Video on IT project failures

Projects – especially IT projects fail! In many cases IT projects fail more often then they succeed. Reports by Gartner, Butler, Forrester Research and AMR all point to disappointment.

The above failure data is troubling and sends a strong signals that much room for improvement exists. The data variances reported by the different agencies potentially indicate that the word failure is ambiguous and is defined differently depending on what character you played in the software implementation process.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
About these ads

Interview With Paul Greenberg on Voice of the (Social) Customer, Keynote Speaker at 2009 CRM Evolution

Paul Greenberg is sometimes called the Godfather of CRM. Greenberg, author of the best-selling CRM at the Speed of Light: Essential Customer Strategies for the 21st Century, recently gave the keynote address at CRM magazine’s annual CRM Evolution conference, and the sister magazine Speech Technology‘s annual SpeechTEK event. His speech, “Voice of the Customer,” shed light on the “social revolution” occurring today and tapped into the major sea changes occurring in industry today. Greenberg made surprising predictions for the future of CRM, or CMR as some call it today.

In addition to being the author of the best-selling CRM at the Speed of Light: Essential Customer Strategies for the 21st Century, Greenberg is President of The 56 Group, LLC, an enterprise applications consulting services firm.

Greenberg is considered one of CRM’s leading authorities on strategy and on the state of the market, and has been quoted in multiple national magazines and newspapers as a subject matter expert including the New York Times. His book, first published in January 2001 by McGraw-Hill, is now in its third edition (August 2004). CRM at the Speed of Light is currently in eight languages and been a runaway best seller and is used as a text in more than 60 universities across multiple continents. It was called “the number 1 CRM book” by in July 2002. The Asian edition of CIO Magazine named it one of the 12 most important books an Asian CEO will ever read. It has been called “the bible of the industry.”

In the enclosedst, Greenberg sits down with Customer Management IQ’s Blake Landau and discusses his ideas on CRM, voice of the customer and the new social revolution.
Listen to the podcast at

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Bertrand Duperrin reflecting: Social CRM needs more than a CRM approach

I always like most posts from Bertrand Duperrin. This one argues that social crm should be considered in a broader context. Regular readers of this blog may have noticed that this is also my point of view.

Post found at

August 24th, 2009 ·

Ross Mayfield recently published a fundamental post about “social CRM“.

The statement of fact is simple : 1% of customer’s conversations improve the organizational knowledge, 9% touch the organization without changing anything and 90% are not heard at all, businesses miss an impressive source of possible improvemens.

I’m not meaning 100% of these conversations are valuable but harnessing only 1% of them is a real risk.

At this point, the question is not to know how to take this conversations into account but, first of all, to be able to join them and participate. Even the stupidest conversation may be of some interest since not paying any attention to it can be seens as disdain. More, statisticians would tell that if businesses want to harness the conversations that can bring real opportunities, they also have to pay consider the less intereting ones : we’re talking about a domain where, if one aims at excellence, he has to accept a high variability, what is the opposite of the beliefs most our business processes rely on.

Those who’d look into this subject because they have a traditional CRM issue may suffer from vertigo : it’s about CRM…but also many more things at the same time. As Ross writes, it’s impossible to change the way a business considers and implements its customer relationship management without changing the way people actually operate inside the company. Knowing how hard it is to change things internally, the point of deciding what has to be changed first (internally or externally), one pushing the other, can be discussed. But the fact is both are needed and that they are the two sides of an only project.

CRM has always been a well defined subject, with clear borders. And the said borders will inevitably collapse. It’s been used to manage a sales pipe and, once the client signed, to manage deception. But if we assume that business now have to adopt an active approach to conversations with and between clients, the challenge is much wider. Consumers, who have been used to be taken for a ride for ages, between marketing illusions and deceptive promises, do not only expect businesses to hear and listen to them. They want actions and change. Of course, explaining things and strengthening ties matters, but it’s only placebo if it does not bring any change.

If one want things to really change, the social CRM approach has to be connected to the innovation process and, even more, to the whole chain that  starts with ideation and ends with implementation, whether the final result is a new product, an improvement, a new positioning etc… What is, a the beginning a domain that’s reserved to a defined number of people / departments becomes a transverse process that must involve people that are not used to working together, indeed not to listen to anyone outside of their own walled garden when they need to decide anything. It’s easy to understandt that if we want social CRM to deliver its full potential, we have to go far beyond CRM or change its definition and scope. Essential, but not easy at all.

At first sight, it seems that aligning things that used to be disconnected like marketing, innovation, quality is a key issue. But it may lead to a sequence of independent activities that may not be flexible and where endless talks and internal fights for power may ruin the whole process. So it’s rather about merging all these things, making them become an only transverse flow. Plus, it would help to make enough sense to make things work at both operational and financial levels.

So, social CRM seems to be about revisiting the whole value chain to include  new stakeholders. And businesses will have to learn that marketing, innovation, quality management, customer care…are not separate activities but the different sides of a unique one.



Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Enterprise social media maturity model


I like the attempt the attempt to classify! Whether, U would have chosen these dimensions is worth some reflecting!

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Enterprise 2.0 vs Social CRM – Fight or Tango?

Let’s say that enterprise 2.0 is about leadership, management and organizations. And that social CRM is amongst others about marketing, sales, services. And everyone realizes that in 1.0 these disciplines have identical performance challenges?  Either they are not connected or they are connected in a positive or – not preferred by me – a negative way!.

Post found at

By Prem Kumar Aparanji, Cognizant Technology Solutions

There is either a new storm brewing in the horizon or may be just a mirage, it is unclear as yet. I am talking about the enterprise social software of course, couldn’t you figure that from the heading of this post? ;)

With the recent grouping of forces around Paul Greenberg’s stake in the ground on the definition of the term Social CRM, especially with the recent claims of various social technology companies as being Social CRM, there are some confusions and ribbing in equal measures.

The witty, nutty & immensely influential Enterprise Irregulars have joined the fray after Ross Mayfield of SocialText blogged a great megapost on Social CRM iceberg, making it a very interesting discussion in the immediate bloghood. Well, it isn’t very popular in the blogosphere since you know … enterprise software is not exactly sexy … and so many people do not take such a keen interest in at as they take in consumer software. :)

Ok, let us look at what is defined as Enterprise 2.0 by the fountain of knowledge – wikipedia:

Carl Frappaolo and Dan Keldsen defined Enterprise 2.0 in a report written for Association for Information and Image Management (AIIM)as “a system of web-based technologies that provide rapid and agile collaboration, information sharing, emergence and integration capabilities in the extended enterprise”.

See? Even wikipedia doesn’t have one! But thats still far better than Social CRM since it doesn’t even have an entry!

What I want to say is that though the people who follow Enterprise 2.0 & Social CRM understand what it is in the hearts of their hearts, there is not any widely agreed upon definition. In fact I have come to believe that it might be very difficult to define them as yet, this might be because these are still evolving fields.

Please do not get me wrong or misjudge me. I have had experience in implementing & using social software in the enterprises for the past four years. And I do “get” the thing about using social software in the enterprise.

I however like to differentiate between the social software implementations per the audience – internal facing for employees, external facing for customers, partners, etc. in the business ecosystem.

Let us see what the Andrew McAfee, who coined the term, defines it as:

Enterprise 2.0 is the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers.

So clearly the use of social software for customer facing purposes is also Enterprise 2.0. So does this not prove Social CRM to be a subset of Enterprise 2.0?

Not so fast there! Issue is that the term Enterprise 2.0 has predominantly been used to denote the internal facing social software, with internal collaboration, knowledge management/sharing, productivity, agility as the goal. So for the sake of this post let us treat Enterprise 2.0 as the use of social software within the organization. In such a case I believe Social CRM has an area of intersection with Enterprise 2.0 rather than being a subset. But lets not get too tied up with the semantics or get too pedantic. :)

I believe that there is a clear necessity for Enterprise 2.0 and Social CRM to co-exist, since efficient employees lead to better customer experience.

Technology wise too there is overlap in many aspects if you consider the usage of blogs, wikis, forums, microblogging, etc. in both internal facing & external facing aspects. But the way the blogs, wikis, etc. are managed for internal & external use is clearly demarcated and is not advisable to be handled by same people.

There are many differences in privacy, rights, roles, permissions, integration & other perspectives that make a huge differentiation in the base technologies. In an internal implementations you do not bother about the personal privacy, but do take care to provide access rights & permissions based on roles & team/department one belongs to, where one is in the organization structure. The permissions are set either by the user or at a system level by the administrator or even a manager. In an external implementation personal privacy of the users is paramount (Marshall Lager has a great post about that on the CRM Playaz blog). Also, the rights & permissions are set by users based on the degree of separation in their social relationships, not team/department/organization structure.

Additionally, for a social CRM implementation, the kind of integration with other enterprise systems is different from that of an internal implementation. For internal implementations you do not need the feedback loop to be completed by the social media monitoring tools nor do you need integration with the user components like OpenID, OAuth, Facebook Connect, Google Connect, etc. So there are differences in architectural considerations too!

In our organization we have various Enterprise 2.0 tools like our forums, blogs, wikis, their integration into our online collaboration & project management platform, etc. But they cannot be used for an online customer community involved in customer advocacy, brainstorming, resolving issues, disseminating information, crowdservice, etc. nor can we build a Ideastorm like community or a Coca Cola Facebook community. Nor can the team that implemented the internal tools do the external implementation. Just because a mallet & gavel are related does not mean you can always use them interchangeably. :D

I believe Enterprise 2.0 (internally focused) & Social CRM need to tango, not fight. :)

How about you? What do you think? What has been your experience?


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]