesign of processes more successful instead of guiding the redesign.
MarketingGovernance:
Official figures are -of course- not available. We recorded at least 5 examples in the past 5 months. We can tell you, they are big international names, both MRM vendors and Brands.
Over 70% of IT projects fail, we wrote in July 2006. So, you shouldn't be surprised. What is the remedy for this poor result? The answer is: Implement a marketing solution, not an IT solution.
Many implementations are so-called backward facing implementations (or horseless carriage implementations), missing the benefits of forward facing. Let's explain.
"If I had asked my customers what they wanted,
they'd have said a faster horse"
-Henry Ford-
What Ford asks us is to decide if we want a faster horse or a car. We can automate the way we are working, or we can improve the way we work and then automate. What is not widely understood is that both approaches require the same amount of effort, but in a different way.
These are the characteristics of both approaches:
Backward-facing
MarketingGovernance:
Official figures are -of course- not available. We recorded at least 5 examples in the past 5 months. We can tell you, they are big international names, both MRM vendors and Brands.
Over 70% of IT projects fail, we wrote in July 2006. So, you shouldn't be surprised. What is the remedy for this poor result? The answer is: Implement a marketing solution, not an IT solution.
Many implementations are so-called backward facing implementations (or horseless carriage implementations), missing the benefits of forward facing. Let's explain.
they'd have said a faster horse"
-Henry Ford-
What Ford asks us is to decide if we want a faster horse or a car. We can automate the way we are working, or we can improve the way we work and then automate. What is not widely understood is that both approaches require the same amount of effort, but in a different way.
These are the characteristics of both approaches:
Backward-facing
- Intention not to change company processes
- In reality: Adjusting company processes for software
- High involvement required from staff, because requirements are not clear
- Average of 10-20% savings in costs or Turn around Time
- Definition phase: 25%
- Configuration phase: 75%
- Optimizing way of working, then
- Adjusting software for company purposes
- Low involvement required from staff, requirements are clear from day 1
- Average of 30-60% savings in costs or Turn around Time
- Definition phase: 75%
- Configuration phase: 25%
Wilco Turnhout, 6/23/2007