What number should a systems build actually be held to

Question

A typical proposal for a CRM and systems build across a small portfolio reads as all nouns in the deliverables section. Pipelines configured, sequences written, integration connected, training session delivered. Every one of those is verifiable and none of them says whether the thing worked. Asking for a number in the agreement usually gets the same answer: consultants can't be held to conversion because they don't control who answers the phone, which is fair. Nobody can promise an outcome and shouldn't be asked to. But taken all the way, that argument leaves the only accountability as whether the software is switched on. The realistic candidates. Speed to lead, which the system genuinely controls, though it says nothing about whether anyone converts. Percentage of leads with a logged touch inside seven days, which measures whether people actually use what got built. Appointments set per hundred leads, closer to the money and heavily dependent on staff execution. Or no number at all, judged in month three by whether anyone opens the system. A measurable line in writing is usually worth insisting on for a buyer who wants the boring version that works, with one caveat: a number in a contract tends to get optimized for its own sake rather than for the outcome it was meant to stand in for. What would the room actually put in writing, if anything.

luis_carrera · Answer

Take the vote and not the reasoning below, but the metric that seems hardest to game is a logged touch inside seven days. Speed to lead can be hit with an auto-reply that does nothing, and appointments depend on the team's own follow through. Usage is the thing a build either causes or doesn't.

dpatel_re · Answer

Underwriting depends on this exact question, so here's the unromantic version. A metric in a services contract is only meaningful if there's a remedy attached, and the remedy people actually accept is more unpaid work, which isn't wanted either. A better approach is to stage the payment: some at build, some at 30 days once agreed usage numbers show up in the reporting. Same discipline, no argument about causation. The exact wording of any of that is a lawyer question.

nicole_adeyemi · Answer

@dpatelre staging the payment is the answer. Take a land pipeline build as an example: hold back a quarter of the fee until you can see 60 days of records with dates on them. That kind of holdback changes a consultant's behavior in the training phase more than anything in the scope does, because they suddenly care whether the system gets used. @luiscarrera usage is right, and whoever defines usage should be the client, before the build, or it gets defined afterward as whatever happened.

What number should a systems build actually be held to

3 replies