4 out of 5.0, Reviewed May 10, 2016
Experience has been positive. User adoption was difficult because users expected a more intuitive interface.
Saturate end users with appropriate training.
Functionality and built in modules.
Not as intuitive as other Microsoft products.
Offer the stronger level of expertise on the product.
Implement in phases versus all of the organization. Spend more time streamlining processes.
3 out of 5.0, Reviewed Mar 31, 2016
Overall, because we're on premise our upgrade path has been slowed due to customizations in the application, which can now be handled out of the box with 2016.
Attend CRM Summit and the CRM User Groups in your area, it's a great experiance and you can understand a lot of information from users already on the platform.
Integration with other Microsoft Products.
In the past, Microsoft CRM was a bit slow in developing solutions that the industry was asking for such as Mobility, Social Listening, etc. However I've found they have played catch up and started to think more stratgically as an organization.
Built custom code, and handed off that knowledge so that engagement with them wasn't neccesary if changes were needed.
We would minimize customizations throughout the application to increase the viability of upgrading to the latest software. Also we would have implemented better data validation techniques to improve the accuracy of the data.
Just in the recent year or two they've really caught up to the industries needs.
Data Migration was a pain, however would have been regardless of application selected.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Mar 16, 2016
Matched our needs and we are a Microsoft shop so it integrates well with existing solutions
reseacrh pain points cloud vs on premises.
agile, easy to use, intiuative.
a lot of screens and end-users are overwhelmed by the number of fields to filter with.
find experts at implementing APIs (cloud) with on premises systems.
seek other firms with similar experiences.
The MS CRM Dynamics solution delivers as promised.
some difficulties integrating cloud soltuions into MS Dynamics because we had the on premises version. Example - Eloqua was a difficult fit into CRRM.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Dec 8, 2015
Good tool, easy implementation.
Tool handled all requirements.
Support was always available.
Guidelines were easy to follow.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Dec 7, 2015
Good. Product was easy to install, configure and learn.
Develop an adoption strategy.
Continuous improvement efforts.
It's still evolving and in order to obtain the functionality needed we had to secure the services of the third party solution provider in addition to Microsoft.
Assisted with an adoption strategy.
Build a strategy and roadmap for securing adoption.
Not all features have been expanded and you requires development by a third party.
Besides building data interfaces the product has been easy to get up and running.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Dec 3, 2015
Microsoft CRM product, integrates well with Outlook, UI is more modern and intuitive compared to our old CRM system.
Keep your service providers under your radar all the time, they are typically where the communication breaks.
Flexibility and integration with other MS applications.
The Outlook add-in made it unstable sometimes.
Better understanding of our requirements and systems.
Engage bot core and satellite system owners from the beginning to work out a detailed checklist, assign dedicated resources to engage the service provider more actively.
It's still too early to tell a complete story as we just rolled out the first phase.
3 out of 5.0, Reviewed Dec 2, 2015
Difficult to deploy, as well as difficult to upgrade and convert legacy data. High on cost and impact of maintenance.
Strongly consider balance forward approach.
Easy to customize and access data.
Performance - extremely slow.
Better timelines on support tickets.
Balance Approach - Will not bring forward any legacy data and remove customizations.
Does many things, but not all turn out well. Reporting is sparse and not always useful.
Long duration on service tickets with little communication on status.
Deployment of upgrade took a long time and was way over budget. Difficult to bring legacy data forward.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Nov 8, 2015
Pay attention in selecting the 3rd party integrator. They should be familiar with the industry as well, and not only the product.
Modern and it has a good roadmap.
Difficult to customize and needs some experience. Microsoft should develop more 3rd party vendors, at least in the Nordics, where there is not enough consulting power.
Listen to customer experiences and study the current business processes.
Reduce the amount of customization, and change processes instead.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Oct 7, 2015
We had performance problems early on in the process which have since been corrected, but cannot give a 5 due to the early problems.
Spend more time up front working through the implementation strategy - don't try to make everyone happy - focus on solving the core business challenges and add more functionality later.
Ease of implementation.
There could be better controls in place to assist with managing data.
Wish they had been more up front about performance impact - we worked through this, but it was painful in the early days.
We would take a more comprehensive review of our data needs and how individual business unit needs affect the overall objectives.
Product is functionaly rich, but waiting to see the 2016 version to see what else may be of value to us.
Our problems have since been solved, but we experienced performance problems early in the implemenation.
Integration was fairly straight-forward - no major concerns.
3 out of 5.0, Reviewed Oct 4, 2015
Flexible but complex.
Can be a great product but it requires much configuration ... it is not out of the box
Ease of use due to the MS look and feel.
Lack of out of the box and too much configuration required
Clearity of the complexity and requirment for configuration
Get a better picture from consulting partner and research...