Trends in MRM Vendor Selection and Implementation

Transcription

1 G Trends in MRM Vendor Selection and Implementation Published: 24 February 2011 Analyst(s): Kimberly Collins This research provides an overview of survey data collected from references for the 2011 marketing resource management (MRM) Magic Quadrant. End users can use these findings as input for planning their MRM initiatives, to benchmark and compare their current MRM initiatives and to continue to evolve their MRM initiatives. Technology providers can use this to inform product development, market positioning, sales execution and implementation services. Key Findings As expected, most companies select an MRM technology provider based on the solution's fit with the company's own MRM requirements. Marketing asset management and creative production management are the most common areas of MRM deployed. Most MRM implementations are hosted or software-as-a-service (SaaS)-based, rather than onpremises. Over half of the MRM deployments took less than six months to implement, with most respondents using their own internal staff along with the vendor's professional services. The range of customization and configuration varied greatly, but most implementations required some degree of configuration and customization. Integration of MRM solutions with other business applications and the marketing ecosystem is evolving. Most companies have a business case with quantifiable objectives for MRM, and those that have calculated the benefits report they were as expected or better than expected. Recommendations Define your MRM processes and determine your requirements prior to evaluating vendors.

2 Consider SaaS-based MRM solutions if price/budget is a primary driver in selection. Consider hosting if you want to implement faster than the IT organization can get to the marketing IT project. Consider on-premises if there is great complexity or complicated integrations to other systems. Unless using a SaaS-based solution, expect some level of configuration and customization with your MRM solution. Some SaaS-based solutions are configurable as well. Establish a business case with quantifiable objectives prior to implementation, and compare results against the baseline prior to implementation. What You Need to Know Marketing asset management and creative production management are the most common areas of MRM deployed, with SaaS and hosted models preferred over on-premises models. Clients should expect some customization and configuration of the MRM system, but most deployments utilize a combination of a company's own internal marketing and IT staff with the vendor's professional services. Few references required expensive third-party system integrators. End users should define their MRM processes and determine MRM functionality requirements prior to vendor selection, building a business case with quantifiable objectives. They should understand the degree of customization versus configuration, and should allocate adequate time to implementation. Vendors should consider providing multiple deployment options, moving toward more prepackaged solutions, increasing professional services to support deployments and developing partnerships with third-party consultancies. Analysis In November and December 2010, Gartner conducted an MRM survey of references collected from vendors for the 2011 MRM Magic Quadrant. Sixty-six references from 19 MRM vendors participated in the survey. The references represent a range of industries, but are mostly large enterprises with a few regional, midsize clients. Primary Reasons Behind Vendor Selection When asked, "What are the top three reasons why your organization chose the technology provider for its MRM application?" (see Figure 1), a majority of respondents (70%) stated that one of the primary reasons was that MRM functionality met their requirements. It is a healthy sign that most MRM users are determining their own requirements prior to selecting a vendor, and using those requirements as the primary criteria for vendor selection. Other important factors for vendor selection included the vendor's understanding of business needs (42%), robustness of MRM functionality (35%), view of the vendor as a strategic partner (30%), pricing (29%) and good quality of responses to RFP (26%). Page 2 of 16 Gartner, Inc. G

3 Figure 1. Main Reasons References Cite for Selecting an MRM Vendor MRM functionality met my organization's requirements 70 Understanding of business needs 42 Robustness of MRM functionality 35 Viewed as a strategic partner 30 Pricing (total cost of ownership) 29 Good quality of responses to RFP or presentation of capabilities 26 MRM expertise 17 Positive feedback from references Positive prior experience with the technology provider Industry experience 9 Project implementation methodology 9 Perceived viability and/or financial strength Percentage of Respondents User Advice: Document and define marketing processes to determine MRM requirements prior to vendor selection. Implementation and Adoption of the Five Competencies of MRM Gartner has defined five competencies of MRM (see "The Five Competencies of MRM 'Re-' Defined"): Planning and financial management Creative production management Marketing asset management Gartner, Inc. G Page 3 of 16

4 Marketing fulfillment MRM analytics As many companies look to increase their reuse of marketing assets and reduce creative costs and agency fees, marketing asset management, particularly digital asset and content management, top the list in terms of user adoption (74%) in our survey (see Figure 2). The digital asset/content repository is also a foundational element for both creative production management and marketing fulfillment. Creative production management is one of the easier areas of MRM to implement, and can help companies improve efficiency and achieve a faster time to market. Not surprisingly, 70% of references in this survey had implemented this competency. Almost one-half (47%) of references had implemented marketing fulfillment capabilities. Planning and financial management can be more difficult to implement due to culture and politics in many marketing organizations. Only about one-third of participants in the survey had implemented this component, with most implementing a marketing calendar (38%) followed by planning (35%) and financial management (33%). Over half (52%) perform some type of reporting and analysis within the system. However, few perform moreadvanced analytics around marketing and media mix optimization (18%). The results also indicate that most references are deploying more than one competency of MRM. Page 4 of 16 Gartner, Inc. G

5 Figure 2. Competencies Deployed by MRM References Budgeting, financial management 33 Planning and objective setting 35 Planning and Financial Mgmt. Calendaring 38 Creative production or project management 70 Creative Production Mgmt. Content and/or digital asset management 74 Marketing Asset Mgmt. Knowledge management 24 Fulfillment and distribution of marketing content 47 Marketing Fulfillment Measurement, reporting and analysis Marketing mix and/or media mix optimization MRM Analytics Other Percentage of Respondents User Advice: Consider marketing asset management and creative production management if you haven't already implemented these capabilities. Consider adding marketing fulfillment, planning and financial management capabilities. Evolve toward more-advanced analytics once you can attain the relevant operational and performance data. Deployment Models Currently Being Utilized References prefer to have the solution off-site, either hosted (single-tenant model) by a third party (39%) or an on-demand/saas (multitenant) model. Only 40% of references had deployed MRM onpremises using their own IT department. These results are not surprising, since many marketing organizations express concerns about receiving the necessary support from IT within their time frame to deploy MRM. The preference for hosted over SaaS is indicative of the sensitivities in Gartner, Inc. G Page 5 of 16

6 marketing to having data on a shared database despite security measures. However, among small and midsize clients looking for more-affordable solutions, SaaS is an attractive option. Gartner expects that the number of SaaS-based MRM deployments is actually much higher in midsize companies, which are underrepresented in this survey. Gartner expects SaaS-based deployments to increase as the midmarket adopts MRM, but the market will continue to see hosted and onpremises deployments as more-sensitive areas of MRM, such as planning and financial management, increase in adoption (see Figure 3). Figure 3. Deployment Models Being Utilized by References On-demand from SaaS vendor 21% On-premises 40% Hosted by third party 39% User Advice: Consider SaaS for low complexity or if you have a small budget for MRM. Consider onpremises for more-complex implementations. Implementation and Customization of MRM Solution Most survey participants reported that they were able to implement the MRM solution in less than a year. Only 6% of references took longer than 12 months to deploy. Almost one out of four (24%) were able to implement in less than three months. SaaS-based deployments are typically the fastest to implement. One-third deployed in four to six months, with 37% deploying in seven to 12 months. The more customization and greater the complexity of marketing processes, the longer the MRM solution takes to deploy. The time can also be delayed if users have not defined and documented their processes or consolidated their content and digital assets prior to vendor selection and implementation (see Figure 4). Page 6 of 16 Gartner, Inc. G

7 Figure 4. Time to Implement MRM Solution More than 12 months 6% 1 to 3 months 24% 7 to 12 months 37% 4 to 6 months 33% Most survey respondents report that the implementation time was what was expected. Only 14% experienced a shorter implementation time than expected. Almost one out of four (23%) reported the time to implement was longer than expected (see Figure 5). Gartner, Inc. G Page 7 of 16

8 Figure 5. Expectations for Implementation Time Frame Longer than expected 23% Shorter than expected 14% About what was expected 63% Most of the references in the survey reported that they used their own internal staff (83%), while 62% said they used the vendor's professional services to implement (see Figure 6). Only 15% used one or more system integrators. This trend reflects several facts: Most MRM vendors have highly trained and strong resources in MRM services/ implementations. SaaS-based and hosted deployments require few external professional services. Large third-party system integrators are typically less experienced with MRM implementations than other business application areas. There are few MRM-focused professional service organizations of any size. Third-party vendors tend to be pricey. Page 8 of 16 Gartner, Inc. G

9 Figure 6. Resources Utilized for Implementation We used our own internal staff 83 We used professional services from the marketing resource management solution's provider 62 We used one or more system integrators Percentage of Respondents Most MRM implementations required some level of configuration and customization, with only 20% using the application completely out-of-the-box. Many of the SaaS-based deployments probably fall into this category. Almost half (47%) required customization or custom writing of code (see Figure 7). MRM solutions are becoming more configurable and almost one out of four (24%) respondents reported that the MRM solution required configuration but no custom writing of code. The remaining 9% most likely had a combination of configuration and customization. Customization is often cited with users who need to customize to fill functionality gaps with the solution selected or who select vendors that develop more custom-made solutions. Complex processes and integration to other systems can also result in customization. Configuration is typically utilized to implement functionality based on role in the organization, for workflows or process steps and for fields and nomenclature. Gartner, Inc. G Page 9 of 16

10 Figure 7. Configuration Versus Customization of MRM Solution Other 9% Using out-of-the box application 20% Required configuration of my organization's system 24% Required customization 47% Note: Customization refers to the writing of custom code for the solution, whereas configuration allows the user to configure without having to write custom code. References that customized their MRM solution reported great variability in the percentage of customization that their MRM solution required. Forty percent reported 20% or less customization, with an additional 38% reporting between 21% and 50% customization. Almost one out of four (22%) of those who customized their MRM solution required greater than 50% customization (see Figure 8). Page 10 of 16 Gartner, Inc. G

11 Figure 8. Percentage Customization for References Who Customized Their MRM Solution 75% or more 3% 51% to 75% 19% 1% to 10% 21% 31% to 50% 22% 11% to 20% 19% 21% to 30% 16% User Advice: Understand the difference between customization and configuration, and the amount required of each prior to implementation. Look for solutions that minimize customization and only customize if the functionality is not available in a prepackaged solution. Set reasonable expectations for implementation time frame. Consider the vendor's implementation resources prior to investing in system integrators. Integration With Other Systems and With Other Marketing Ecosystem Participants Almost one half (42%) of references had not integrated their MRM solution with other systems (see Figure 9). For those that had integrated with other business applications, the most common points of integration were content and digital asset management, campaign management, business intelligence/reporting and finance. At least a few references had integrated with applications for procurement, sales force automation, e-commerce, contact center, partner relationship management and supply chain management. As MRM implementations continue to mature, we expect increased integration with these business applications. Gartner, Inc. G Page 11 of 16

12 Figure 9. Business Applications to Which MRM Is Currently Integrated None 42 Content or digital asset management application Campaign management application Business intelligence or reporting tool 26 Finance application 24 Procurement application 14 Sales force automation application 12 E-commerce application 12 Contact center application Partner relationship management application 9 9 Supply chain management application 8 Other Percentage of Respondents References in the survey had also integrated or enabled access to other participants in the marketing ecosystem. Creative agencies (62%) and print shops (52%) top the list for extending MRM into the broader marketing ecosystem outside of the enterprise. More than one-third (36%) had integrated MRM with sales and distribution partners, and 30% with interactive agencies (see Figure 10). Page 12 of 16 Gartner, Inc. G

13 Figure 10. Ecosystem Participants Integrated With MRM System Creative agency(ies) 62 Print shops 52 Sales and distribution partners 36 Interactive agency(ies) 30 Other Percentage of Respondents User Advice: Consider deploying all five competencies of MRM to achieve synergistic benefits. Integrate each of these competencies with the relevant departments, applications and participants in the marketing ecosystem to drive alignment, further automate processes and increase the value of the solution. Benefits Associated With Deployed MRM Solutions When asked if their organization had "achieved any quantifiable business results from the implementation of the technology provider's MRM application," 45% stated it was too early to calculate (see Figure 11). Many of these references were users who had just implemented their MRM solution. However, 41% stated they had received quantifiable business results. Only 5% stated they had not received any quantifiable business results, with 9% stating they didn't know. It appears that only a small percentage are deploying MRM without a business plan. Gartner, Inc. G Page 13 of 16

14 Figure 11. Attainment of Quantifiable Business Results with MRM Solution Don't know 9% Yes 41% Too early to calculate yet 45% No 5% And for those that did measure and receive quantifiable business results, 60% report they were as expected, with 32% reporting better-than-expected results. Only 8% stated that results were worse than expected (see Figure 12). Page 14 of 16 Gartner, Inc. G

15 Figure 12. Expected Versus Achieved Business Results Yes, worse than expected 8% Yes, better than expected 32% No, was as expected 60% User Advice: Establish goals and objectives, and measure the current baseline prior to implementation. Measure the results post-implementation on a periodic basis. Report the results to the chief marketing officer, marketing leaders and other business executives. Gartner, Inc. G Page 15 of 16

16 Regional Headquarters Corporate Headquarters 56 Top Gallant Road Stamford, CT USA European Headquarters Tamesis The Glanty Egham Surrey, TW20 9AW UNITED KINGDOM Japan Headquarters Gartner Japan Ltd. Aobadai Hills, 6F 7-7, Aobadai, 4-chome Meguro-ku, Tokyo JAPAN Latin America Headquarters Gartner do Brazil Av. das Nações Unidas, andar World Trade Center São Paulo SP BRAZIL Asia/Pacific Headquarters Gartner Australasia Pty. Ltd. Level 9, 141 Walker Street North Sydney New South Wales 2060 AUSTRALIA Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Gartner is a registered trademark of Gartner, Inc. or its affiliates. This publication may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without Gartner s prior written permission. The information contained in this publication has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. Gartner disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of such information and shall have no liability for errors, omissions or inadequacies in such information. This publication consists of the opinions of Gartner s research organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. The opinions expressed herein are subject to change without notice. Although Gartner research may include a discussion of related legal issues, Gartner does not provide legal advice or services and its research should not be construed or used as such. Gartner is a public company, and its shareholders may include firms and funds that have financial interests in entities covered in Gartner research. Gartner s Board of Directors may include senior managers of these firms or funds. Gartner research is produced independently by its research organization without input or influence from these firms, funds or their managers. For further information on the independence and integrity of Gartner research, see Guiding Principles on Independence and Objectivity on its website, ombudsman/omb_guide2.jsp. Page 16 of 16 Gartner, Inc. G