Customer On The Edge

Discussing change management along with CRM has become pretty commonplace. Back in the 90’s I had trouble getting an audience when attempting to explain the need for managing changes within CRM programs. While I feel some vindication with the amount of press that the convergence of these two topics gets today in the technology media, I feel there are still some misconceptions.

One of the difficulties is that the term change management is now offered up too easily, as any buzz word. This causes program managers and CRM stakeholders to become careless with what it means and what it requires. Plus, it has taken on meaning in some circles as synonymous with down sizing or with business transformation. So, there is confusion out there.

I like to begin the process of clarification by asking the question, is your CRM program being put in place to keep the lights on or are you out to change the business? The answer is going to be somewhere on a continuum. At the one end is an organization embarking on CRM by bringing in call center automation in an effort to assist the service agents to better keep up with demand. At the other end of the continuum is the organization that develops a customer segmentation model utilizing newly implemented analytics software. This program will change everything from how the company thinks about its customers all the way to how a customer is treated during every touchpoint.

If your program is going to look more like the latter than the former you need to be ready for change. If you need to transform the business to get the results you are seeking from your CRM program, then you also need to put the correct effort into it. Most programs are good at providing the tools needed for making the business changes. However, transformation requires more – changing the strategy, leadership, policy, roles, rewards, processes, competencies, and possibly even the organizational culture. These all need to be planned and managed as much as the implementation of the tools.

Business transformation is hard to do, mostly because it requires making changes to all the factors above, plus dealing with the resistance to the changes. But the number one cause of business transformation failure is due to programs starting without sufficient clarity and alignment regarding the expected end state. So, when answering the question, “are you ready?” it is best to start with asking whether the program objectives are clear and agreed to. Where are you on the continuum – just run the business or actually change it? Once you have this truly settled you can plan effectively for the rest of the program.

Posted by Matt Johnson at 10:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Back in the last millennium I was introduced to JRR Tolkein in a literature class as a freshman in high school. The teacher wanted to give us an opportunity to learn a bit about the dynamics of change. The quest at the center of the Lord of the Rings saga was all about the transformation of Frodo as an individual and not so much about all the other stuff going on.

Fast forward a few decades and finally some decent cinema emerges with hobits, ents, wizards, and orks. It was magnificent. The whole thing came to life, but the story changed a bit. The version on the screen was about good versus evil and a messianic character with long greasy hair. The Shire, however, became real, along with Rivendale and Morder. It was fabulous.

Next, I find myself in London with time on my hands one evening and opportunities in the West End. The problem was that I couldn’t decide between Billy Elliot and Wicked. But, just when I had thought I made up my mind, there was a poster as I travelled up a particularly long escalator on the tube. It was a picture of a beautiful elf princess, looking a bit like the daughter of a 70’s rock star. The Lord of the Rings was playing at the Drury Lane – my plans were settled. – no Wicked Witch of the West.

This is where the story takes a turn. The stage version, which by the way was marvelous, is all about going through the process of change. My freshman literature teacher would have been so pleased. They got it right. There was an prevailing emphasis on what one has to give up in the process of achieving something important and worthwhile.

Naturally I immediately thought about CRM. You must all think that I am seriously nuts.

So, give me some room with this. CRM is truly about taking on a quest. I don’t want to over dramatize this, but it is really true. To be successful, you have to give up certain things. You have to let go of some old stuff in order to have what is new in the CRM vision. For example, most of the time there is a certain amount of independence that may be lost with a CRM program – usually there is some new accountability or discipline involved. Much of the time you have to put in a little extra effort, and sometimes that effort is for the benefit of somebody else initially and does not return as a benefit to you until later in the cycle.

You cannot get to the CRM end point without giving up something. Just like Frodo. CRM is not about a battle of good versus evil. It is about figuring out what works well, and not doing things that don’t work well. Although that is a significant battle, however.

One thing that I have not completely figured out in the comparison between CRM and the Lord of The Rings is the fact that Frodo does not get to reap the rewards of his successful quest. He goes on to something else (something better we are expected to believe). Not sure what the message is here relative to those who lead successful CRM programs.

As a final note, I should state that it is a noble thing to attempt to portray thousands of pages of fantasy within a single production on a stage and the limitations of live performance. The critics have unfairly ravaged the production. As a result, the time is running out for seeing this extremely entertaining, mesmerizing, and ultimately true to the story line stage version of a classic piece of work. Gollum alone is worth the price of admission.

On the other hand, shortly after finally finishing the Trilogy back in the 70’s I had the opportunity to attend a poorly reviewed production of a musical about gangsters, also at the Drury Lane. Chicago came back two decades later as a block buster. If you can’t get to London before the end of July, perhaps you will have another chance to see this CRM metaphor on stage involving little people with hairy feet.

Posted by Matt Johnson at 01:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I ran across a blog on the SAP blogsite the other day that shared some good ideas for managing change within technology projects. - check it out.

I use a tool for identifying the change management risks for project work that include similar factors as discussed in the recommended blog above. I’ll share those in another posting. How do you determine what is most critical for addressing? Use a similar tool to audit where you are and forecast what is going to get in the way. Put actions in place to proactively address the suspected issues, but also reactively address as well. Make sure you have consensus about project outcomes with your sponsors. Involve your users to maximize adoption – that kind of thing

Most of the time management commitment is the factor that bites the hardest. Without strong management sponsorship the likelihood for success is poor. In the aforementioned SAP blog it is suggested that the building of the Tower of Babel is history’s first project – although a failed one. I’ll propose that the first project was successful, and it was due to strong executive sponsorship. Go see Evan Almighty for your proof.

Posted by Matt Johnson at 01:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Perhaps one of the hardest aspects of CRM is getting individuals to embrace changes that have a strong impact on their frame of reference. When people have to think or act or feel differently as a result of a CRM initiative, success can be elusive. Take the following for example:
“When I get done with a client visit I phone in the figures to an admin back at the home office and call it a day. Now you want me to enter it all into a computer while I am out on the road? Plus, you want me to type in stuff about the call – are you nuts?”

This illustration pretty much says it all. A field rep is being asked to use technology differently, follow a new process, do what is perceived as double extra work, perform a task that somebody less skilled is supposed to do, and provide information to management to make it easer to be checked on. And we wonder why we have so much trouble with these programs.

CRM often requires impacted employees to encounter some form of paradigm change. This requires concerted effort to overcome and will require planning and resources to drive adoption to levels required for CRM program success. (See the past entry titled, Yet Another List of 7, for recommendations for driving up user adoption.)

The difficulty in getting staff past their resistance to change becomes compounded when management doesn’t acknowledge that the change management hurdle is a legitimate and resource requiring element of the program. I have had more than one CIO look me in the eye and say, “It doesn’t matter if they want to use the new system – they won’t have a choice!” How telling that statement is.

So, in this case the paradigm change really is a management issue. Management members, especially those managing the access to resources, must accept that overcoming resistance to change is a key aspect to successful CRM planning and execution. The bigger the change, the bigger the resistance, which requires commensurate attention to user acceptance.

If you were to force me to place a figure on what kind of budget is required to drive user acceptance, I will quote the conventional 15 percent of overall program budget (which also includes training costs). However, it is not just the resource allocation which is needed. What I am going to state next is going to sound really hokey. But, I am firmly resolved in my belief that management must also believe that dealing with resistance to change is a legitimate endeavor. Giving it just lip service somehow seems to undermine the efforts of the program. Look for a future entry for more on this aspect of the paradigm change issue.

Posted by Matt Johnson at 07:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Now that the Super Bowl is behind us (Virginia McCaskey please find your team a real QB) it is time to fill the pigskin void with alternative action such as bobsledding, figure skating, or even basketball. There were some interesting happenings over in the NBA that could be worth a brief conversation. I’ll give credit to Mike Hoban writing for nwi.com for making the connection between the professional hoopsters and common challenges with the sales force.

As you may have heard, at the beginning of the season, the NBA decided to roll out a new basketball. It was a real double dribble, with the players totally rejecting the new synthetic ball. There is much that can be questioned about this particular business fiasco, such as, what business reason made them choose to do this – did a sports manufacturer have a stake in the outcome? Another big question is why did they proceed with this significant change without getting the endorsement of the players?

This should all sound very familiar to my friends in sales operations. They have seen plenty of changes to tools of the trade rejected by the players. Pipeline report forms, expense reimbursement templates, forecasting tools, activity reporting procedures – the list of rejected tools is endless. And they were all good ideas! Certainly the chief of the island of misfit tools is Salesforce Automation. The money that has been invested and lost on this technology is staggering – even more than the combined endorsement deals for the NBA players this year.

You have seen in previous entries my observation that SFA often gets into trouble when management is the beneficiary of the tool at the expense of the sale rep. There is a delicate balance between satisfying the needs of management or the business and satisfying the needs of the folks who actually do the selling. This is a critical balance that often goes wrong and results in poor SFA adoption. This story from the NBA, however, provides an interesting example of a third factor in the need for balance, and that is Information Technology (both the business function as well as the physical technology itself).

Back in the 90’s more than one CIO chose to purchase a big CRM package because it made sense from the perspective of IT. However, the purchase and implementation was not done with the requirements of the business or the needs of the users fully in mind. As a result, big money was wasted and CRM developed a tarnished reputation. The new basketball was introduced in a very similar fashion.

Sometimes IT has to do things that cause abrasion with the business – upgrades, maintaining standards, introducing support procedures, prioritizing enhancements. These are all necessary for running the function, but they don’t always please the business. Yet, just going out and buying new software or switching to a new ball just can’t be done this way. More effort has to go into striking the balance: the balance between Management, the User and IT. This is not an easy love triangle, and it requires much involvement between the parties, but for the introduction of tools like SFA it is the only way to be successful. It will make the difference between fouling out or making a 3-point buzzer shot.

Posted by Matt Johnson at 04:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Recently I met with a Sales Operations VP for one of my clients who was chartered with the task of purchasing a Sales Force Automation (SFA) solution for the sales organization in his company. As he described it to me, the problem was that the enterprise needed to improve the performance of their sales reps because of a “flattening of revenues”. The solution, in their mind, was a software system that would be good at effectively producing territory activity reports and weekly forecasts.

Now my guess is that there are two reactions to this initial description of the situation. The first reaction is most likely, “Hey, that sounds just like what I need for my sales function!” The second reaction, which is more closely linked to my initial reaction is, “Wow, that sounds more like a solution that is making it easy for sales management to produce reports, while putting the burden on the average sales rep.”

Now, I don’t want to offend anyone, but if you were leaning toward the first reaction, I think it would be helpful for you to read on a bit, because you may be about to fall into a trap. Putting in a software system to make reporting easy, under the guise of improving sales rep performance, is usually a recipe for disaster.

OK, so I admit that it is stupid, and cliché, and unoriginal, but the acronym WIFM is what comes to mind when I encounter these situations. You know what it means – what’s in it for me? If there were any laws governing the introduction of SFA software into an organization, the first law would be called WIFM. This is because it is nearly impossible to successfully implement an SFA solution into a sales organization without including a means by which the average sales rep gets a real, solid, honest-to-goodness benefit from using the system. End of story.

But I am going to explain anyway. I have referenced this before, but if you go look at the research by companies like Gartner, or any other analyst firm, you will find study after study that demonstrates that user adoption of SFA systems requires the buy-in of the user (sales person) and the buy-in is contingent upon the individual finding a benefit to the utilization of the software, for themselves – not for their boss or for the company. I have read study after study that lists this issue in the top 10 requirements for success, or the top 7 risk factors, or whatever. My experience with Sales Force Automation says it is The #1 variable to address if you want to be successful. If you want to implement SFA, make sure your sales people see a tangible benefit.

And, furthermore – I’m not done ranting yet – absolutely don’t spin this. Don’t give them a system that carefully satisfies management needs and then try to convince them, with hype and cajoling, that it is good for them too. These are smart people you have hired; please give them more credit than to believe you can put this over on them. They will figure it out and the result will be, according to the undeniable statistics, that they will completely underutilize the software, if use it at all. There goes the ROI out the window.

Posted by Matt Johnson at 01:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Have you seen the movie Cars? It is very entertaining and better than I expected, as I found myself in need to pass some time on a transcontinental flight recently. Without question my favorite part of the animated movie is the tractor tipping scene. Don’t worry – I won’t spoil it for you, but it does remind me of an important topic that I often equate to cow tipping.

So, before anyone gets out of joint, I need to go on record as stating, 1) I have not performed the cow tipping act; 2) I do not condone cow tipping. Also, I understand that no cows or tractors were injured filming the movie Cars. With that disclaimer out of the way, let me explain.

There is a problem for many managers with regard to their attitude toward managing the natural dynamic we commonly know as “resistance to change”. A change is to be introduced into the organization, such as new technology, a new work process, or a new work schedule and everyone knows that it will be met with resistance. A common approach to dealing with the resistance is to keep the change quiet, introduce it quickly and without any choice, and then expect people to comply once it is announced, with no potential for discussion or modification. This is the cow tipping approach to managing organizational change.

So, you have heard of cow tipping, but are not quite sure what it is. It goes something like this. Some teenagers are out driving the back roads of rural somewhere after dark, possibly with a six pack, and they pass a field with cows standing, motionless, asleep. Somebody in the car suggests a cow tipping excursion, and they stop on the side of the road, jump the fence, and run as fast as they can toward the cow. Upon impact, they push with all their might against the side of the cow, which is taken by surprise and topples over.

This is the same as making a change without employee involvement (they are metaphorically asleep) because if you do this while the cow is awake, by the way, the cow has an amazing ability of leaning toward the oncoming push. Think about the physics – 2000 pound cow leaning against two 160 pound teenagers. Cows don’t tip over when they are awake. And employees also often push back when they are given the option of taking on an organizational change when they are awake – and they too collectively weigh more than management.

A more effective change management approach is more like getting the cow to agree to recline – don’t ask me how because I’m not a farmer or rancher – but I know its possible and the metaphor does not have to work perfectly – give me some license here. When you tip over a 2000 pound cow it often gets hurt in the process and dairy cows might not produce milk normally as a result. The same things happen to poorly introduced organizational changes. Employees have bad reactions and productivity gets impacted negatively.

When it comes to introducing significant organizational change, I always opt for some form of involvement to reduce the inevitable resistance. Don’t tip over the cow in the middle of the night and take what appears to be the easy approach. Rather, find a means to get it into the desired position in a way that causes fewer problems.

Now, go check out that tractor tipping scene. I guarantee you will laugh.

Posted by Matt Johnson at 12:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)