| INTRODUCTION | | | | 2) Send the RFP to possible vendors |
| This paper describes a tough, disciplined process for | | | | It can take weeks, or even months of hard work to |
| choosing the right CRM vendor for your company. It | | | | produce a detailed, probing RFP. |
| does not push a predefined laundry list of functionality, | | | | But it's all for naught if you do not get responses that |
| but describes how to define your own set of | | | | are equally detailed and it can take a long time to |
| requirements and find out which vendors really meet | | | | respond to a detailed RFP. If it has been sent to 50 |
| them. | | | | vendors, the only ones that will take the time are those |
| This paper addresses the following key selection | | | | who are desperate and/or planning to recoup their |
| criteria: | | | | costs once they have you locked in as a customer. Of |
| Functionality: Why it is essential to gather quantitative | | | | course, they will need to recover not just the cost of |
| information from potential vendors and how to find the | | | | making the sale to you, but also of all the sales they |
| right questions to ask. | | | | failed to make. That is why most vendors will simply |
| Responses: How to obtain detailed responses from | | | | ignore such an RFP unless you follow the enhanced |
| the best-qualified vendors and avoid wasting time with | | | | process. |
| non-starters. | | | | |
| Demos: The fatal flaw in most demos and how to | | | | Enhanced process: |
| avoid it. | | | | First narrow down the list of potential vendors with a |
| Pricing: How to negotiate pricing with potential vendors | | | | mini-RFP that asks your top ten questions. It should be |
| and set realistic expectations about ongoing costs. | | | | possible for the vendor to respond to this document or |
| Before discussing the selection of a CRM vendor, | | | | online form, in 20 minutes or less. The exact questions |
| let’s spend a moment to review why it is so | | | | depend on your needs, but they should certainly |
| important. The reason is pretty simple - the failure rate | | | | include: How much will it cost over the next couple of |
| for sophisticated CRM implementations ranges | | | | years, how long will it take to implement and can you |
| between 25% and 80% and the difference is not so | | | | try the system before committing to a purchase? |
| much in the facts, just their interpretation. | | | | The answers should enable you to narrow down your |
| If you only include the most abject belly flops in the | | | | list to 3-5 vendors and by taking the time to respond |
| definition of failure, the success rate probably is 75%, | | | | they will be partially committed. Now tell them that they |
| but if you include major cost overruns, production | | | | have made the short-list and hit them with the full RFP. |
| delays, failure to meet expectations and soaring | | | | Knowing that they have a 25% chance of making a |
| post-production costs, the failure rate may actually be | | | | sizable sale, they should be willing to respond. |
| higher than 80%. | | | | 3) Ask each vendor for a demo that illustrates the |
| Choosing the wrong vendor is both the biggest single | | | | desired system. |
| reason for the failure of CRM implementations and the | | | | At this stage, many companies tell the vendor what |
| easiest to avoid. | | | | the finished system should look like, ask them to |
| SELECTION STYLES | | | | implement as much as possible and schedule a demo |
| There are several styles that companies use to | | | | to see that they have accomplished. |
| choose a vendor and these can broadly be | | | | The problem is that this process does not measure |
| characterized as: Safety in Numbers, Standard | | | | how efficiently the vendor's software can be used to |
| Analysis, and Enhanced Analysis. Let’s take a brief | | | | create the system you need, but how much time and |
| look at each of them. | | | | effort they are willing to spend chasing the business. |
| Safety in Numbers: | | | | As a general rule, the more a company is planning to |
| In this approach, the buyer simply looks for the | | | | charge you, they more they will be willing to spend to |
| vendor(s) with the biggest market share. It aims for | | | | get the business. |
| safety, but can actually introduce severe risk factors. In | | | | In brief, the standard method will result in your choosing |
| particular: | | | | the company that is planning to hit you with the highest |
| The larger the vendor, the less likely they are to listen | | | | possible costs over the life of the contract. |
| to your needs. | | | | Enhanced process: |
| Vendors typically achieve a large market share by | | | | The solution is simple - do not tell the vendors exactly |
| concentrating on selling to the typical customer. If your | | | | what you want to see in advance, but hit them with |
| company does not fit that profile, the solution will not fit | | | | your detailed requirements during the demo itself and |
| either. | | | | ask them to demonstrate, live, how they would |
| Given two vendors with similar resources, the one that | | | | configure the system to meet those needs. |
| spends money on marketing will, at least over the | | | | You should be upfront about this - warn them in |
| short term, achieve a higher market share than the | | | | advance that you will be asking them to configure the |
| one that spends the money on developing a robust | | | | system during the demo so that they can have |
| product. | | | | technical resources standing by, but do not accept |
| Market leaders charge a price premium precisely | | | | excuses during the demo itself or give them |
| because so many companies take this buying | | | | information they can use to prepare the system in |
| approach. | | | | advance. |
| Of course, the long term viability of the vendor is a | | | | This may sound brutal, but you are betting your |
| critical consideration and will factor into your evaluation. | | | | reputation and quite possibly, you company's future on |
| Vendor size, profitability, years in business and of | | | | making the right choice. Making life easy for their sales |
| course product quality are linked with viability. Further, | | | | team is simply part of your job description and you |
| these factors do not compete with, but are | | | | can also use this exercise to measure their honesty. |
| complementary to the analysis techniques described | | | | Suppose your RFP asked two vendors how long it |
| below. | | | | would take to create a custom table, the first |
| Standard Analysis and Enhanced Analysis: | | | | responded "5 minutes", but struggled to actually get in |
| The basic steps for Standard Analysis and Enhanced | | | | done in 15. The second responded "25 minutes", but |
| Analysis are identical, but the details of how they are | | | | completed it in 20. You might consider the second |
| implemented provide completely different, even | | | | vendor a better potential partner, or at least adjust the |
| opposite, results. Let’s start by summarizing each | | | | first vendor's RFP responses in light of the |
| step. | | | | discrepancy between their promises and reality. |
| 1) Produce a detailed RFP | | | | 4) Negotiate pricing |
| 2) Send it to possible vendors and narrow the list | | | | Some people seem to delight in getting a deep |
| down to 3-5 strong candidates based on their | | | | discount on expensive software and would rather pay |
| responses. | | | | $75,000 for a $200,000 system than $50,000 for a |
| 3) Ask each of them for a demo that illustrates the | | | | $75,000 system. |
| desired system. | | | | The problem is that unlike buying a house, the |
| 4) Negotiate pricing | | | | implementation and ongoing costs can easily exceed |
| br /> DETAILS | | | | the initial purchase price. Once you are locked into the |
| 1) Produce a detailed RFP and send it to a wide range | | | | $200,000 system, the vendor has all the leverage and |
| of vendors | | | | you can look forward to paying full price for |
| The Standard approach is to talk to the administrators, | | | | implementation services, support, upgrades and |
| managers, users and other stakeholders, find out what | | | | additional licenses. In fact, they probably already have a |
| the need and describe these in a document. | | | | strategy for recouping the $125,000 "discount" with |
| For example, the a manager may note that the | | | | interest. |
| business is continuously changing and anticipates | | | | Enhanced process: |
| having to manage additional information in the future, | | | | Be realistic. Look at the list price and assume that after |
| leading to a line item in the RFP such as: "The system | | | | any initial discounts, this is close to what you will be |
| must allow the creation of custom tables" | | | | paying. |
| This is fine as far as it goes, the problem is what the | | | | When negotiating a discount for the software, try to |
| requirement has been stated in purely qualitative terms | | | | get one that will cover additional licenses and upgrades |
| and omits critical information. For example: | | | | for the first year or even longer if possible. |
| How long does it take to create such a custom table | | | | Ask for a fixed price bid on the implementation itself. |
| and what expertise is required? | | | | You may not get it, but it can make for an illuminating |
| The answers can range from 30 minutes to 3 months | | | | conversation when a vendor who estimated 2 weeks |
| of consulting time from specialists who charge $200 | | | | in the RFP response will not commit to actually doing it |
| per hour. The latter answer will cost you over $100,000 | | | | in 2 months on a fixed price basis. If they estimate that |
| per table and CRM companies will not warn you of | | | | it will take 2 weeks, but request payment for 2 years |
| this in advance. In fact, they may make most of their | | | | for a fixed price implementation, then assume that it will |
| revenue from such services. | | | | take 2 years. REMARKS |
| Do custom tables behave like native tables? | | | | This paper may seem antagonist to CRM Vendors but |
| If the answer is “Yes”, you should follow up with | | | | that is not the intent. The evaluation process in |
| more detailed questions to confirm the truth of this | | | | necessarily tough and you need to safeguard your |
| statement, such as: Can you create links between | | | | interests, but the goal is to find the right partner for a |
| custom tables and native tables? Can you search on | | | | strong long term relationship. Your tactics throughout |
| fields in custom tables? Can you create reports and | | | | this process should be tough, but transparent and |
| business rules on them? Are they included in exports? | | | | ethical. SUMMARY |
| Does the presence of custom tables create any | | | | Choosing the right CRM vendor is a tough job and |
| obstacles to upgrading your system? | | | | requires an equally tough mindset, but by following a |
| The additional cost of upgrading a system with custom | | | | disciplined approach that focuses on your needs and |
| tables may range from zero to exporting all the data, | | | | demanding detailed quantitative as well as qualitative |
| redoing the entire custom table from scratch, | | | | information from potential vendors, you will make a |
| re-importing the data and praying that nothing goes | | | | well-informed decision that maximizes your chances of |
| wrong. | | | | success. The result will be relationship that is built on a |
| As we see from this example, the quantitative | | | | stable foundation and a technology that fits your |
| answers can show whether a given feature provides | | | | business. |
| essential functionality that your company needs to | | | | Complete product information, as well as demos and |
| grow and adapt to changing conditions or is simply a | | | | free CRM software trial downloads, are available at |
| useless checklist item designed to satisfy RFP's from | | | | . |
| naïve customers. | | | | White papers on customer relationship management |
| The above example focuses on a single item, but the | | | | software are available at ABOUT |
| same general principals apply throughout and here's a | | | | ENTERPRISEWIZARD INC.: |
| simple trick for finding out what questions to ask: | | | | With headquarters in Silicon Valley and resellers |
| If you are not sure what quantitative questions you | | | | worldwide, EnterpriseWizard, Inc. is the leading provider |
| should ask, contact the vendors who support the | | | | of powerful, affordable, and easily deployed 100% |
| desired functionality and say: "I am pleased to see that | | | | web-based business process automation (BPA) |
| you support feature X. What questions do you | | | | solutions for organizations of all sizes. |
| recommend I ask the other vendors who are | | | | Our company has attracted customers from industries |
| competing for this sale to determine how fully they | | | | with vastly different needs, ranging from startups to |
| support it and whether there are any limitations or | | | | Fortune 500 companies such as Chevron, Merrill Lynch, |
| additional costs associated with their implementation"? | | | | and NEC since we were founded in 1991. |
| Then sit back and watch as the vendors fall over | | | | Based on its award-winning predecessor product |
| themselves to supply you with the questions that | | | | SupportWizard, EnterpriseWizard CRM is a top-rated, |
| expose weaknesses among their competitors. | | | | out-of-the-box J2EE solution for issue tracking, |
| Sometimes, they will even expose their own | | | | helpdesk, customer support, sales, email, and marketing |
| weaknesses. | | | | automation. Organizations can get up and running |
| Enhanced process: | | | | quickly with its default templates, and easily enhance |
| A standard RFP just asks whether a vendor can | | | | and extend the application through an intuitive |
| meet the requirements but the enhanced process will | | | | browser-based interface. Clients have adapted the |
| arm you with additional quantitative information:a) How | | | | system for Sarbanes-Oxley and Government |
| long it will take to implement this feature?b) What are | | | | Regulation, Project and Time Management, Change |
| the immediate and long-term costs associated with | | | | Management, and other specialized applications. |
| using it?c) Are any limitations in the resulting solution? | | | | |