Common matter for successful introduction of MA tool and new system

In reference books on marketing and automation, there are few cases of introduction for SMEs
Successful introduction of marketing automation and successful introduction of new system have many things in common.
The system fails if you misunderstand the means as a purpose
From the customer (the president) who delivered the core system constructed by our company, we have consultation saying “I want the staff at the site to create a new system because I want you to do it every time.” did.

When I consulted, I asked, “What is the purpose of building the system new?”

Customers asked again, “I want the staff at the work site to do the work”, but I told it, “Is not it a purpose, is not it a means?”
Parties are easy to misunderstand the purpose and means
Some customers who want to introduce the system may lose sight of the purpose that they really want to achieve, and may aim for the means.
In this case, even if the system can achieve the temporary objective, it is not always possible to achieve the real purpose.
Because, in many cases, achievement of a temporary purpose (means realization) = real purpose is achieved.
herefore, when consulting from customers, I am trying to overlook the original purpose, “What is it for?”

System introduction will fail if operation feasibility is low
No matter how wonderful the system is, it will not work unless it is properly operated.

After asking the real purpose of introducing the new system from the customer, I asked “In fact, is it possible to have the staff at the site do the work?” In addition.

The customer said that “I will instruct the staff on site to do __ 0 each time.”

When I heard that, I told you that you should be a little cautious about building a new system.

Wall of operation concerning system introduction
Top down is also necessary for successful system introduction, but in fact it is the staff of the site to use.

By introducing the system, if the burden on the field staff increases, it will be a big barrier to spread the operation.
The introduction of the system should be overall optimum. Overall optimum means that even if the burden increases to a certain part, when it is seen as a whole, it becomes a good state.
On the contrary, there is a word partial optimality, and if you look only at that part, efficiency is rising, but when you look at the whole it is in a bad state.

When the burden increases on a specific site that is the system introduction

Although it may be ideal to get better little by little in all aspects by introducing the system, there is not such a thing at all.
Basically, there is a case where there is coming to somewhere. In this case, it is necessary to explain the whole optimum to the department where the burden increases, firmly explain things that “the whole company will improve as a result of this department’s effort,” and understand it.
Instead, it will be easier to understand if you also present that you say ‘Please make this work of this department supplement the other departments.’
Test operational feasibility
Although I will return the story, when talking about the introduction of the system, I often talk in an ideal form, so when using a system that I actually constructed, it happens that it is completely useless.
It happens a lot when the system is ideal (desk emptiness theory) alone and it was made ignoring the field operation.
There is no other thing than actually testing to prevent this.
Even if we say the test, to test it, it seems to be said that a prototype (prototype) needs to build a system, but for most tests, if you use a combination of ready-made items (mostly Excel) I can cover it.
Temporary operation with Excel
For customers who got consultation on system construction, we suggested “Temporarily, try using temporary operation with Excel?”
As a test, I tried a month and tested whether it would be a realistic operation as a worksite, and doing it would make it easier for me to achieve the object I was looking for I can try it.
If it is difficult to realize this, or if you do not get the results you expected, even if you build the system, it is better to avoid wasting money and time.
I apply this idea to the MA tool.
I talked about the system construction talk as an example so far, this is almost the same as MA tool.
The most applicable case is a case where companies that have not done marketing activities in their own companies have introduced MA tools suddenly.
Marketing / automation automates marketing activities, but it does not do everything automatically.
Also, in case you do not have a process to automate, you have to start building the process when you are not doing any marketing activities.
Automating a process that does not work will not work
With a crane’s voice, introducing MA, forcibly building a process and automating it has no effect at all. Is not this something that many of the companies that introduced MA introduced for the time being are experiencing?

Based on this result, it seems that you may hear a voice saying “Marketing / Automation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *