It outlines how your organization should evolve with Salesforce over the next few years. The vision might be high-level or very detailed. It might be pragmatic, or a stretch. But whatever your vision is, your best chance to bring it to fruition is to select the right Salesforce Partner.
Here is a simple lens through which you can assess and score your potential Partners.
It outlines how your organization should evolve with Salesforce over the next few years. The vision might be high-level or very detailed. It might be pragmatic, or a stretch. But whatever your vision is, your best chance to bring it to fruition is to select the right Salesforce Partner.
Here is a simple lens through which you can assess and score your potential Partners.
To assess potential Partners, use the following criteria:
Overall
People
Process
Capabilities
To rate potential Partners, use the following rating:
Total score: / 100
There is a cultural fit with your vision. And, the culture of the Partner is in alignment with the other criteria (People, Process and Capabilities).
Deal clincher: coherence between culture and processes, feels genuine.
There is a disconnect between your vision and the advertised culture. Or, you can see a disconnect between the culture and the other criteria (People, Process and Capabilities).
Deal breaker: incoherence, feels disingenuous.
What do customers actually say about the Partner? Look for testimonials that are:
Deal clincher: The Partner has project testimonials from people who would work on YOUR project. It speaks to track record, as well as low turnover.
The proof is in the pudding. Be wary of:
Deal breaker: A lack of relevant testimonials is not necessarily a deal breaker, but it puts an additional burden of proof on the Partner for all the other criteria.
The people that will WORK on YOUR project are qualified. They have:
Deal clincher: the entire project team members, from analysts to developers and admins, are qualified. Not just a fraction of the team.
The people that will WORK on YOUR project do not seem sufficiently qualified. They lack:
Deal breaker: only a small fraction of the project team appears qualified. For example, the analysts are qualified, but the developers are not, or vice versa.
The project leaders and analysts that will WORK on YOUR project have industry expertise, which can take many forms, including:
Deal clincher: the questions asked by project leaders and analysts make you say “I hadn’t thought of that” or “we’ve been thinking about this for a while”.
The project leaders and analysts that will WORK on YOUR project:
Deal breaker: you don’t feel that you or your team can learn and grow from working with the Partner. Questions asked are not relevant and old assumptions are not challenged.
The Partner has low turnover, which is an achievement in the current IT job market. This reduces risk to your project on many fronts, including:
Deal clincher: the Partner can tell you who will work on your project and they are as advertised.
The Partner has high turnover, which increases risk to your project on many fronts, including:
Deal breaker: the Partner seems to be shuffling resources right and left and cannot tell you who exactly will do the work. This is a sign of high turnover or of a disconnected or generic way to dispatch work.
A modern, powerful, and flexible platform like Salesforce is ideal for continuous improvement. The Partner methodology you are looking for is:
Deal clincher: the Partner takes full advantage of the platform to deliver value quickly and keep adding value for your teams.
If you go back 20 years, implementation projects were talked about in 2, 3 or 5-year frameworks. The methodology used was waterfall. Red flags are:
Deal breaker: whatever the words used, everything feels like waterfall: never-ending requirements gathering, no MVP in sight, long and opaque implementations, etc.
This element is probably the least considered but often plays a substantial role in project delivery. You are looking for:
Deal clincher: a lean project team structure where the most knowledgeable people are the most empowered, thereby enabling a faster and higher quality delivery.
There are too many middlemen involved and accountability is lost. The structure is more adapted to waterfall than agile. Be wary of:
Deal breaker: count the degrees of separation between the main analysts gathering your requirements and the people doing the actual implementation. Having too many degrees of separation is a deal breaker.
The KPIs of the respective project team members ARE tied to your success. Examples:
Deal clincher: the Partner’s KPIs use a balanced approach of internal objectives, as well as customer-centric objectives, that are aligned with company culture. If the culture is not aligned with the objectives, there is a gap.
The KPIs of the respective project team members are NOT tied to your success. Examples:
Deal breaker: an example of a bad KPI would be developers who must clear tickets with a certain level of velocity… without the KPI mentioning that the ticket is only cleared if the solution is satisfactory to the customer. It’s very easy to “close” tickets.
A quantifiable track record that shows:
Deal clincher: the number of projects is not a deal clincher per se, but rather an indicator of size and years in business.
Too few projects or no other evidence of completed projects. A Partner with a significant track record should have:
Deal breaker: if your project is complex and highly customized, you want a Partner with a lot of project experience.
The Partner has the size to tackle your project. Pay special attention to numbers AND seniority. For example:
Deal clincher: the size is there AND the right experts are in the right roles.
The Partner is either too small or too big.
Too big:
Too small:
Deal breaker: the shoe simply doesn’t fit.
Tally your Potential Partners’ score and data you can assess. Don’t underestimate intangibles — on paper, a lot of Partners can look the same. Beyond clear measurable strengths and weaknesses, in the end, it might come down to culture and your gut feeling.
Accelerate your continuous improvement