Clients often ask us about how to manage the "people side" of their marketing technology to achieve flexibility, responsiveness and cost-effective deployment of their investment. This article reflects some of the better approaches we have seen implemented.
Perceptions of underutilization, lack of credibility and poor response times for analyses and information are frequently voiced as concerns by the non-technical user community. If you are hearing statements like these you are probably experiencing the effects of inappropriate technology, poor implementation or an organization problem. In our experience organization problems are (thankfully!) at the root of these concerns in the vast majority of cases.
For the sake of argument let's presume that you have selected and implemented your marketing technology base and your systems are up and running more or less on schedule and budget. Most projects that are well thought out and managed can achieve these success benchmarks. A year or two after the wrapper is off the new systems, however, you begin to hear grumbles of dissatisfaction from users about slow responsiveness and questionable credibility. Or, even worse, the technology isn't being used extensively and the project sponsors are being grilled to "show us the money."
Unless these complaints are properly addressed the entire technology implementation is unduly at risk of being branded a failure. CRM and customer database implementations, for example, are notorious for these complaints. The term "CRM" is now taboo in many organizations we visit (few have actually changed strategy but most have changed what they call it now).
The real problem underlying these concerns is that the organization of people supporting the systems does not keep in step with the changing role of the technology as it matures.
A project organization structure is great for getting systems up and running, but is poorly suited to servicing ongoing business needs. Project management aligns effort with specific goals within specific constraints (requirements, timeline and budget). Project organizations resist change in scope and direction in order to achieve their goals. They are efficient at managing risk and cost.
Once the technology is operational, the game changes. Increasing the scope of the platform's use now becomes very desirable. Introducing changes and enhancements regularly is normal. Analysis and reporting is central to the mission of the organization charged with system ownership. These changes to the goals of the people around the technology demand changes in organization structure. Addressing these issues requires analysis of stakeholder needs and competencies to determine what functions are required and which areas of the organization are most able to support the requirements. The requirements fall under these headings:
Maintain operation (includes integrity, availability etc.)
Service the users (provide reports, analyses, help functions)
Set direction for enhancements (depth and breadth of function and scope)
Define and implement enhancements (technical and business sides)
Marketing technologies involve a considerable amount of technical and business knowledge specific to their deployment. A centre of expertise (COE) within the information technology management function is usually required, with a corresponding COE on the business side. These groups, usually comprised of Business and Technical Analysts, are well suited to maintenance, servicing users and implementation of enhancements. For example, our most frequently recommended structure would include a technical management team in the IT area and a business management team in one of the prime user community departments. Many large commercial organizations we work with choose this model.
The trickiest part of managing a centre of expertise is keeping service levels responsive to the user community. In our experience dual reporting relationships (designated user group contacts in the business COE who are organizationally within the COE but also report to the other user organizations) are a terrific way of managing this issue. The extent to which the experts are dispersed among user groups within the organization is a choice driven by the degree of geographic dispersion and decision centricity desired.
Another difficulty is setting direction for enhancements to scope and function of the technology. There are business-driven conflicts in priorities of the stakeholders who rely on a given marketing technology which need to be managed. We believe that establishing a permanent governance structure with participation of all of the relevant stakeholders is the best way to resolve these conflicts. Many of our large clients are starting to implement formal governance structures to address this need.
If you are observing some of the symptoms we noted at the beginning of this article in your business, take a look at the way your people are organized to support your marketing technology base. You may be pleasantly surprised to find that a few adjustments to the organization structure can improve the yield of your investment substantially.
