Customer Relationship Management (CRM) CRM Implementation - Minimise Risks & Maximise Benefits Anand Subramaniam

CRM - Overview

CRM Implementation – Risk Exposure

Implementation - Risks Scope Management Vision & Strategy Success Criteria Benefit Realisation Management Role & Responsibilities Change Management Stakeholder Management Issue Management CRM - Risk Exposure

Risk – Vision & Strategy Low Clearly articulated CRM Vision and Strategy Well presented, understood and provides an accurate statement of what it is intending to achieve Key project team members and stakeholders have readily accepted it and regularly refer to it Medium Vision and Strategy broadly covers the CRM aims, but the statements are perhaps a little difficult to understand and have not been fully tested with all the relevant stakeholders The team members and stakeholders haven’t eagerly embraced them but haven’t rejected them either High Vision and Strategy is probably a bit too complicated to be useful, or the exercise is only half-completed The team members and stakeholders haven’t embraced either the Vision and Strategy statements, or the CRM concept behind them

Risk – Change Management Low Have a fully documented Project Plan with milestones covering all change management aspects Supports the technical & business aspects of the CRM Implementation and regularly reviewed by the project team and sponsor(s) It contains the stakeholder communication strategy, maps, analysis, engagement, policies, procedure, training and change management needs Medium Team has a broad Project Plan in place which identifies several change management actions, but it’s not fully documented and it’s a bit weak on key dates, milestones and responsibilities The change management aspects aren’t very strongly supported by senior management High The Project Plan only focuses on the technical aspects of the project Lack planning of any specific actions to ensure that change is sustained - e.g. no communication planning or stakeholder analysis

Risk – Benefits Management Low Business benefits have been defined in detail including a balance between quick wins and longer-term gains Challenges around culture, behaviour, working styles, values, branding and key messages have been defined & managed Process in place to measure quantitative and qualitative benefits at regular intervals and how to communicate the benefits to stakeholder groups Medium Business benefits defined at fairly broad level in several areas of the CRM operations Lack of clarity around the technical aspects of the CRM Financial benefits and measures have been thought through but don’t have in place a plan for stakeholder communication and feedback High Business benefits not defined and subject to drift in both time and degree Culture, values, behaviour, working styles and key messages have not been defined Lack quantitative and / or qualitative benefits and measures Lack process for on-going communication with stakeholder groups

Risk – Stakeholder Management Low Stakeholders mapped, barriers to change lessened, detailed communication plan in place with different stakeholder groups including regular review of stakeholder maps and feedback Key stakeholders updated with CRM implementation progress and expectations managed CRM visibility along with understanding of what it’s all about, and why it is being done is well understood Medium Initial stakeholder mapping exercise along with a broad high level communications plan completed, but details haven’t been thought through Key stakeholders not updated regularly and stake-holders tend to be passive. Communication is sporadic, top management informed but lower level management not kept in the loop or have yet to hear about the CRM Initiative / Progress High Stakeholder mapping and high level communication plans incomplete along with activity outside the core team Stakeholders aren’t really engaged, the cultural and organisational change needed for the CRM initiative not in place Majority of people haven’t heard of the CRM initiative and don't understand how it might affect them

Risk – Roles & Responsibilities Low Well defined governance structures in place, teams understand their respective roles and responsibilities Project Manager, Sponsor(s) have access to the required resources and confident that, the CRM initiative will be delivered on time / budget Team members are strongly supported, encouraged and are comfortable dealing with both the technical and non-technical aspects of the CRM initiative. Medium Adequate resources in place to handle the technical and / or non technical aspects of the CRM initiative but lack the resources to tackle the change management and stakeholder expectation Team members are clear and focused on their roles, but sometimes lack the top management support High Team members are focused on their normal jobs and aren’t actively engaged in the CRM initiative Teams are isolated and think more about ‘technical’ rather discuss plans or ideas to engage respective stakeholders in the CRM initiative / change process There’s a lack of direction / focus with regard to the CRM initiative and are distracted by other non-prioritised initiatives

Risk – Success Criteria Low Well defined success and exit criteria exist Process have been benchmarked, targets and performance measures in place Stakeholders are aware of targets, benchmarks, role and responsibility statements, performance appraisal objectives etc Medium Planning underway to define success criteria and targets but none have obtained agreement and sign off Some processes are yet to be benchmarked Some success criteria are loosely defined High No clear targets nor any plans to put them in place exist Difficult to know how the CRM initiative has improved the business

Risk – Issue & Risk Management Low Risks and issues registers in place from the outset in order to identify and deal with risks and issues and are continuously monitored Stakeholder regularly review the risks and issues register & assist with making the CRM initiative a success along with sustained change programs Everyone’s committed to dealing with the risks and issues Medium Some focus exist on the management risks and issues, but it’s not as clearly defined as it should be Lack a systematic way of dealing with risks and issues There’s a danger that the risks and issues affecting sustained cultural and behavioural change could be missed out High No focus on the specific risks or issues that might affect the CRM initiative success No effective processes in place to manage risks and issues Longer term sustained organisational change might not get delivered, because lack of proactive management of risks and issues

CRM Implementation – Risk Rating Matrix

Enterprise Wide Policies and standards in place and are strong, effective, and are followed completely Policies and standards in place but weak or not followed completely No policies or standards in place or ill-defined and ineffective Policies and Standards Very experienced with similar projects Moderate experience or experience with different type of projects (ERP, BI) No experience with projects of this type or projects in general Experience with Similar Projects Strongly committed to success of CRM project Has support for CRM project but demonstrates lack of commitment Little or no support for CRM project Commitment to CRM Project Verifiable scope, requirements, and measures clearly defined Scope defined at a high level and/ or requirements to be defined in detail Scope not established or requirements are ill-defined and not measurable Scope / Requirements Agreed to support CRM project CRM issues unresolved or in process of being defined or approved No support for CRM project or major unresolved issues Executive Management Support Has extensive history with successful CRM projects Has experience with CRM systems or has had some successful projects Has a poor history or has little experience with CRM systems Project History/ Experience Project directly supports one or more of the strategies and mission Project indirectly or partially supports strategies & goals Project does not support any Organisation’s Strategies, Mission & Goals Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Risk Factor

CRM System & Vendor Prime contractor in place and responsible for successfully implementing project, no conflict Prime contractor delineated, vendor responsibilities defined, but conflict between vendors/contractors No clear delineation between vendor responsibility, contractors in conflict with each other, no clear prime contractor Multiple Vendors / Major Contractors All areas following security guidelines, data completely backed up, disaster recovery system in place, and procedures are easily followed Some security measures in place, backups of data disaster recovery considered, but procedures lacking or not followed No security measures in place, backup of data and disaster recovery not considered Security Mature technology well-established and proven (in operation 5 + years) State-of-the-art (in operation from 1-3 years) Leading edge (in operation less than one year) or aged technology (over 5 years old) Maturity of Solution Vendor provides complete support for CRM software at reasonable or contracted price and within contracted response times Vendor provides adequate support for CRM software at contracted price with reasonable response times Vendor provides little or no support or is expensive with poor response times Vendor Support Vendor has extensive and successful history Vendor has limited history dealing and / or has some successful projects Vendor has a poor history and . or has less successful projects Vendor History Completely open platform, capable of communicating with multiple other technologies System capable of communicating with other technologies on a limited basis Proprietary system with little or no communication with other technologies possible Open Systems Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Risk Factor

CRM Technology & Fit Time lines are not critical Has critical time line, but little to no impact on quality Time line likely to adversely affect quality and completeness Quality Control Uses proven technology that integrates well Limited use of new technologies Introduces new technologies to the environment Fit with Existing Environment Little or no integration or interfaces required Some integration or interfaces required and/or of some importance to project Extensive integration of systems, or exchange of information or interfaces are a major part of project System Integration/ Interfaces Requirements are few and easily defined; few users to provide input Project is fairly complex with some requirements more easily defined; several user groups will be aiding in the design Project is very complex with multiple requirements from many different users; requirements are complex and hard to define Complexity of Requirements Analysis of alternatives complete, all alternatives and options considered, and assumptions verifiable Analysis of alternatives completed, some assumptions questionable, and alternatives not fully considered Analysis of alternatives not completed, not all alternatives considered, and/or assumptions faulty Analysis of Alternatives Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Risk Factor

Approach / Benefit Realisation / Change Formal change control process in place, followed, and effective Change control process in place but not being followed completely, or ineffective No change control process being used Change Control Management All deliverable requirements defined, reasonable, and measurable Some deliverable requirements remain to be defined or are vague and un-measurable No requirements defined for deliverables or unreasonable requirements Deliverable Requirements Defined Benefits well-defined, baseline established, measurable, and verifiable Some questions remain about benefits, or baseline changing and measurements doubtful Benefits not defined, no baseline established, unattainable, or un-measurable Achievable Benefits Project development methodology in place, established, effective, and followed by staff Project development methodology established, but not followed or ineffective No formal project development methodology being used, either commercial or in-house system Development Methodology Project management approach is strong and effective Project management approach is good, but needs development Project management approach is weak or ineffective Management Approach Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Risk Factor

Project Management Well-defined, consistent, established, well-distributed, effective Requirements are defined, some inconsistencies remain, and requirements may not have been distributed to all employees None in place, defined, or ineffective Management Requirements Quality assurance system established, well followed, highly effective Procedures established, but not well-followed or effective No quality assurance process or procedures established Quality Assurance Requirements well-established, baseline defined, user acceptance high, and few or no changes Requirements defined and users signed-off but changes to baseline expected Rapidly changing size or scope, requirements not defined and not signed off by users CRM Project Size and Scope Process well-established, procedures followed, and highly effective Process established, not well followed, or is ineffective No process established or process is ignored Monitoring Process Comprehensive plan is approved, monitored, updated, and used by all project team Plan is approved, complete, and used by most of project team Project plan is not updated and/or plan is not followed by most of project team Project Plan Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Risk Factor

Project Team Project staff is all available, in place, experienced, and stable Project staff is available, but not all in place, training plan established Project staff has high turnover rate, little or no experience, or is not available for project Available Personnel Resources A balanced mix of client and vendor staff with client personnel capable of taking over new system A small percentage of client staff personnel being trained on new systems Complete reliance on contractor or vendor staff with no client staff being trained in new system Vendor / Client Mix Project staff is highly committed to success of project Project staff states commitment to project, but indications are that commitment is not genuine Project staff has little or no commitment to the success of this CRM initiative Commitment of Staff Productivity tools being used and staff are trained in use of tools Productivity tools available but not being used to full potential, or in process of being implemented and training needed Productivity tools not being used or considered Availability of and Experience with Productivity Tools Project staff is highly experienced with projects of this type, and has experience with CRM software Project staff has some experience with projects of this type, but lacks experience with CRM software Staff has little or no experience with CRM projects and lacks experience Experience of Staff Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Risk Factor

Budgetary / Cost Justification Complete agreement on incremental payments based on product deliverables Some set of agreed-upon incremental payments based on product deliverables No set, agreed-upon incremental payments based on product deliverables (i.e. per module, per feature, per product) Incremental Payments Based on Deliverables Sufficient funds available to complete project as currently defined Questions remain concerning budget Insufficient budget available to complete CRM project as defined Budget Size Completely justified and cost-effectiveness proven Justification questionable or cost-effectiveness not completely established Not justified or cost-effective Economic Justification/Cost Effectiveness Cost controls well-established, in place, and effective Cost control system in place but weak in some areas Cost control system lacking or nonexistent Cost Controls Funds allocated without constraints Some questionable allocations or doubts about availability Budget allocation in doubt or subject to change without notice Funding Sources and Constraints Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Risk Factor

User Participation Users have accepted all concepts and details of the system and process in place for user approvals Users have accepted most of the concepts and details of the system and process is in place for user approvals Users have not accepted any of the concepts or design details of the system User Acceptance User training needs considered, training or training plan in place and in process User training needs have been considered but training or training plan is in development Requirements have not been defined or have not been addressed User Training Requirements User justification complete, accurate, and sound User justification provided, justification complete with some questions about applicability Users have not provided any or satisfactory justification for system development User Justification Users highly involved with project team, provide significant input and have significant ownership of system Users on project team play minor roles or have only moderate impact on system Minimal or no user involvement on development team or little user input into process Involvement of Users User requirements are well-defined and no changes are anticipated User requirements have been defined but changes are anticipated User requirements have not been defined or are insufficient for a successful project User Requirements Defined Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Risk Factor