Thank you, Medha and I agree with most of your CRM definition. Great job! I especially agree with continuing this thread so we can all benefit from the varying definitions. Although the unique requirements of each organization will probably never be enable us to truly "put a fence around it" (with "it" being the definition of CRM), I feel the "fence" will never be a concrete wall. It will always have to be flexible and will always have holes... which may hold confuits to other systems or just nuances that need to be plugged by a customization of a given system. I've seen the definition of CRM flex and change in 40 years I've been servicing all types of businesses. I feel that the most important "flexes" that CRM systems have made in the recent past (this is a personal opinion) are:
There are only a couple full ERP systems out there that have easy to use and robust CRM modules that are fully integrated with financials and other non-profit processes - like distribution. When a non-profit is considering a management system, I suggest that they look at the entirety of their business processes and see how dependent each process is on the others. I think what they will find is that the processes are all very dependent (integrated) with each other and; therefore, the system supporting the work needs to be fully integrated as well. For instance, for a food bank, there are processes to raise funds, gather volunteers, advertise, receive goods, and track the community to serve - all CRM. There are also processes to possibly employ people, distribute goods, and, of course, report on all of it easily and effectively - including or especially the financials. That begs for an ERP that includes or integrates with CRM. And, in today's world, that probably means a modern system written for the internet. I could go on... but let's get this thread somewhere we can continue.