<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Risks of CRM systems implementation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.stoysolutions.com/risks-of-crm-systems-implementation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.stoysolutions.com/risks-of-crm-systems-implementation/</link>
	<description>Sharing thoughts on new ideas in the world of software and web media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:08:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Steve Reeves</title>
		<link>http://blog.stoysolutions.com/risks-of-crm-systems-implementation/comment-page-1/#comment-468</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Reeves</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:33:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dev.stoysolutions.com/blog/?p=10#comment-468</guid>
		<description>Nice to see you differentiating between business models and application requirements. 
 
Unfortunately, the world&#039;s been led to believe that CRM is a one size fits all type of software solution, and it isn&#039;t of course.  This explains the horrific failure rate for CRM implementation which even salesforce suggests is 70% (not for salesforce of course- my guess is it&#039;s higher for them). 
 
CRM isn&#039;t a software package, it&#039;s a philosophy and can only work when it enables the competitive advantage of the company. 
 
Since that&#039;s different for every company the very concept of a standard software package is crazy.  There are only two ways of offering something to fit a wide range of business needs 1) stuff it full of features most people won&#039;t use, and suffer the adoption problems caused by the complexity and 2) net the app down to generic functions so people can use it however they like, and suffer the adoption problems that come from them not knowing how they want to run their business. 
 
Alternatively of course there&#039;s the custom solution, which is bound to be expensive, not because of the coding, but because of the consulting on how to add CRM to the business model. 
 
Steve </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice to see you differentiating between business models and application requirements. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the world&#039;s been led to believe that CRM is a one size fits all type of software solution, and it isn&#039;t of course.  This explains the horrific failure rate for CRM implementation which even salesforce suggests is 70% (not for salesforce of course- my guess is it&#039;s higher for them). </p>
<p>CRM isn&#039;t a software package, it&#039;s a philosophy and can only work when it enables the competitive advantage of the company. </p>
<p>Since that&#039;s different for every company the very concept of a standard software package is crazy.  There are only two ways of offering something to fit a wide range of business needs 1) stuff it full of features most people won&#039;t use, and suffer the adoption problems caused by the complexity and 2) net the app down to generic functions so people can use it however they like, and suffer the adoption problems that come from them not knowing how they want to run their business. </p>
<p>Alternatively of course there&#039;s the custom solution, which is bound to be expensive, not because of the coding, but because of the consulting on how to add CRM to the business model. </p>
<p>Steve</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

