4 ms·

Your problem statement does make it sound like you need a CRM, but I do wonder why is has to be a big CRM with a big consultancy, and why IT aren't delivering i

Your problem statement does make it sound like you need a CRM, but I do wonder why is has to be a big CRM with a big consultancy, and why IT aren't delivering it? Who's going to run the thing afterwards? Will the bigdogs deliver something that you can maintain, or is that generally against their own interests? Finally, who's gonna secure all this customer data? Are they taking that on as part of their remit? They rarely do.

matchagaucho 7y ago
An IT culture that's built their budget and staff around managing a datacenter with on-premise software lacks incentive to support cloud implementations.
- count 7y ago
  What IT org with that kind of focus has time to learn an entirely new stack? And nobody wants to add headcount to an overhead org...
  - ownagefool 7y ago
    Whilst true, the on-prem based implementations are usually insecure and manual as fuck, which largely means the IT function simply stopped learning. Also, the move to cloud is largely driven by said IT teams failure to deliver much, you could a the CRM on-prem, but we know they'll likely take a few years to fail to deliver it.
DEADBEEFC0FFEE 7y ago
I expect the significant discounts offered to NFPs has some bearing on this decision. Having been involved in IT management of NFPs, the low price is a significant draw, and the total lack of internal skills is rarely able to counter this. If you don't have some sort of architecture function, technical risk management, application management, and data management these projects simply won't deliver value.
- ownagefool 7y ago
  Fair enough. Do they usually complete on the cheap, or do they turn the screws after delivery?
snowwrestler 7y ago
The CRM needed to be sophisticated enough to accommodate high standards for data security and access control, several marketing integrations, and the complex data model that resulted from a permissive culture. I'm NOT an expert but my understanding is that, in terms of complexity and cost, there's a whole tier above Salesforce where you're provisioning servers and installing Oracle or SAP. We didn't need and could not afford that. And if you're thinking of smaller CRMs like Hubspot, Zoho, Sugar, Apptivo, or building one from scratch, well, we already had many of those. :-) Those are what Salesforce is replacing. Our IT department is superb on metrics like security and availability. But they don't know Salesforce, and are not the right people to evolve the broader culture associated with data. The org hired a leader with experience doing this sort of thing, and he is building out an internal permanent Salesforce team which will own the thing after implementation is done.
- ownagefool 7y ago
  I mean fair enough and I'm sure they are reasons, but from a very immature point of view it sounds like you could have just picked a winner from your current CRMs and consolidated, and had a system in place that arguably already works, lowering your risk. Still, as an IT contractor, better you pay the big bucks for the projects. :p

matchagaucho 7y ago

An IT culture that's built their budget and staff around managing a datacenter with on-premise software lacks incentive to support cloud implementations.

count 7y ago
What IT org with that kind of focus has time to learn an entirely new stack? And nobody wants to add headcount to an overhead org...
- ownagefool 7y ago
  Whilst true, the on-prem based implementations are usually insecure and manual as fuck, which largely means the IT function simply stopped learning. Also, the move to cloud is largely driven by said IT teams failure to deliver much, you could a the CRM on-prem, but we know they'll likely take a few years to fail to deliver it.

DEADBEEFC0FFEE 7y ago

I expect the significant discounts offered to NFPs has some bearing on this decision. Having been involved in IT management of NFPs, the low price is a significant draw, and the total lack of internal skills is rarely able to counter this. If you don't have some sort of architecture function, technical risk management, application management, and data management these projects simply won't deliver value.

ownagefool 7y ago
Fair enough. Do they usually complete on the cheap, or do they turn the screws after delivery?

snowwrestler 7y ago

The CRM needed to be sophisticated enough to accommodate high standards for data security and access control, several marketing integrations, and the complex data model that resulted from a permissive culture. I'm NOT an expert but my understanding is that, in terms of complexity and cost, there's a whole tier above Salesforce where you're provisioning servers and installing Oracle or SAP. We didn't need and could not afford that. And if you're thinking of smaller CRMs like Hubspot, Zoho, Sugar, Apptivo, or building one from scratch, well, we already had many of those. :-) Those are what Salesforce is replacing. Our IT department is superb on metrics like security and availability. But they don't know Salesforce, and are not the right people to evolve the broader culture associated with data. The org hired a leader with experience doing this sort of thing, and he is building out an internal permanent Salesforce team which will own the thing after implementation is done.

ownagefool 7y ago
I mean fair enough and I'm sure they are reasons, but from a very immature point of view it sounds like you could have just picked a winner from your current CRMs and consolidated, and had a system in place that arguably already works, lowering your risk. Still, as an IT contractor, better you pay the big bucks for the projects. :p