The Challenge: Everyone Has an Opinion – But No One Leads
CRM projects often begin with cross-functional input. Sales, service, marketing, finance, IT – everyone wants something.
That’s not wrong. But when input turns into design-by-committee, you get a CRM that looks impressive on paper – and unusable in practice.
Each team pushes for “just one more field,” “one more funnel stage,” “one more feature.”
The result? A bloated CRM full of conflicting logic and unclear priorities.
And when the system doesn’t work, no one feels responsible.
Where It Breaks: Collective Input, No Clear Lead
CRMs become complex not because the business is complex – but because too many voices shape the logic without alignment.
Typical symptoms:
- Funnel stages that mean different things to different teams
- Automation rules that conflict when running in parallel
- Required fields that exist “just in case” but slow down daily work
- Reports that can’t be trusted because data ownership is unclear
Over time, users disengage – or use the system only superficially.
The Insight: CRM Logic Needs a Commercial Owner
A CRM is, at its core, a commercial tool. It should reflect the way you sell – not a compromise between all internal reporting needs. That’s why governance must start with a clear structure. At the center: a designated product owner, ideally from Sales Operations or Commercial Excellence, who is empowered to take final decisions, ensure consistency, and balance input from other departments.
A cross-functional steering group can contribute – but without decision rights. Feedback flows through a structured change process where requests are reviewed for impact, feasibility, and relevance. Crucially, the logic behind funnel stages, field definitions, and automation must be documented, visible, and stable – not fluid and crowd-sourced.
This setup allows for speed and clarity, not bureaucracy. Without it, fragmentation is guaranteed.
What to Do
If your CRM feels overgrown or misaligned, start by examining ownership and scope:
- Who currently defines logic – and who maintains it?
- What requests get implemented – and why?
Then move from reactive design to structured evolution:
- Define 3–5 core use cases that your CRM must reliably support. These should guide system design and prevent logic overload.
- Identify key user groups responsible for specific areas of the CRM (e.g. pipeline logic, contact data, account assignments). These users should not only enter data – they must help maintain and validate it.
- Prioritize quality over quantity, especially for data fields that must be updated manually. Fewer, more reliable fields are more valuable than overengineered complexity.
- Create a structured backlog for change requests and system feedback – and make it visible. Group similar inputs, evaluate relevance, and prioritize based on business impact.
- Run with the current setup for 4–6 weeks, then reflect as a team: What worked? What created friction? Which requests are still relevant?
- Make iteration intentional, not reactive – and protect your logic from becoming a moving target.
Governance isn’t about slowing down innovation. It’s about making improvements stick – and ensuring the CRM serves a purpose beyond documentation.
Because the best CRM isn’t shaped by consensus.
It’s shaped by clarity – with collaboration built around it.
