Most platforms help us record what happened, but few help us understand what’s working in client relationships or guide us through complex follow-ups across multiple time zones and changing preferences.
For a while, we kept switching platforms thinking the next one would solve it. But it wasn’t the tool,it was the mismatch between what we really needed and what the system was designed for. Our core job wasn’t logging activities, it was protecting the momentum in high-trust, high-customization workflows.
I’d love to see more CRMs start with that question: What are your clients really hiring you to help them avoid or achieve? Because once you solve for that, the rest of the features become much easier to prioritize.
Just so I can hop on the fast-follower bandwagon, think of the end-state. Is it really "protecting the momentum in high-trust, high-customization workflow" or is it some more abstracted while being more tangible?
I've explained it like this for years ..."how much would an executive pay for an appliance that swiped his credit card for $1 and $10 out the other end?" While that's fantastical, isn't it kind of what AI is doing on a number of fronts? Ask it for an outcome, and it delivers.
That's where we're going, and that will completely disrupt "CRM" as we've known it for 30'ish years.
I get what you’re pointing to,the goal isn’t just momentum, it’s leveraged outcomes. Especially in high-stakes client work, the “job” is really about preserving forward motion toward a win, while minimizing friction and risk at each step.
If CRM evolves into something that lets me say “this is what success looks like for this deal” and then quietly aligns the moving parts around it,follow-ups, cross-functional nudges, surfacing weak signals,that’s worth more than any dashboard.
AI may get us there eventually, but it still needs better context from us on why this moment matters. That’s the part I’m still trying to design for in our stack.
Is there only a single core process in an enterprise? The answer is that the job is an angle and how we look at a problem, not how you do it. So you can fine tune the angle in the number of different ways.
I'm not sure if I got the context of your question completely right
Did I mention I was in the CRM industry for 25 years+?
Most platforms help us record what happened, but few help us understand what’s working in client relationships or guide us through complex follow-ups across multiple time zones and changing preferences.
For a while, we kept switching platforms thinking the next one would solve it. But it wasn’t the tool,it was the mismatch between what we really needed and what the system was designed for. Our core job wasn’t logging activities, it was protecting the momentum in high-trust, high-customization workflows.
I’d love to see more CRMs start with that question: What are your clients really hiring you to help them avoid or achieve? Because once you solve for that, the rest of the features become much easier to prioritize.
Just so I can hop on the fast-follower bandwagon, think of the end-state. Is it really "protecting the momentum in high-trust, high-customization workflow" or is it some more abstracted while being more tangible?
I've explained it like this for years ..."how much would an executive pay for an appliance that swiped his credit card for $1 and $10 out the other end?" While that's fantastical, isn't it kind of what AI is doing on a number of fronts? Ask it for an outcome, and it delivers.
That's where we're going, and that will completely disrupt "CRM" as we've known it for 30'ish years.
I get what you’re pointing to,the goal isn’t just momentum, it’s leveraged outcomes. Especially in high-stakes client work, the “job” is really about preserving forward motion toward a win, while minimizing friction and risk at each step.
If CRM evolves into something that lets me say “this is what success looks like for this deal” and then quietly aligns the moving parts around it,follow-ups, cross-functional nudges, surfacing weak signals,that’s worth more than any dashboard.
AI may get us there eventually, but it still needs better context from us on why this moment matters. That’s the part I’m still trying to design for in our stack.
So, we can have multiple main(core) jobs? Or just 1 main(core) job ? Or they are different things? Thanks
Is there only a single core process in an enterprise? The answer is that the job is an angle and how we look at a problem, not how you do it. So you can fine tune the angle in the number of different ways.
I'm not sure if I got the context of your question completely right