Beta Testing for the next BCM?

[boe]

I've spent a few hours playing with the current BCM and feel that a major
change/new version must be in the works. I would be happy to sign up as a
beta tester if there is an easy place to sign up please let me know.

 

[Luther]

The first Office beta is expected this month. The URL to sign up was
posted a while back. You can probably find it by searching this group
on Google.

 

[boe]

Thanks - I did a search but couldn't find it. If it isn't too late to sign
up, I would love the link.

 

[boe]

I found this - unfortunately it doesn't mention BCM - honestly at this
point - BCM integration with Exhchange is about the only thing that would
justify an upgrade of office for any of my employees. Outlook is still the
product that needs the most development in my opinion.

Activesync hangs Outlook when trying to exit Outlook - not sure if that is
more Activesync or Outlook at fault.
Outlook is still notorious for not really exiting even though the icon is
gone from the tray.
You can't run to Outlook profiles simultaneously.
Outlook searches - don't give you the right information if you do a search
covering inbox and sent items you have to change the fields/columns
afterwards to display To AND From
Profiles with more than one account - it frequently shows the same account
inbox in more than one account!

BCM does not show in OWA
BCM does not sync with WM5
BCM can't sync with the normal inbox.

I honestly don't have any pressing issues with Word or Excel or Powerpoint

OK - Access still sucks for picture integration - space useage, does not
register picture objects(JPGs) properly.

 

[Luther]

Office Beta 1 is out.

BCM 3 supports custom fields!

None of the items on your list look like they'll make it into BCM v3.

I'm curious about this recent out cry for OWA support. In one of the
BCM docs a couple years ago, Microsoft indicated that BCM was targeted
at small businesses, which back then meant 95% of expected users would
have from 1 PC to 5 PCs in a workgroup network. The other 5% might have
a dedicated server, a domain, or even Exchange. So the request for OWA
support is a little surprising. Doesn't that require an Exchange server
on the internet? Are these requests coming from small businesses? Or
did Microsoft misjudge the audience for BCM and it's actually corporate
IT departments that are trying to use BCM?

Just curious.

 

[boe]

Sorry - I tend to think of a small business as any under 50 users - Small
Business Server is targeted for such companies and it includes Exchange w/
OWA. I think of 5 or less PCs as home office, not small business.

 

[boe]

Oh - and another thing it really could use - right click on an incoming
e-mail and add contact to bcm contact - not regular contact.

 

[Luther]

I agree the messaging of "small business" is confused--MS CRM also has
a version for "small business" that's clearly intended for a different
size customer.

 

[Tim P via OfficeKB.com]

I don't think that usage needs are as much determined by the size of the
organization as Microsoft would like to project as a justification for BCM's
design and function. This is likely why BCM limitations have existed due in
large measure to this limited thinking paradigm. Why not make the
application as versatile as possible and attract a broader range of business
entities? I understand that no application can be everything to everyone in
every situation but BCM's limitations are laughable and not due to a
miscalculation over the intended user base. I don't know of a single smaller
sized user that is content with the rudimentary features of BCM as being well
targeted to their needs. For the most part the smaller users (like myself)
that find a way to use BCM just "live-with" these things and hope for
improvement over time. Whether it is 1 to 5 users vs. 20 or 30 is irrelevant.
Remote access to a centralized source of data will meet the demands of all of
these users equally. Hopefully, the small business edition of the upcoming
CRM 3.0 release will be priced sensibly as a monthly web hosted option in
order to provide this type of need.

-THP

 

[Tim P via OfficeKB.com]

Additonal thought:

One of the most notable trends over the past decade has been the evolving
demand for more versatile access to one's data. Mobile computing from
anywhere at anytime has been a guiding directive for Microsoft and rhetoric
aside, they show a lot of promise with this ... sometimes. If there were 1
feature change I would love to see above all of the others on my very large
wish list of BCM improvements, it would be the ability to more easily access
my BCM data from any location without the hassle of synching,etc. BCM is
built upon the .Net framework and could be made much more web-centric. I
wear a lot of different hats with my service business and these different
roles rarely have me sitting conveniently inside of my little office under 1
roof using my peer to peer network as a sharing method. I am usually the
mobile warrior on the run with my laptop at my side. My "Small Business"
office is more often where ever I happen to be. BCM remains too much of a
limited geographic-specific application in my opinion in this regard. As I
intend to grow and add others to my enterprise it will be more and more
difficult to collaborate effectively with these others in my team. There are
numerous sales force workers out there who could use something like BCM but
rarely are they ever under the same roof yet they need to coordinate data in
an easily centralized fashion. This seems to be a fairly common theme from a
lot of the posts in this newsgroup regarding data sharing. I just hope that
posting my own real world usage needs are helpful in this regard.

-THP

 

[boe]

The truth is only about 3 people in each of the companies I consult for
would like the BCM. I work with 5 companies that would all benefit from BCM
if it synced with there exchange for OWA and WM5 access. All of those
companies do have exchange servers. The big claim to fame for v2 of BCM is
that it "works with exchange" It doesn't really work WITH exchange, it just
doesn't prevent clients using Exchange in their outlook profile. As the
saying goes if you aren't working WITH me your are working AGAINST me.
Frankly the fact is in my opinion is that BCM works AGAINST exchange as it
does not in any way INTEGRATE with exchange so it leaves you WANTING so many
simple things that should be there IMHO. Seriously 5 hours of a
programmers time could make a sync program for contacts to bcm contacts -
that would make this product 75% function vs. the current 25% functional
feeling anyone with an exchange server would have. Now I'm sure MS thinks
hey why not just buy our CRM server. Seriously for 3 people to get just a
tiny feature added? They would seriously be getting some bonus points if
they just FIXED this flaw in BCM. This is one case where their planned
obsolescence would seriously give their image harm if they don't just fix
the flaw.

 

[Tim P via OfficeKB.com]

I guess I'm not done yet here!

I currently have only 3 people in my small business including myself. The
apparent features soon to be available in the new Microsoft CRM 3.0 will meet
our current collaborative needs far better than BCM allows. This reality for
us anyway is proof positive that the "size" of the small business is not the
issue rather it is how the small business must operate in today's highly
competitive, entrepreneurial environment. (the real world) The demand for
more versatile features from BCM transcends the size of the organization. I
would suspect that how my small sized business relates to its operating data
is far from being rare. It is likely that a majority of smaller entities
like myself operate very similar and it seems very disconnected for Microsoft
to so simply represent that their full CRM will meet the needs of the larger
players while BCM will meet the needs of the smaller players. This just
doesn't square with the reality of so many smaller players. This rhetoric is
more likely coming from a place of theoretical "marketing-speak" rather than
reality. Thus we have so many posts about how to effectively share BCM data
among various team members. Rather than trying to construct such a limited
model of options for small business to conform to I would think that
Microsoft's approach could be broadened to better reflect how so many users
truly operate. More empathy to their much varied user base will go a long
way toward improving BCM for more wide spread adoption among the millions of
Office system licensees.

-THP

Additonal thought:

One of the most notable trends over the past decade has been the evolving
demand for more versatile access to one's data. Mobile computing from
anywhere at anytime has been a guiding directive for Microsoft and rhetoric
aside, they show a lot of promise with this ... sometimes. If there were 1
feature change I would love to see above all of the others on my very large
wish list of BCM improvements, it would be the ability to more easily access
my BCM data from any location without the hassle of synching,etc. BCM is
built upon the .Net framework and could be made much more web-centric. I
wear a lot of different hats with my service business and these different
roles rarely have me sitting conveniently inside of my little office under 1
roof using my peer to peer network as a sharing method. I am usually the
mobile warrior on the run with my laptop at my side. My "Small Business"
office is more often where ever I happen to be. BCM remains too much of a
limited geographic-specific application in my opinion in this regard. As I
intend to grow and add others to my enterprise it will be more and more
difficult to collaborate effectively with these others in my team. There are
numerous sales force workers out there who could use something like BCM but
rarely are they ever under the same roof yet they need to coordinate data in
an easily centralized fashion. This seems to be a fairly common theme from a
lot of the posts in this newsgroup regarding data sharing. I just hope that
posting my own real world usage needs are helpful in this regard.

-THP

I don't think that usage needs are as much determined by the size of the
organization as Microsoft would like to project as a justification for BCM's

[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]

 

[Tim P via OfficeKB.com]

"...Are these requests coming from small businesses? Or
did Microsoft misjudge the audience for BCM and it's actually corporate
IT departments that are trying to use BCM?

Just curious."

Hey Luther,

Looking back up this thread it is obvious to me that your previous curious
comments are what prompted my subsequent lengthy posts. To put it more
succintly, I believe indeed that there is either a serious misjudgement of
the audience for BCM or this is just (more likely) part of an intended
strategy to drive further adoption of the full CRM application which I am
seriously having to comtemplate for my own (very small) business needs.

Thank you for prompting my thought process with your curious question.

-THP

I guess I'm not done yet here!

I currently have only 3 people in my small business including myself. The
apparent features soon to be available in the new Microsoft CRM 3.0 will meet
our current collaborative needs far better than BCM allows. This reality for
us anyway is proof positive that the "size" of the small business is not the
issue rather it is how the small business must operate in today's highly
competitive, entrepreneurial environment. (the real world) The demand for
more versatile features from BCM transcends the size of the organization. I
would suspect that how my small sized business relates to its operating data
is far from being rare. It is likely that a majority of smaller entities
like myself operate very similar and it seems very disconnected for Microsoft
to so simply represent that their full CRM will meet the needs of the larger
players while BCM will meet the needs of the smaller players. This just
doesn't square with the reality of so many smaller players. This rhetoric is
more likely coming from a place of theoretical "marketing-speak" rather than
reality. Thus we have so many posts about how to effectively share BCM data
among various team members. Rather than trying to construct such a limited
model of options for small business to conform to I would think that
Microsoft's approach could be broadened to better reflect how so many users
truly operate. More empathy to their much varied user base will go a long
way toward improving BCM for more wide spread adoption among the millions of
Office system licensees.

-THP

Additonal thought:

[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]

 

[boe]

Yeah size is VERY relative. I have a client with only 25 employees but
since they are in the graphics industry and refuse to use FTP or other such
options they had to get the "enterprise edition" of Exchange. Now with SP2
the data store would have been adequate but two small companies I work with
had to pay a pretty penny just to store their e-mail. I think MS could
throw the enterprise people a bone let alone those who paid for MS pro and
integrate BCM with exchange. I reiterate - they are not looking for a FULL
CRM solution. All they need is the BCM contacts in their exchange account
so they can get it OWA and WM5 activesync. BCM already tracks all of the
information they need - they aren't looking for more fields, bells/whistles
a fancy web interface etc. All they want is the contacts basic info - not
even the extra activity data (although that would be great) available with
OWA which in turn would be part of WM5. So I'm not asking them to reinvent
the wheel or to add a LOAD of features just a simple function they
neglected/left out so you would be forced to buy a CRM product. Hell, they
could be a stand up company and let us trade those Enterprise licenses back
in for standar licences and then we could afford a CRM product even though
we don't really want one or they could just flip the switch and put sync or
integration in with exchange. I've done my share of programming back in the
day and lead a team of developers so MS can't say OOOOH that would take
years of development or some such nonsense. I've already contacted MAPILABS
with my suggestion for a simple sync tool - probably won't cost more than
$20 per user. Too bad MS is going to miss out on all the good press/good
will that this simple change could make since MS won't let these ideas get
back to them or make it impossible to get any dialogue on things like this.

I'd recommend more people contact MAPILABS or other such add on companies
that fix the gaps in outlook so that some solution becomes available.

I guess I'm not done yet here!

I currently have only 3 people in my small business including myself. The
apparent features soon to be available in the new Microsoft CRM 3.0 will
meet
our current collaborative needs far better than BCM allows. This reality
for
us anyway is proof positive that the "size" of the small business is not
the
issue rather it is how the small business must operate in today's highly
competitive, entrepreneurial environment. (the real world) The demand for
more versatile features from BCM transcends the size of the organization.
I
would suspect that how my small sized business relates to its operating
data
is far from being rare. It is likely that a majority of smaller entities
like myself operate very similar and it seems very disconnected for
Microsoft
to so simply represent that their full CRM will meet the needs of the
larger
players while BCM will meet the needs of the smaller players. This just
doesn't square with the reality of so many smaller players. This rhetoric
is
more likely coming from a place of theoretical "marketing-speak" rather
than
reality. Thus we have so many posts about how to effectively share BCM
data
among various team members. Rather than trying to construct such a
limited
model of options for small business to conform to I would think that
Microsoft's approach could be broadened to better reflect how so many
users
truly operate. More empathy to their much varied user base will go a long
way toward improving BCM for more wide spread adoption among the millions
of
Office system licensees.

-THP

Additonal thought:

One of the most notable trends over the past decade has been the evolving
demand for more versatile access to one's data. Mobile computing from
anywhere at anytime has been a guiding directive for Microsoft and
rhetoric
aside, they show a lot of promise with this ... sometimes. If there were
1
feature change I would love to see above all of the others on my very
large
wish list of BCM improvements, it would be the ability to more easily
access
my BCM data from any location without the hassle of synching,etc. BCM is
built upon the .Net framework and could be made much more web-centric. I
wear a lot of different hats with my service business and these different
roles rarely have me sitting conveniently inside of my little office under
1
roof using my peer to peer network as a sharing method. I am usually the
mobile warrior on the run with my laptop at my side. My "Small Business"
office is more often where ever I happen to be. BCM remains too much of a
limited geographic-specific application in my opinion in this regard. As
I
intend to grow and add others to my enterprise it will be more and more
difficult to collaborate effectively with these others in my team. There
are
numerous sales force workers out there who could use something like BCM
but
rarely are they ever under the same roof yet they need to coordinate data
in
an easily centralized fashion. This seems to be a fairly common theme
from a
lot of the posts in this newsgroup regarding data sharing. I just hope
that
posting my own real world usage needs are helpful in this regard.

-THP

I don't think that usage needs are as much determined by the size of the
organization as Microsoft would like to project as a justification for
BCM's

[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]

a version for "small business" that's clearly intended for a different
size customer.

 

[boe]

Does it really matter? For all I care they could make it functional with
exchange contacts instead of BCM contacts which aren't accessable via OWA or
WM5. They could put some sort of governor on exchange - 5 users free - $20
for each addional user - whatever. I don't care how they limit it as long
as they give you about 5 for free and didn't make you install another server
or software package. They would get good press and more income if they just
fixed this flaw/gap!

"...Are these requests coming from small businesses? Or
did Microsoft misjudge the audience for BCM and it's actually corporate
IT departments that are trying to use BCM?

Just curious."

Hey Luther,

Looking back up this thread it is obvious to me that your previous curious
comments are what prompted my subsequent lengthy posts. To put it more
succintly, I believe indeed that there is either a serious misjudgement of
the audience for BCM or this is just (more likely) part of an intended
strategy to drive further adoption of the full CRM application which I am
seriously having to comtemplate for my own (very small) business needs.

Thank you for prompting my thought process with your curious question.

-THP

I guess I'm not done yet here!

I currently have only 3 people in my small business including myself. The
apparent features soon to be available in the new Microsoft CRM 3.0 will
meet
our current collaborative needs far better than BCM allows. This reality
for
us anyway is proof positive that the "size" of the small business is not
the
issue rather it is how the small business must operate in today's highly
competitive, entrepreneurial environment. (the real world) The demand for
more versatile features from BCM transcends the size of the organization.
I
would suspect that how my small sized business relates to its operating
data
is far from being rare. It is likely that a majority of smaller entities
like myself operate very similar and it seems very disconnected for
Microsoft
to so simply represent that their full CRM will meet the needs of the
larger
players while BCM will meet the needs of the smaller players. This just
doesn't square with the reality of so many smaller players. This rhetoric
is
more likely coming from a place of theoretical "marketing-speak" rather
than
reality. Thus we have so many posts about how to effectively share BCM
data
among various team members. Rather than trying to construct such a
limited
model of options for small business to conform to I would think that
Microsoft's approach could be broadened to better reflect how so many
users
truly operate. More empathy to their much varied user base will go a long
way toward improving BCM for more wide spread adoption among the millions
of
Office system licensees.

-THP

Additonal thought:

[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]

a version for "small business" that's clearly intended for a different
size customer.

 

[boe]

If anyone here does manage to become a beta tester of BCM v3 could you
please, OH please recommend they give some OWA.

Thank you!

 

[Luther]

I'll leave it to the marketing department of BCM to address all your
points but here are a few things I think are worth considering.

In the first presentation I saw of BCM 1.0, Microsoft pointed out that
most small businesses were using Win98 and Office9x. Their intent with
BCM was to add some features to Outlook to make upgrading more
interesting to those companies with 1-5 PCs running Win98. There was no
intent to make BCM as the CRM tool for every customer. I'm sure they'd
have loved to have such a killer app, but I've had some contact with
the BCM folks and they are a small team, working within the constraints
of writing an addin inside Outlook. For assorted legal reasons they're
equivalent to any other company developing an Outlook Add-in. They are
not part of Office Outlook and don't have any control over Outlook.
This, of course, doesn't make sense to customers that buy an Office
package, but that's politics. And that said, I would say that judging
from the BCM v3 beta, it looks like Outlook listening to BCM
suggestions about making it easier for Add-ins to do their job.

Another thing that I think is confusing is that OWA should really be
named Exchange Web Access and not Outlook, as its a web app for
accessing Exchange servers and not a replacement for Outlook
desktop--i.e. it doesn't work with POP email, which is what most small
businesses use for email.

It's probably wrong to classify businesses solely by number of users;
e.g. an expensive professional consulting firm with five users is
obviously not the same as a mom-and-pop retailer with the same number
of users. BCM is bundled with Office, and intended to get firms with
little IT budget to upgrade to the latest Microsoft software, while MS
CRM costs upwards of a $1000 and is intened for a firm with an IT guy
to install and maintain it.

I don't know if the BCM marketing message will change, but from the
beta it's obvious that the software is still targeting the same small
business audience.

 

[boe]

Thanks for your responses. Too bad MS doen't allow easy feedback on such a
simple change to their product. I seriously believe the only reason they
wouldn't at least make an updated version of Outlook Pocket Contact Sync is
to try and get people to buy the CRM product. OK, lets assume I'm willing
to spend the $1000 for the CRM product (which we aren't) I don't think it
will solve our needs - they want to go into their standard OWA interface,
not some other one. They don't want to add any addional software on their
exchange server and they don't want to have to install another server. They
want to be able to sync the data using Active Sync so it goes to their
regular contacts. Most the the MS CRM page looks like marketing mumbo
jumbo - doesn't really cut to the points I'm interested or I'm just being an
idiot and looking in the wrong place (entirely possible - I don't deny that
fact). But it sure woudl be great if they just let you stick with plain old
exchange and Outlook and didn't have you jump through hoops to get what you
want to access through outlook/owa/wm5

 

[boe]

I have a client with only three people with an exchange/file server. This
isn't some consulting firm but a retail business. I think it is time MS
respected the SMALL clients that they have who are willing to pay for their
server products but can't justify spending huge wads of cash for every
single add on MS is trying to sell. Hell, they hooked tons of small
business with SBS - why not give them SBS w/BCM?

 

[Tim P via OfficeKB.com]

Boe,

I am participating in the BCM v3 beta and you can bet your life that they
will hear this from me. (Constructively of course) It is my opinion that
the design "politics" and the marketing of BCM need to join up to better
reflect the real needs of small business or this add-in app will remain
largely irrelevant for most users. It's just amazing for me to observe such
apparent indifference to such a large chunk of market share. (I don't design
or sell software though so what the heck do I know?) Full CRM does not have
to be extremely expensive and require an IT staff. That is the old
enterprise level development model and it is rapidly changing. Companies
like Salesforce.com are being watched very closely by Redmond and big changes
are afoot among the reseller partnership network to compete for the small
business piece of the pie. Many industry observers are skeptical that MS can
make this leap effectively. Contrary to what many may think from my posts, I
am a big cheerleader for them to pull this off but I have my healthy doubts
after several years of waiting. The BCM design team need not be relegated to
an afterthought team of developers. I would think that their efforts could
be more fully supported by the Office division if there was the larger
corporate will to do so.

We shall see!

-THP