For some reason there are a number of software publishers that have chosen to design products that have a somewhat inflexible capability of designing the various interfaces within a single CRM structure to coincide with the user experience necessary to meet the goals of individual groups within the CRM structure based on the role they execute for the organization.  Thankfully, some of these publishers have at least enabled some decent workflow and business process tools to help different departments tighten their systems operationally.

One of the recent conversations I had this week had to do with a selection process that is happening where both of the software publishers are well known.  One particular application is about half the age of the other but many of the capabilities and development tools are rather similar.  So one of the driving questions among the team selecting the application centers around the interface that various groups will use in their day to day roles.  I certainly understand their concern.  And this raises anothe key point.  If the level of concern is great enough there you may have a good reason to go with more reliance on your user opinions of the CRM alternatives you are considering.

The first and most important thing to remember in the world of CRM is that there are many various alternatives out there that seem somewhat similar in their deliverables.  The reality is that if we were having this selection process around the time of the .com bubble a vast number of these technologies didn't exist.  Does that matter?  Depends.  I would argue that when you look at what you are trying to accomplish think about whether or not a CRM publisher would have faced those same challenges ten years ago.  It is likely that the answer is yes.

What do you get in entertaining one of the more seasoned technologies in the space?  Experience.  The experience of the user community and the publisher that has taken feedback over a ten to twenty year period to make the user experience easy and meaningful.   If many of your tasks and teams operate in a very homogeneous fashion then having a common interface may not make much of a difference.  The problem for most of us is that the roles between marketing, sales, service and support are very different in their day to day needs.

At the end of the day there is no one perfect application for most of us and that is the reason that development tools and the right internal team or implementation partner to optimize any technology to a meaningful business system.  That being said there is no reason to take a particular publisher just based on their name if the interface or the architecture isn't very close to where you need to be.  Here is a quick check list for you to consider if you are in the process of selecting a system and want to make sure the interface works the way you need it to.

1.  System Interface Options - Does the solution you are looking at provide a unique view for each team that will use the system that can be further modified to meet the specification for each user group?

2.  User Interface Options - Does each user also have the ability to change the interface for their particular tastes in the way that they see the information without relying on reports or dashboards?

3.  Point Solution or Business System - How many different teams will be using the system and how different are their roles in the organization?

4.  Natural Fit - How close does the interface match the natural job description of your teams and how much development will be needed to reach the optimal solution?

5.  3rd Party Buffet - What percentage of the solution will be served by 3rd party or ISV solutions in order to reach your desired result?

These are some of the more logical questions to ask to help you feel better about whatever direction you decide in a solution.  If you already have a solution and feel like you are challenged in your current implementation it might not be a bad idea to take the same inventory to justify looking at other options for confirming your original selection.