Where's the Beef? Cost-Justifying Sales Automation
"Our studies show our
reps are really only selling about 25% of their time. If I can
free up just 10 - 15 more hours per week per rep, our sales should
double, shouldn't they? A decent color laptop computer only costs about
$3,000 now. If we can increase a rep's sales by only $3,000, shouldn't
our sales automation project should pay for itself this year?"
In a recent interview, a reporter started the conversation by asking,
"I've heard from a number of sources that 50% of all SFA projects fail.
Do you agree with that number?
The answer to these three questions is "No!" "No!" and "It doesn't
matter!" in that order. Let's look at the questions and their answers,
one by one. Hopefully a closer examination will keep you from getting
burned on sales automation.
The erroneous logic that 10-15 rep hours saved equals doubling your
sales is repeated all too often, usually by over-zealous sales types
bitten by the technology bug. The rationale is usually based on an
initial analysis that only about 25% of a rep's time is spent on
selling-related activities, which may be true enough. The logic breaks
down in assuming that all the time saved will be applied to selling
activities alone. Not so. In sales, time saved is usually allocated
among the proportion of activities that comprise the remaining process.
In our example, if the actual proportion of time spent selling is not
altered, only 25% of the 10-15 hours saved will be spent selling.
A further process control principle applies. In any given system,
output is limited to the throughput of the tightest bottleneck, or
constraint. If the capacity to sell doubled in a year, could production
keep up? Does the market exist for twice as many units? Are higher sales
incented properly? The sales process is limited by constraints other
than selling time. One must be calm enough to look at the big picture
before leaping to grandiose conclusions.
On to the next pitfall. "If the cost of a laptop is only about $3,000
these days, all a rep has to do to recover the cost is sell $3,000 more
this year." There are two problems in a statement like this; both are
related to what we should count in the sales automation cost/benefit
equation. First, only counting hardware costs is disastrously
shortsighted. The first year cost of sales automation has been pegged
variously at between $8,000 to as high as $17,500 when internal and
training costs are factored in, with between $2,100 and $2,500 in
support costs per person, per year in between major upgrades (Selden,
1995). Second, counting each sales dollar as a dollar the company can
use to offset new investments is naive. For every dollar a company
brings in as Income, most is already spent elsewhere on the Cost of
Goods Sold (COGS), and on General, Sales and Administrative expense
(GSA). Often, only about a dime is left to divvy up among everything
else.
The good news is that, with the potential for incremental sales
increases of between 10% and 30% (Moriarty and Swartz, 1989), the
payback for well-executed efforts can indeed be positive, even at
realistic amounts of investment. The potential ROI is so high that
membership in bellwether professional organizations such as the Sales
Automation Association has grown more than twenty-fold in the past five
years alone. The opportunity for improvement in the sales process has
sparked a veritable gold rush of excitement, for good reason.
Sales automation and process improvement can be a tremendously rewarding
endeavor, as trail-blazing companies like Yellow-Freight, Ascom-Timeplex,
Nalco Chemical, and many others have shown. The Conference Board found
that 45% of sales and marketing automation projects delivered payback in
24 months or less. As with many pioneers, some are successful, while
others, regrettably, do not make it to the promised land.
So the question, "Do 50% of sales automation projects fail?" may be
fair, but it's not highly relevant. Like a magician's diversion, such a
question shifts attention from the real issue. Successful efforts
succeed; improperly executed ones do not. There's no news in that.
Unsuccessful attempts at flight didn't stop the Wright Brothers. The
more important pragmatic issue is, what is it about sales automation
projects that increases their chances of success?
The answer is to that question cannot lie solely in how well the
software and hardware works, per se. Electronic mail, electronic
sales presentations, and contact management software all work,
physically. If automation is not the real issue in the first place, then
the quality of execution must be paramount. If you select
electronic mail as the solution for a process problem that only an
electronic sales presentation can solve, what will happen?
For a quality effort, you need well trained people who understand the
sales and marketing process, modern technology, and the economics of
what makes for positive cash flow. The team also needs to have the time
and resources available to do the job. User training is critical. A
peer-reviewed guideline such as the Sales Automation Audit Standards
and Excellence Program (Sales Automation Association, 1994) contains
a more complete checklist of good practices to follow as the effort
progresses.
Budgeting for sales automation efforts is not a black art; it's simply a
new one. Risks are involved. Some of the numbers may be less tangible
than others. But those familiar with the sales process know there's
plenty of solid opportunity for waste reduction and quality improvement.
Have the opportunities been explored? Have the rough calculations been
transfered onto a spreadsheet to see whether hopes for a positive cash
flow are realistic? Have simpler alternatives been examined? With proper
training in sales process analysis, budgeting becomes an integral part
of the business case one develops to begin with. The more solid the due
diligence, the less need to accept risk.
So, in answer to the question, "Where's the beef?" the answer is
deceptively simple. Opportunity is all around you; you just have to know
where to look. Is there room for improvement in your rep's closing
ratios? In their sales presentations? In their customer needs analysis
approach? In their ability to connect customer needs with your company's
solutions? In your order entry process? Chances are, most companies have
lots of room for improvement. As with any business problem, the
opportunity needs to be quantified and workable alternatives must be
explored. The key is in good execution, as is true with so many things
in life -- such as grilling a good burger!
References
"Computers and the Sales Effort," Conference Board, 1986.
Moriarty, Roland T. and Gordon S. Swartz. "Automation to Boost Sales and
Marketing," Harvard Business Review, January-February, 1989.
Sales Automation Audit Standards and Excellence Program. Sales
Automation Association, 1994.
Selden, Paul H. Cost Benefit Analysis and Sales Automation.
Performance Management, Inc., 1995.
© 1996 Paul H. Selden All Rights Reserved. Please call for permission
to reprint or republish.
Return to Articles Table of Contents.
|