Besides just being a de-facto standard of field force supporting tools, is there an actual value to Customer Relationship Management (CRM) for life sciences nowadays? Having experience with CRM systems from those early years when Siebel was the leading platform, I’ve observed that there have always been two camps of thought about CRMs value: companies that use a CRM because they must, and those that drive value above and beyond base compliance needs.

Granted, there is nothing inherently exciting about having a day-to-day system to plan, track, and record activities in a compliant manner; therefore, it is not surprising that both business and IT never demanded more from their CRM tool. Unfortunately, that mindset has led companies to simply pour more money and resources into addressing shortcomings as they arise rather than working towards changes that drive greater and deeper business value.

Why has this been an accepted approach?

Perhaps this can be explained by a dominant market leader’s lack of true competition in the space for number of years, which has created a de-facto standard. We’ve seen a similar pattern among market leaders before, as the CRM space evolves every 10-20 years.

As I look at the selection process of commercializing pharma companies and already commercialized companies enduring high maintenance costs, there is a general sense of apathy toward considering anything different because it appears to be safer and easier to deal with something you already know.

Is that still the case?

As I explored already in a recent blog, life sciences companies have been settling for:

• A lack of product roadmap enhancement inclusions and the lack of true innovation over last 4-5 years, specific to CRM
• Working off platform code that was created 15+ years ago, leading to higher internal costs for maintenance, more manual processes, and integrations of additional solutions as band-aids for current tool shortcomings due to (but not limited to):
• Technology not being aligned with sales processes
• Not having all relevant and applicable information in a single place
• Inability to provide a single and up-to-date view of HCP, account, or patient needs
• Supporting initiatives and addressing business needs through the lens of what the CRM system can do versus what it should be able to do

What has been the impact of all of this?

Systematic deficiencies, platform inflexibility, and lack of innovation have slowed adjustments to business needs over time and have contributed to resistance to make changes. Digital transformation initiatives have been either stifled or returns on investment diminished, if not worse. Accenture surveyed 8,300 companies to measure the differences in performance between companies that get technology right and those that don’t. Getting it right means mastering adoption, timing, and applying it to the entire organization at scale.

“In 2018, Laggards had 15% in foregone annual revenue. If they don’t change, they could miss out on a staggering 46% of their annual revenue in 2023.[…] To scale innovations repeatedly and grow twice as fast as others, companies have to depart from adopting technologies as point-solutions. Instead of a patchwork of technologies, they must evolve future systems by cultivating the mindset and methods of the top 10%, right now. Those that wait will find it increasingly difficult to catch up, as new technologies proliferate and the pace of innovation accelerates.” (https://www.accenture.com/us-en/blogs/accenture-research/innovation-achievement-gap)

What does that mean for your CRM choice?

The market share leader is re-platforming its CRM system, requiring its customers to migrate to the new platform. Those impacted will face an inevitable disruption to both IT and business users – but will also be presented with an opportunity to evaluate their entire CRM solution. Since transition is forthcoming, companies evaluating their options should consider:

• What has worked well?

  • Have you benefited from working off an open platform, such as Salesforce, with specific life sciences requirements leading to an extensible ecosystem?
  • Are you able to pick and choose services vendors that drive better costs and quality of delivery due to a high number of skilled resources in this space?

• What have you settled for?

  • Did your end users and administration experience general daily nuisances (UI/UX, data change requests, sync, upgrades, multiple tools, etc.)?
  • Do you have a heavily customized solution that limits flexibility, makes it harder to fulfill business requirements, and increases maintenance costs?
  • Do you need purpose-built functionality and better integrated data for specialty business, medical, key account management, etc.?
  • Have you settled for minimal-to-no inclusion of your specific enhancements in your product roadmap over several last years?

• What should the priority be for the future?

  • Do you want a vendor with proven domain expertise in working with a life sciences-specific solution that supports multiple personas and business needs (from reach and frequency, to account-based selling and more)?
  • Should the solution be built on top of an open platform using the latest capabilities to foster innovation, future-proof your investment, and reduce technological debt through its openness and large resource pool?
  • Do you want a system that:
    
    
    • has gone through growing pains, is stable, and is able to provide all the expected functionality?
    • has an already-established and robust product roadmap with room for specific customer enhancements, not 5-7 years in the future, but right now?
    • already has differentiating capabilities that address key business needs and can resolve long-standing issues and challenges?

Companies should earnestly evaluate their current CRM platform and assess what has truly worked well, what they have settled for, and what the path forward should look like, not because it is easier, but because it sets their users and customers up for better future.

Why does this remain important?

As we have come upon yet another life sciences CRM market evolution, I’m reflecting on the last one that started over 10 years ago. At that time, I worked with a top pharma company to create a completely custom user interface on top of the then-market share leader platform (Siebel CRM) to ensure a superior user experience and improve field force productivity. The project was well received and deemed successful. However, facing increased technological debt and the rising costs of ongoing maintenance, just two years later, the client made the decision to forgo that investment in favor of an entirely new CRM system.

What those executives clearly understood was that a good UI/UX was not the key to success; nor was their very large field force so disrupted that they were not willing to replace two CRM systems in two years. They understood that keys to success were:

• Enabling good data integrations
• Future-proofing investments through platform openness
• Working with a vendor that is focused solely on a life sciences CRM and its vast network of partners and skilled resources

Past CRM market evaluations and experiences have shown that the key to success and minimal field disruption was executing data integration, management, and harmonization correctly. Getting these elements right not only led to successful migrations but also enabled successful future deployments.

So, this will change now, right?

It is illusionary to think that proposed migration of the back end will lead to more innovation and CRM product enhancements. It is more likely that needs to manage infrastructure, platform maturity, and migrations will not only slow innovation even more, but will take years to get to the level of stability needed to operate at this level.

Life sciences companies have been patient and willing partners in this CRM game in the last decade, looking for outside solutions where their CRM has failed them (i.e., supporting medical, key account management, and numerous administrative and technical deficiencies) at the expense of overall digital transformation success. Not only is now the right time to take an honest look at the hidden costs and perceived value of the investment already made, but also to let go of these detrimental practices:

• Abandoning the continuous and significant investment of the Salesforce platform, leading to roadmap velocity and scalability
• Not leveraging additional investment and innovation specific to life sciences to bring in an open and flexible platform from a proven life sciences vendor, such as IQVIA, brings
• Moving to a dated, proprietary platform that has been purpose-built with another focus, other than life sciences, for the sole benefit of maintaining familiarity and the status quo on the front-end
• Being stuck working with a vendor who has completely minimized real and tangible concerns on all the above

I had a chance to talk to customers presently “stuck” with their current CRM investments, and saddled with the corresponding added costs brought on by years and years of customizations required to address the system’s lack of flexibility and capabilities. Through those conversations, I learned that it is difficult to make a move from what is familiar and what is not great, but under control. For those customers, maintaining the status quo was also the result of the industry’s lack of competitive CRM offerings for many years, as well as the enticing facts that the vast global network of skilled resources were keeping costs somewhat in check, and the underlying open platform was part of an extensible ecosystem.

For those companies that will be impacted by a planned, “simple back-end” CRM migration” to a new platform, it is important to recognize that such a migration is not that simple. Those factors discussed above that have driven the status quo will be impacted by this impending back-end migration, and all its mitigating factors, thereby leaving those companies “stuck” with rather expensive propositions and options that range from bad to worse.

So, what’s the path forward?

Those who will come out on the right side of this, will understand that familiarity with a user interface is not the crucial part of success. Likewise, pouring money into technology with an uncertain future, operating with a limited resource pool, incurring increased technological debt, and trying to meet the rising costs of ongoing maintenance is not a sustainable path forward. The eventual winners are those who will look for viable alternatives.

IQVIA’s CRM solution, OCE Personal, addresses all the key considerations as it is a life sciences-specific solution with purpose-built functionality for various personas and business needs, from reach/frequency to specialty and account-based selling, based on IQVIA’s domain expertise.

Through its investments in product success and innovating product roadmaps, IQVIA has created a collaborative environment for its customer base that welcomes enhancement requests, thereby fostering a new approach to CRM -- one which sees the system as an orchestrator of all other initiatives, helping companies do more. It is time to stop undervaluing your CRM system.