Two different approaches to CRM implementation and does it really matter which one you choose?

When I reflect over my career to date, which I was doing earlier today when walking my dogs, it occurred to me that I have been involved in the whole gambit of IT systems implementations across various industries, from Enterprise to SME, and I have witnessed all sorts of different Project Management and Business Analysis techniques and methodologies.

In 2010, I worked for a large University as a Business Analyst and Subject Matter Expert on the implementation of a new student admissions system. It was a multi-million dollar project that had interest from the Vice Chancellor (the very head of the organisation) all the way down to key academic and administrative stakeholders in all of the university's schools and departments. I was responsible for fully scoping out and documenting the business requirements (i.e. the high level goals, objectives and benefits of the organisation), converting them into functional requirements (which the development team needed to build the system), conducting User Acceptance Testing, writing the training manual and training the first groups of end users.

Part of this role required me to negotiate with stakeholders on must-have requirements versus nice-to-have requirements; with the intention of designing a relatively 'one-size-fits-all' process that improved efficiencies and processing times; which is a nice dream for a young Business Analyst but, in hindsight, might have been a little naive of me! I have since learnt that the Project Management approach used in this example is called Waterfall Project Management.

Fast forward to the 2020s and I find myself working on HubSpot implementations for all sorts of companies. When I reflect on the variety of companies I have worked with over the last 5 years, I am reminded of this old RSPCA TV commercial:

Many of the stakeholders I have worked with over the years share similar attributes to some of the animals in the ad! 😅

A HubSpot implementation for an SME through to Mid-Market business is a very different experience to a large-scale enterprise project like I experienced at the university. The willingness to spend resources early on in the project to document business and functional requirements, which should inform the project scope, is much lower. I have learnt that many businesses prefer a more agile approach that gets the build phase happening much faster, which means training and onboarding of users is also accelerated. This often results in end users benefiting from the new CRM implementation quickly, but at the back end of the project there is an iterative process (hence the agile approach) that optimises the CRM and extends its functionality; over the course of the following months.

When I reflect on the differences between Waterfall and Agile Project Management it occurs to me that companies tend to prefer the Agile approach as it often means less investment up front and faster delivery. However, Agile is also an iterative process. It means that although the investment is smaller at the front end of the project, it often requires an ongoing support plan at the back-end of the project that will go on longer in order to continue to optimise the system. Whereas, the Waterfall approach will cost more upfront due to the resource-heavy requirements gathering and scoping element of the project; however once that is complete and agreed upon by all stakeholders the build can roll out and users onboarded fairly smoothly. Which means, the ongoing investment at the back end of the project should be smaller.

The following table highlights the key benefits of each approach:

This could also be mapped on a continuum with Agile at one end and Waterfall at the other. I have worked on implementations that sit in the middle of the continuum.

Clearly, large organisations with complex processes, large numbers of stakeholders, and limited appetite for risk might prefer an approach that is more in line with the Waterfall model. I know from experience that the Agile approach works well for small to mid-market businesses.

What does the vendor prefer?

As a HubSpot partner, I find it difficult to provide a hard and fast answer to this question. The best answer I have is: it depends...

It depends on the internal political will of the project sponsor to drive organisational change.

It depends on the internal corporate knowledge and how well processes are documented.

It depends on cashflow and budgets.

It depends on how well defined the client is when it comes to knowing what they want.

It depends on the appetite for risk and innovation within the business.

It depends on whether speed to market is more important than predictability and control.

At the end of the day, I tend to lean toward Agile principles because they allow for flexibility, iteration, and customer feedback; all of which are essential when projects involve fast-moving technology (and the tech landscape is moving faster than ever before right now) and evolving customer expectations. That said, many clients (especially larger or more traditional organisations) are more comfortable with a Waterfall-style approach where there's a clear plan, defined milestones, and predictable costs.

The truth is, the best approach is often a hybrid; borrowing the adaptability of Agile while maintaining the discipline of Waterfall. As a HubSpot partner, our role is to guide clients toward the method that best matches their culture, resources, and long-term goals, rather than forcing one style over the other.

Have you outgrown your CRM and started thinking about a new platform? It's natural to be concerned about change management, planning, and costs. The good news is, with the right approach, those challenges can be managed in a way that keeps your project on track and sets you up for long-term success.

Learn more about how we have worked with other businesses and what their results were here.