> Additional Comments:
>
> I agree that some users do not fully understand the "roll-up" hierarchy of
> the BCM Business Contact to Account Record and accordingly they may
> mistake
> the need to link both Record items separately in what is ultimately a
> redundant manner. Setting that matter aside, I reiterate that my primary
> concern is with the very common scenario where entirely separate Business
> Contacts from entirely separate organizations are often involved with
> closing
> an opportunity. Many times this is the case with referring vendors,
> secondary re-selling partners, etc. The traditional response from MS to
> this
> scenario might simply be that I should migrate to their fuller functional
> CRM
> solution with its additional roles assignments to meet my needs. Such a
> move
> would be overkill however because I am after all just a "small business"
> with
> far less than 25 users, etc. I sit right within BCM's intended target
> user
> base yet there is little flexibility to allow for this common opportunity
> development reality which definitely exists not just for large enterprise
> level opportunity development but also a smaller organization's everyday
> opportunity activitiy. My particular small business opportunity workflow
> usage needs are not really that rare. That is why BCM's
> "one-size-fits-all"
> restrictive linking functionality just won't "fit" for me unless I choose
> to
> compromise and adapt myself needlessly into just "living-with" this
> limitation.
>
> Also setting aside the Opportunity Record linking restriction, this
> linking
> limitation additionally exists between the relationship of Business
> Contact
> Record to Account Record. Many users would realize powerful business tool
> benefit (vs. mere convenience) from multiple linking of additional Account
> Records to a single Business Contact Record. With BCM v. 3 this is still
> only 1 Account Record allowed to be linked per Business Contact Record. I
> view posts here regularly with an all too familiar innocent request for
> help
> with how to accomplish this only then to receive replies explaining that
> this
> feature is "not supported" etc. Again, rather than putting so much energy
> into explaining away why something is not supported or not needed, etc.,
> why
> not just evolve the changes necessary in future release updates to simply
> SUPPORT this kind of functionality? Adding value to the user is always a
> preferred option vs. excuses.
>
> BCM has some excellent design features and conveniences but because of
> some
> important usage oversights it serves more as a basic customer manager that
> can work restrictively for some users but also leaves out many other
> common
> small business users who also really do not need to move into the MS
> Dynamics
> CRM solution. I have maintained for over 3 years that there is much
> additional room for more robust functionality with BCM in order to more
> effectively accomodate the most basic needs of its intended user base
> target.
> I also maintain that this could be easily accomplished without infringing
> upon the targeted user base potential that would need and migrate on to MS
> CRM.
>
> I realize that my comments here may read as somewhat lecturesome. They
> are
> consistently offered however in the spirit of constructive discussion and
> feedback.
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> -THP
>
>
>
>
> mrtimpeterson wrote:
>>Thank you for your thoughtful response Lon.
>>
>>I am looking forward to reading your "BCM for Dummies" release.
>>
>>One Opportunity linking workaround option I have advocated in the past
>>here
>>involves an Opportunity workflow process where the user permanently links
>>(to
>>each necessary Opportunity Record item) a native Outlook "working task"
>>record whose next follow up date is always manually re-set into the future
>>per the next task to be done after completion of the existing task
>>subject.
>>This will always maintain the place of this linked task item at the top of
>>the list of history items that "roll-up." By doing this a user can
>>maintain
>>a constantly linked-in-place "secondary" record through which multiple
>>additional BCM Business Contact & Account record items can be linked to.
>>This is possible because inside each Outlook task is the "Contacts" field
>>where you can display these additional linked items. This does make for
>>some
>>less than ideal navigation but it can help.
>>
>>You also wrote:
>>
>>[Secondly, my experience after implementing ACT! for 15+ years is that
>>people
>>want to link things to multiple records so they can find stuff easily.
>>Looking in the history for an account or contact and seeing everything
>>you've
>>ever done with that contact is handy but it's becoming less critical now
>>that
>>there are better search options."]
>>
>>Being "handy" with respect to navigational ease of use and "finding stuff"
>>is
>>always preferred. This is what great user friendly software is supposed
>>to
>>be all about. It goes without saying that a user can always go to the
>>bother
>>of doing a search for something but well designed software should always
>>have
>>the user's experience more incorporated in its design. I would contend
>>that
>>your 80/20 rule is valid for the impatience factor among some users.
>>There
>>is more to my concern however than the issue of mere convenience and
>>speed.
>>
>>Numerous common real world scenarios of exactly how a business opportunity
>>unfolds in its development process from Lead stage to closing very often
>>has
>>MANY different people and many different organizations involved and not
>>just
>>only 1 person or organization. I am not so concerned about how fast,
>>convenient, or handy the additional linking contributes to the process
>>rather
>>I just want to be able to "REMEMBER" exactly who is who with respect to
>>the
>>opportunity. It may sound like my real world usage issue is a
>>statistically
>>dismissable, theoretically remote occurance and this certainly never
>>occured
>>to me either up front in my BCM adoption as a user but it wasn't until I
>>got
>>into the real live "meat of daily usage" with this tool that I discovered
>>this workflow limitation.
>>
>>It is is great that finally with the improved BCM v. 3 you can now click
>>on
>>the (only 1 allowed) linked Business Contact or Account Record as a hot
>>link
>>and be able to navigate directly from the Opportunity Record to that 1
>>only
>>linked data item. In past versions this was always a dead link that only
>>displayed item without allowing the convenient navigation to it. Again
>>though, more than just navigation convenience of nano seconds vs. seconds,
>>there remains a basic need to be able to record and track ALL of the
>>players
>>(often separate individuals and separate organizations) involved with
>>one's
>>current opportunities more completely. I have used the Avidian Prophet
>>application (competitive 3rd party develper alternative to BCM found at
>>www.avidian.com) and this feature is so eminently useful. It is also no
>>big
>>deal with respect to the programming required to add this capability to
>>the
>>opportunity record. I could understand otherwise if the code involved
>>were
>>way beyond what is possible for a SQL db but "many-to-many" relational
>>data
>>bases are the strength of SQL as state of the art.
>>
>>We can all certainly attempt to rationalize or debate whether or not
>>certain
>>percentage of users can live with or without certain features but I would
>>advocate once again the question: Why not for the sake of product
>>excellence
>>just incorporate this powerful functionality feature and thus make BCM all
>>that much more relevant for a user's real world needs?
>>
>>When one thinks of good software design it is thought of as powerful and
>>highly adaptive vs. needlessly mediocre and restrictively limiting.
>>
>>-THP
>>
>>>Tim:
>>>
>>[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
>>>>>> really
>>>>>> well. Thanks
>
> --
> Message posted via OfficeKB.com
>
http://www.officekb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/outlook-bcm/200702/1>