An Interview with Charles Sword of Headstrong
To help give us some perspective on recent news, we asked
Charles Sword of Headstrong to share his insights.
The Siebel Observer: There seems to be a lot of controversy over Siebel version 7
and how stable the product was when released. What have you and
your team experienced with Siebel 7?
Charles Sword: Given the significant shift in the application architecture of
Siebel 7 and the accelerated release cycles that are commonplace
in the software industry today, I don't believe the application
had more than its share of product defects. However, I believe
the technology community likes to save its harshest criticism
for anyone that achieves a dominant market position and over
the past 5 years Siebel achieved a market position within
CRM similar to Microsoft's dominance of business productivity
software. I believe that that, along with a vocal minority of
dissatisfied customers, helped put a spotlight
on the shortcomings of the product.
The Siebel Observer: Is Siebel 7 any less stable than a
major release from vendors like Microsoft, PeopleSoft, or Oracle?
Charles Sword: If you compared the defect rate for these products at similar
maturity points in their product lifecycle I think you'd find
a similar story. As mentioned above, I think Siebel invited
an extra dose of scrutiny when they had the hubris to claim
the title of the largest enterprise software firm in the world.
The Siebel Observer: Why do you think that Siebel Systems has these problems?
Charles Sword: I can sum it up simply: they grew too rapidly and in too many
directions. They expanded the amount of functionality in the
base, or horizontal, product and then compounded that with
expansion into a dozen verticals. On top of this, they then
lost focus on the core mission - to deliver the finest CRM
software in the world - instead expanding into the employee
portal, analytics, and integration markets almost simultaneously.
Given their growth rate and this diffusion of focus, it was
nearly impossible to maintain consistently high levels of
quality and customer satisfaction.
As for the engineering team, I believe what they've achieved is
borderline extraordinary given what's been asked of them. On the
contrary, it's my opinion that the most significant issues have
been caused by turnover in the sales organization and quality
concerns associated with the Technical Account Manager (TAM)
organization. These functions represent the 'face' of Siebel
for most customers and I think they've fallen short of the
standard set in the earlier years of the organization. Finally,
Siebel suffered from what in essence is a 'technology generation gap'.
By this, I'm referring to the cynicism and malaise that
characterizes the employees that joined the fray too late
to participate in the technology boom that ended in March 2001
and is hardly limited to Siebel. Many organizations are still
suffering a cultural hangover from those heady days of
seemingly limitless upside and technology idealism.
The Siebel Observer: Is Siebel 7.5 an improvement on Siebel 7?
Charles Sword: I believe the Universal Application Network
(UAN) support found in Siebel 7.5 represents a significant shift
in the Siebel product strategy over all previous versions of Siebel.
Traditionally, Siebel integration capabilities have been limited in capability
and challenging to execute and maintain. With the introduction
of the UAN, Siebel has provided the platform for Siebel to become
a true service component in an overall enterprise architecture -
which is a significant shift. I believe that CRM will ultimately
be viewed as more of an infrastructure layer that interacts with
the process and application layer within your enterprise architecture,
as opposed to an application in and of itself. This should also be
the primary frame of reference for Siebel migration decisions.
For most, there probably isn't enough incremental functionality
to justify the investment required for migration. However, when
viewed from a strategic platform and architecture perspective,
the conversation shifts to how CRM services will be constructed
and delivered in the future, and the benefits of migration to
the improved Siebel 7.5 product begins to make a lot of sense.
The Siebel Observer: Is there anyway to recover from a failed Siebel implementation?
Charles Sword: People are successfully implementing CRM as a business strategy
and many are achieving this using Siebel technology, so it is a
reachable goal. However, for those who are struggling, I liken
our role as a service provider to a doctor treating a patient.
The key is to make a quick, accurate diagnosis based on the
symptoms and prescribe an effective course of treatment. Often
this will involve both tactical and strategic programs to address,
for example, short term adoption woes and longer term return on
investment concerns. Over the past half dozen years spent working
on these initiatives and having achieved a 100% satisfaction rate,
we've created an extensive case history of these symptoms and the
most effective remedies.
The root causes of failed implementations are clustered into a few
major categories which allow us to be very efficient and effective
if we catch them early enough. By that, I mean that you only have
so much user equity to expend and then I don't think you can overcome
the negative perceptions. Organizations that have suffered multiple
failures or acutely negative experiences have programs that are
in some cases unrecoverable and are better served by a change
in their technology platform at a minimum. But for most, there
is hope if they see the right doctor.
The Siebel Observer: Tolstoy said all happy families are alike. Unhappy families
are each unhappy in their own way. Is this true of Siebel implementations
as well? Do those companies that fail at implementing Siebel tend to do so for different reasons?
Charles Sword: Amongst the unhappy Siebel children, we've noticed some definite
trends that led to their discontent:
-
Lack of senior sponsorship, which allows program direction to drift and
often results in an unruly expansion of scope and/or dissension in the ranks.
-
Lack of business process alignment, which sub-optimizes overall return
but more fundamentally creates the equivalent of cognitive dissonance
in the experience of users and management.
-
Haphazard customization, which often leads to significant performance
issues and high total cost of ownership (TCO).
These are classic change management issues that result in what I characterize
as 'organ rejection'. In these instances, the introduction of new
processes and technology into an organization is rejected not on merit
but in reaction to how the change is introduced.
The Siebel Observer: Have you seen any examples of companies that failed in their initial implementation but later were able to come back and be successful with Siebel?
Charles Sword: Absolutely. They range from the simplest cases where the issues were
primarily performance-related or technical in nature to more complex
cases that involve organizational alignment issues, change management
shortcomings, and senior management ambivalence, all resting on poorly
architected technology. In the former, recovery is often straightforward
and can be achieved in very modest timeframes. In the latter example,
the issues and the remedy are more complicated and in all likelihood
will involve a larger commitment in terms of stakeholders
and overall recovery time.
Charles Sword is Vice President of the CRM Practice at Headstrong Corporation.
Correction
Does your company already subscribe?
You might be eligible for a free subscription!
