Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
A presentation for my MBA CRM course.
Citation preview
Open Source CRM – Present and Future
EVENTMANAGEMENT.BLOGSPOT.COM
Agenda
Open Source and CRM
What enthusiasts say about Open Source CRM
Software Areas of Application
Benefits
Marketers Perspective
The Future
What skeptics say about Open Source CRM
How vendors respond – SugarCRM Case Study
Open Source and CRM
- Proprietary vs. Open- Open Source vs. Commercial Open Source
Source: SugarCRM, (2006) “Running a Business on Commercial Open Source Software. What are the Benefits for Your Sales Organization”
What enthusiasts say about Open Source CRM
“Open source CRM will establish itself as a solid alternative in 2006.” (Greenberg)
Sources: Greenberg, P. (2006), “Say goodbye to CRM as we once knew it”, http://searchcrm.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid11_gci1155499,00.html Accessed 10/10/2006Golden, B. (2006), “Time for open source CRM to shine”, http://searchcrm.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid11_gci1155499,00.html Accessed 10/10/2006
“In 2006 Large organizations which have tracked the deployment of CRM in 2005 will start to adopt systemssuch as Sugar.” (Golden)
Software Areas of Application
Wrap up
Benefits
Savings significantly higher than 8% can be realized (Bruce et al., 2006)
a company uses mature and available open source CRM applications
If
a company invest in the development of open source integration software
and if
Source: SugarCRM, (2006) “Running a Business on Commercial Open Source Software. What are the Benefits for Your Sales Organization”
1st Generation CRM 2nd Generation CRM 3rd Generation CRM
Representative Vendor
Siebel Systems salesforce.com SugarCRM
Primary ArchitectureClient/Server with mobile
extensions.Hosted, but with no access to
source codeCommercial Open Source*
Ownership CostsExpensive licensing, support, integration and customization.
Lower licensing costs, limited customization, & expensive
integration.
Low cost leader in licenses, customization and
integration.
User Adoption RatePoor. System geared primarily towards management needs.
Fair. Interface became complex sales and management.
Best. Open source makes userfriendly features easier
to implement.
Support for Globalization
Limited. In general, language support is hard-wired.
Limited. Same problem as first generation CRM.
Extensive. Templates provide users with 20+ selectable languages.
Core FunctionalityGood. Maturity of software
resulted in extended features.Limited. Feature creep that is
isolated from other applications.
Excellent. Benefits from a large community of
developers.
Customization Capability
Poor. Customization generally requires a programming staff.
Fair. Supports the changing of fields and screens.
Best. Allows for easy implementation of new
features.
Integration CapabilityGood. Server portion of
implementation has databasePoor. Backend integration very
difficult.Allows maximum
integration.
Customer SupportGood. Client/Server CRM vendors provide adequate
support.
Good. Hosted CRM vendors provide adequate support.
Good. SugarCRM provides full support of core product
set.
Integration with Legacy Systems
N/A. These are legacy systems.Difficult. Hosted model precludes
deep connectivity.
Easy. Open source is adaptable to legacy
systems.
IT Personnel CostsHigh. Experts in
Client/Serverdifficult to locate.Costs hidden until environments
become more complex.
Low. Implementation in LAMP is familiar to most
programmers.
Marketers Perspective
Solution that CFOs will love
On demand
Community leverage
1st Generation CRM 2nd Generation CRM 3rd Generation CRM 4th Generation CRM
Business Model Commerce Commerce/E-Commerce Commerce/Ecommerce S-Commerce
Representative Vendor
Siebel Systems salesforce.com SugarCRMConsumer Generated
CRM
Primary ArchitectureClient/Server with mobile
extensions.Hosted, but with no access to
source codeCommercial Open
Source*Company Hosted -
Consumer Controlled
Ownership CostsExpensive licensing, support, integration and customization.
Lower licensing costs, limited customization, & expensive
integration.
Low cost leader in licenses, customization
and integration.Extensively lower
User Adoption RatePoor. System geared primarily towards management needs.
Fair. Interface became complex sales and management.
Best. Open source makes userfriendly features easier
to implement.
Superior. Conversation are initiated by
customers
Support for Globalization
Limited. In general, language support is hard-wired.
Limited. Same problem as first generation CRM.
Extensive. Templates provide users with 20+ selectable languages.
Community based thus intrinsically global
Core FunctionalityGood. Maturity of software
resulted in extended features.Limited. Feature creep that is
isolated from other applications.
Excellent. Benefits from a large community of
developers.
Simple and based on community effort
Customization Capability
Poor. Customization generally requires a programming staff.
Fair. Supports the changing of fields and screens.
Best. Allows for easy implementation of new
features.
Extreme every customer decides how to
participate
Integration CapabilityGood. Server portion of
implementation has databasePoor. Backend integration very
difficult.Allows maximum
integration.Based on open platform
Customer SupportGood. Client/Server CRM vendors provide adequate
support.
Good. Hosted CRM vendors provide adequate support.
Good. SugarCRM provides full support of
core product set.Primary focus
Integration with Legacy Systems
N/A. These are legacy systems.Difficult. Hosted model precludes
deep connectivity.
Easy. Open source is adaptable to legacy
systems.
Open and shareable thus fully integrated
IT Personnel CostsHigh. Experts in
Client/Serverdifficult to locate.Costs hidden until environments
become more complex.
Low. Implementation in LAMP is familiar to most
programmers.Simple Ajax integration
The Future
1st2nd
3rd4th
The Future - cont’d
Source: Cross, J. (2003), Building Community, Internet Time Blog, Accessed 10.10.2006http://www.internettime.com/blog/archives/001080.html
What skeptics say aboutOpen Source CRM
Sources: Herbert, L. in Shein E. (2006), “Open-source CRM Software Carves a Niche”, http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/7215816?f=home_featured Accessed 10/10/2006
Kinikin, E. (2005), “Can open source CRM deliver on its promise?”, http://searchcrm.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid11_gci1087510,00.html Accessed 11/10/2006
- Lack of scalability (Herbert, 2006)
- Too much customization could increase maintenance costs
- Cost of software in CRM is just 10 to 15%.
- Cost of doing it wrong is 100%
- Analytics (Kinikin, 2005)
