the basic information about their daily activities. The User- Managers believed the SFA’s main purpose was to give them occasional reports about User-Reps’ performance.
7.2.2 Incongruence in Technology Strategy
A second incongruence was that Champions, on one hand, believed they had a clear strategy and vision for implementing Siebel SFA and for innovating the VoiceTech sales process
“We decided that POINT really wasn’t going to be able to take us where we wanted to go. When we looked at, well, … ultimately we want to be able to have our sales reps equipped with a [mobile] device that they can use in the field, POINT didn’t really have that connection built in whereas Siebel did. Siebel [is] our base CRM for everything else that we do. They were willing to give us great pricing. So, strategically we thought this would be a better path for us to go down to implement [solutions] that will tie into everything else that we have already.
On the other hand, the Innovators believed VoiceTech lacked a global vision and was only tactical in implementing and adopting technologies and making small incremental changes to the sales process
“I think we have a lot of that information in different places, but I think what we’re having to find is as a global initiative, we haven’t taken like a global vision and documented that.” [39:602]
“I think what you’re asking for is what we would call a vision statement about what in a perfect world, how would we want this whole thing to work in a global sense. We have to find that right now.” [39:622]
This incongruence between the Champions, who led VoiceTech, and the Innovators, who were charged with implementing the new SFA created uncertainty about how to enhance the sales performance. Both stakeholder groups wanted an SFA that provided enhanced benefits to the whole sales organization. However, without clearly communicated and achievable goals, the technology strategy’s existence was in question.
7.2.3 Incongruence in Projected value of technology vs. Consequences from use of technology
The third incongruence, on one hand, was the User-Reps believed the SFA should provide support for them to make smarter decisions. This was reinforced by User-Reps seeing much value in having enhanced prospect data
“I feel like we should have a list like go to these specific businesses this week. They have not been hit in a while. Their contracts are coming up or they are not
Chapter 7 Analysis of TFRs: A Static View
115
in a binding contract, we haven’t talked to them in a while, these would be good prospects. But instead it is just ‘go find them.’ “[9:16]
However, on the other hand, the Users-Managers believed the SFA would help them control User-Rep activities. This view was enforced by User-Manager comments on how they believed the SFA should be used
“Every sales team fills out [a report] every Friday night and turns it in to our vice president who then sends it to people above them … Pulling the report is very beneficial to us because … reps can’t lie to us [by saying] “I ran this many appointments, I ran eight.” We can look and see if they really ran four. They may have had eight scheduled but four of them canceled. I think it’s really beneficial … to see their closing ratio. I think that stuff is very, very beneficial for us as management.” [22:2]
The User-Reps wanted to use the SFA to make themselves smarter sales reps. They believed they could use SFA information to target prospects with expiring competitor contracts. The User-Managers believed additional information should be used to control sales reps more effectively. The incongruence was in how these stakeholders perceived SFA value. Should sales reps discover sales managers using sales-rep- entered information against the sales reps, the likely result would be decreased SFA use.
Table 7.6 Summary of Incongruecy Evidence
Incongruency Summary
Use of Technology
• Champions, Innovators – Nuanced view of how technology can improve sales performance
• Technologists, Users – simpler view restricted to few areas of sales process
Technology Strategy
• Champions- believed VoiceTech had a clear strategy and vision for implementing SFA
• Innovators – believed VoiceTech lacked a global vision and was merely tactical in implementing SFA
Projected value versus Consequences from use of technology
• User-Reps – believed SFA should provide support for making smarter decisions
• User-Managers – believed SFA would help them control User-Rep activities
7.3
Inconsistency evidence and analysis
Finally, as part of the static analysis of TFRs at VoiceTech, we go beyond Orlikowski and Gash’s approach by analyzing TFR inconsistencies. Inconsistencies reveal important differences in understanding within roles as the innovation effort was initiated. Evidence of these differences is presented here based on comparisons of statements within each role. Table 7.7 summarizes these inconsistencies.
Chapter 7 Analysis of TFRs: A Static View