Research Report onFuture CRM technology
2010~20132010/July/11Ram
*
CRM Modules/verticals in next 3 years MarketingSalesCustomer
ServiceField Service Management Social CRMInformation
Infrastructure Management Analytics BIE-CommerceWeb-oriented
architecture of CRM systemsCRM vendors, which have focused on
wrapping SOA capabilities around their applications, will have to
go back and make them WOA compliant. Mobile CRMiTV
*
Transition of technology Note: As YMSL asked for Trend after
five years. Technology is changing very fast so it is un-predictive
( 5 years). I searched and asked question on linkedin community
they also said that it is very difficult and not practical to
predicts CRM technology transition after 5 years.
*
Risk of When not conforming to Transition of Technology
Virtualization If not then Decreased cost competitivenessLong-term,
un-flexible workforceOperating ComplexityNon Standards alignment
audit and controlData Deluge Tech. integrations Complexity
continues regardless of budget constraintsDemand driven more access
creates more data this will get worseCompliance, backup, audit,
securityEnergy and Green ITCorporate social responsibilityIT cost
efficiency
*
Risk of When not conforming to Transition of Technology Complex
Resource Tracking - BIDynamically move workloadsNew KPIsServices
& assets management Social Software Social CRM It's affecting
you now, and increasing rapidlyEarly pattern detectionThe
"Collective" mattersUnified Communications and Collaboration
B2C2E2BCombines many overlapping areasA technology and
organizational issue.Strong area for managed services to take
hold
*
Risk of When not conforming to Transition of Technology Mobile
and Wireless mCRMMissing of the most critical enabler of client
interaction, and satisfaction mCRM, text messaging etc. are not a
convenience, it's a way of life. Dont miss itSystem Density Cost
& Manageability of servers will be challenging Solution >
Blades = Servers, storage, switches, memory, I/O
data-center-in-a-chassis solutionsMashups and Enterprise
PortalsCustomers doing this today if we will not then decreasing
enterprise valueMissing private cloud enablerUnrecognized business
processesCreeping standards, uncontrolled
*
Risk of When not conforming to Transition of Technology Cloud
Computing If not then cost will increase and business will defocus
from core areas Common services are available now may reduce
operating expensesPrivate clouds improve agility and will
dominate
*
Technology differentiation of the business competitive Function
& Cost Function Cost
CRM Suite Enterprise Suite Best of Breed CRMModel Driven
Application Model-driven FrameworkValueSales, CSS and marketing
function in a single suite Provide a integrated suite from a single
platform Best operation for department or industry Part control
architecture, differentiate processes Control own architecture,
differentiate processes ProcessIntegrated CRM process. Best
Practice Integrated CRM and ERP process Best Practice Limited
process integration Best Practice Re-express own processes, Rule
Engine, repeatable Re-express own processes, Rule Engine,
repeatable Data ModelImposed data model covering CRMImposed data
model covering CRM and ERPSome impose data model others dont
Imposed data model CRM and ERPDesign to fit established data
model(s)Vendors Microsoft, Salesforce.com, SugarCRM, SuperofficeCDC
Software, Epicor, IFS, Infor, Oracle, Sage, SAPAprimo, CAS, Cagedim
Dendrite, NICE, Teradata, SAS, StayInFront, Unica, Verint Oracle,
Fusion/AIA, SAP/NetweaverPortrait, Chordiant, Sword Ciboodle,
Pegasystem TOC analysis by SugarCRMMicrosoft: $ 7607/User
Salesforce = $ 1500 SugarCRM= $ 600Sage = $ 828/User/ annual Cost
Competitive Rating by Forrester . 0 (weak) to 5 (strong).Microsoft
: 4.35 Salesforce = 3.80 SugarCRM = 4.90 CDC= 4.50 Sage=4.0 SAP
allin1=3.40 Oracle on demand = 4.60 Oracle e-business CRM =2.40
Oracle Peoplesoft enterprise = 2.40 Siebel = 2.0 SAP CRM = 2.0
Chor. =2.90 Sward= 2.45 Pagasystem=2.75
*
Technology differentiation of the business competitive Function
& Cost CRM technology & Business competiveness for Mid Size
Organization
*
Technology differentiation of the business competitive Function
& Cost CRM technology & Business competiveness for Big
Organization
*
Technology according to area
Sr. No.Future CRM Technology Areas Technology/Trend
1Virtualization Vmware, Hyper V (IBM)2Data Deluge Thin
provisioning, Data de-duplication, Automated tiering, HSM
principles, Virtual tape3Energy & Green IT Green Data Center
with VMware 4Complex Resource Tracking - BIMicrosoft NAV, IBM
Cognos, SAP, Salesforce, SugarCRM, Monitor real-time energy usage,
KPIs, Integration between network vendors and facility vendors.
5Social Software & Social CRMLAMP stack with Drupal,
OpenSocial, Facebook6Unified Communications B2C2E2B, Web Chat,
VoIP, ATC & VTC, IM, Text Message 7Mobile & Wireless -
mCRMGoogle Android, Salesforce, SugarCRM 8System Density Blades
Server, Cloud Computing9Mashup and Portals Google Apps, Drupal,
Facebook , APIs, OpenSocial 10Cloud Computing Amazon, Google,
Microsoft, AKAMI
*
Entire CRM System after three years
*
Some more finding & conclusion Finally, the three
fundamental blocks of CRM will undergo more rapid change.
Currently, 90% of CRM spending is for operational processes, a
little more than 9% is for analytics, and roughly 1% is for social
CRM. Gartner predicts that will shift over the next five years to a
mix of about 70% operational, 20% analytics and 10% social.Big CRM
does not get approved in a recession. Point projects tend to win
and anything with an 'e' in front of it ePoint, e-commerce,
e-marketing, e-service -- tend to get approval. Plan to shift
budgets. Operational CRM will dominate, but expect and plan to
shift toward analytics and social CRM.
*
Any Questions?????Please feel free to ask.
*Microsoft Nav Server Fee = $ 5284 User License=$1055
Maintenance & Support 20% of total cost = $ 1268)**Tactical
Guideline: To reduce risk and uncertainty associated with strategic
planning process outcomes, CIOs should follow a documented,
stepwise process requiring engagement, analysis and action-based
agreements.
