Because principles are good to have.

I’m vetting ten VRM principles here: all grist for next week’s VRM Workshop mill. We’ll be changing these as the workshop approaches, I’m sure.

Note that these apply to management of relations with vendors by customers: the narrowest scope of VRM. The larger topic of relationship managmement (RM) is part of the discussion as well. Obviously there are other relationships — with chuches, clubs, civic organizations, government bodies and so on — where VRM tools apply, but the individual is not a customer. Do we want to broaden things by saying “individual” and “organization” rather than “customer” and “vendor”? I think we’re better off with the former than the latter, but I’m open.

  1. VRM provides tools for customers to manage relationships with vendors. These tools are personal. They can also be social, but they are personal first.
  2. VRM tools are are customer tools. They are driven by the customer, and not under vendor control. Nor to they work only inside any one vendor’s exclusive relationship environment.
  3. VRM tools relate. This means they engage vendors’ systems (e.g. CRM) in ways that work for both sides.
  4. VRM tools support transaction and conversation as well as relationship.
  5. With VRM, customers are the central “points of integration” for their own data.
  6. With VRM, customers control their own data. They control the data they share, and the terms on which that data is shared.
  7. With VRM, customers can assert many things. Among these are requests for products or services, preferences, memberships, transaction histories and terms of service.
  8. There is no limit on the variety of data and data types customers can hold — and choose to share with vendors and others on grounds that the customer controls.
  9. VRM turns the customer, and productive customer-vendor relationships, into platforms for many kinds of businesses.
  10. VRM is based on open standards, open APIs and open code. This will support a rising tide of activity that will lift an infinite variety of business boats, and other social goods.

1 Comment

  1. Iain Henderson

    Yes, I think it would be better to have ‘individual’ and ‘organization’. These principles would have to come down a level or two to be usable in a compliance model?



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2023 ProjectVRM

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑