Michelle, I implemented packaged systems (financials, procurement, etc.) before working with SFA. I agree that ERP business functions can be much more complex than those of SFA systems. From my experience, I believe that SFA projects have two unique factors that make them prone to failure:
1. Creation and maintenance of a mobile platform. In addition to Siebel, the system that I currently support has all the MS-Office products, email, calendaring, several special local applications, local security, electronic reports distribution, and communications software that provides complete mainframe and intranet access. These skinny little notebooks soon start to resemble supercomputers. Unless a mobile sales group has a very smart and dedicated technical support team, a mobile platform will fail.
2. Implementing a standard sales process. My experience is like yours -- sales guys don't like to follow a rigid process. Most other organizations in an enterprise -- accounting, manufacturing, etc -- are very process-oriented. Not sales, so they're much more difficult to pin down. Strong executive support it essential to a successful SFA implementation.
If I were to rate Siebel's ease of implementation, I would give it a 4 (1 is simple, 5 is complex). I would rate an SAP implementation as a 5, Oracle as a 4.5. Every system that I have ever implemented as been very difficult. Since Siebel is extraordinarily flexible and extendible, it allows for a very specific, custom enduser system. I can appreciate how a Siebel implementation can get out of control. Siebel doesn't have any implementation silver bullets.
I hope that answered your question. I would post the secrets of Siebel's architectural blueprints, but I'm frightened that Tom's goons will find me and rough me up. :) |
