CRM Phase 3 Development, support and maintenance - Questions and Answers

Transcription

1 No. Question Answer Are we able to discuss the requirements of this tender with the UKCES prior to submitting our proposal? Can we be placed on a list to be notified of future opportunities of this type? What is the size limit for submissions? Will the UK Commission pay for the preparation of our proposal and for expenses for attending an interview? Is the CRM system hosted in the cloud by a partner, is it direct with Microsoft hosted services or has this been an installed on premise with own servers? You mention licencing for 350 users for CRM is out of budget but which licences are you currently reviewing are these the Full CALS or the Limited CALS? Would the current implementer from Phase 1 or Phase 2 be invited for Phase 3 or will the successor have to pick up a not yet complete system, We are trying to understand who the current project success lays? The UK Commission will not discuss forthcoming or live tenders with individual suppliers as this could result in unintentionally giving them an unfair advantage. We would be pleased to receive, in writing, any questions which you may have. To be notified of new tenders posted please register on Contracts Finder and subscribe to the RSS / data feed. All suppliers are welcome to bid for our work but we do not operate any kind of preferred supplier list. Each tender is open to all who can fulfil the requirements; simply read the tender documents for any opportunity and respond with the information requested, details of the evaluation criteria and scoring systems are included with each Invitation to Tender. s should be no greater than 10MB in size. Any s which are bordering on the 10MB size limit MAY NOT reach tenders@ukces.org.uk and therefore cannot be considered. All submissions which reach the Tenders inbox will trigger an automated response confirming receipt. If you do not receive this automated response your submission has NOT been received and you should contact tenders immediately. Late submissions will not be considered whatever the cause of the delay. No the UK Commission will not reimburse any costs of preparing any application or for attending an interview. Our CRM system is currently on premise, on our own servers at our current hosting provider. We are anticipating making these servers hosted on the cloud but this would still be on premise with a Microsoft on premise solution. A separate ITT is going out soon covering this strand. We are not anticipating the purchase of 350 licences for MS Dynamics. We currently have 74 full CALS, of which 61 are Delivery Partner staff. We do anticipate that this number will grow as we begin to bring more Delivery Partners on board with the national CRM. We do not anticipate a scenario whereby outstanding work from phase 2 is passed on to the provider responsible for phase 3. This work has gone out to competitive market via an ITT and so any organisation with the expertise required is able to bid for this work. UKCES will select the winning provider using the criteria as outlined on pages 10 and 11. Page 1

2 There is talk of a Survey solution being offered but MyCRM have a Survey platform that integrates directly to CRM would this be an option moving forward? Do you have the Scribe service already set up and in use to move data around Are you currently using the Outlook connector for CRM giving end users access to the CRM via outlook and if so what version of outlook is being used in the organisation? A budget has been set of between 80 and 100k is this to also cover any additional licence costs or just service cost. Does the organisation have its own business analysis that can define the process or specification requirements of the work in more detail? What level of detailed documentation will be provided defining the Phase 1/Phase 2 system build specifically with regard to documented requirements, technical configuration and customisation? Will the delivery partner for Phase 1/2 be available for consultation and verification of approach during the Phase 3 design phase? Will the existing Phase 1/Phase 2 solution continue to be supported by the current delivery partner over the delivery period for Phase 3? What dedicated resource will UKCES/IIP anticipate making available to support the project and coordination of activity with the 8 delivery partners? The survey solution is out of scope for this work and as such any suggestion put forward within your bid would not be taken into consideration during the scoring process. Scribe was originally implemented as part of phase 1 in order to integrate CRM with the national website. Phase 2 involved setting up the process whereby Scribe pulls account level data from each of the delivery partner systems. We use Outlook 2010, however we may migrate to Office 365 and our delivery partners use a mixture of versions including using Outlook within Citrix. It may be that some of our delivery partners staff who work remotely don t use outlook. We see the budget allocated to this work as encompassing all elements of phase 3 development and 12 months of support for CRM, SCRIBE and Qlikview. This does not include any additional licence costs we may incur as part of this work. We are currently specifying the customer journey in house and also have our data schema. In terms of the reporting requirement we have shared some of the types of reporting we would like to bring forward within Qlikview. There will be limited documentation and if particular documentation is required, please highlight this in the tender We can employ the Phase 1/2 supplier if required but this requirement needs to be stated in your tender The 12 months support element of this ITT is for the current system as is, as well as post phase 3. We anticipate that the winning bidder would want to conduct a review of the system before undertaking any support for the output from phase 2. Please indicate an estimation of how long this would take as part of your bid. UKCES is treating this project as one of our highest priorities over the coming months and so the appropriate resource will be provided. Typically we have a project manager responsible for maintaining the relationship with the supplier throughout the life of the project. We also have capacity to pull in project support as well as key decision makers at UKCES. Page 2

3 17. Is there a compelling event that is driving the 2nd February 2015 delivery completion date? What are the implications of delay given the very challenging timescales for the project as currently defined? The new Investors in People framework will begin to be piloted as of early As part of the pilot phase we are keen to test the service from beginning to end, including the use of the survey as part of the new assessment process and the recording of data through CRM. It is important to note that CRM will control access to the survey and so it is vital that this, along with the survey is available from the beginning of the pilot. 18. Do you currently use SharePoint in-house? The Investors in People team are part of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills. The UK Commission uses SharePoint 2010 for our Intranet Will you require hosting of the assessor portal or do you envisage procuring on premise storage for the hosting? Please confirm the licence type of Scribe in use Please confirm the licence type of Click Dimensions in use Please confirm how many Dynamics CRM named users the current system is licenced for We anticipate that any additional solutions developed as part of phase 3 would be included within our package for hosting of CRM and the IIP website. We have Scribe with 8 concurrent processes fore 250 CRM users Professional Please see the response to question 6. We believe that every good organisation is built on great people. It s the simple idea that drives everything we do. We believe that empowered, fulfilled employees are the engine of success in every type of organisation. 23. In 5.2 strategic aspirations are referred to; what are the key strategic aspirations for Investors in People? With a shifting focus in the past twelve months toward a diversified product and service offer, we need to fully re-engage current and prospective clients, communicating this shift from a single product orientated business to positioning IIP as a central source of insight, guidance and good practice on people management. We have identified the following strategic priorities: Brand - Raising the reach and profile of the Investors in People brand. Proposition - Clarifying the benefits of working with Investors in People as a wider package of business support. Focusing on solving for the issues facing our target segments. Channels - Investing particularly in digital channels to build a stronger community online and PR activity to raise awareness and reach. Target segments - Aligning our messages and approaches more closely with our core client groups. Quick wins - Although we recognise many of the changes we are making are long term we need to see some results quickly. 24. Is it CRM online or on premise? Please refer to question If on premise how many servers is the current CRM 2013 environment? See diagram of CRM, Website, Qlikview and Scribe Servers 26. If online how many users? Please refer to question The tender documentation provided asks for a standard support package what does the customer expect that to include? We would see a standard support package as providing support from 9 5, 5 working days a week. Page 3

4 However we are interested to see other options that would be available to us here. Do you offer any other packages around 24 hour or out of hours support etc. Whilst UKCES does have internal IT support, it will be the case that the end users will be the people raising support requests Does UKCES have an internal IT support service or will support cases be raised by end users? Which CRM entities of the current deployment are being used is Account, Contact, Cases etc? What is the dataset currently ported from delivery partner via Scribe? What dataset is captured from the IIP website? In the past we have found that support works best if one of the of the IIP Team internally owns the relationship and is responsible for raising support requests directly with the provider. We currently have a support team of 2/3 people who we see as the people raising tickets. There would be a contract manager who manages the overall relationship overseeing this process. We are of course open to suggestion around how to best run this. We are currently using Account, Contact and Lead at present and we also have a number of custom entities The dataset that DP s pass over to us consists of client names, contact details and the current IIP status for that customer. We currently have approximately 120,000 customers records held at National level with a similar number of contacts and projects. SCRIBE only imports records that were changed up to 3 days ago so as not to refresh the entire database each night. This measure has been taken to ensure there are no performance issues with the current solution. The Investors in People website currently collects Lead information which is passed on to our Delivery Partners to follow up. We currently have two types of web form on our website: Drupal web form, Click Dimensions web form. Our Drupal web form is used for sign up to our website (authenticated users) Information captured contains: Name Title Company Name Sector Company size Job role Company address Telephone Our Click Dimensions web forms collect additional data such as: Page Views Lead score Page 4

5 All leads are assigned to the relevant DP based on the post code of the company address Are leads auto assigned to Delivery partners without manual intervention ie rules base assignment? Does IIP marketing activity involve regularly purchasing and uploading of data? Does IIP utilise the lead nurture and score function of ClickDimensions, as part of it lead scoring? Will IIP delivery partners form part of the steering group during the project? Will CRM need to hold assessment data or just fact it took place, by whom and when? What data is shared with delivery partner ie Account, Contact etc? Does assessment reports need to access outside CRM? Do these report need to be available to delivery partners (current and historical)? How many assessment do a client have and what is the frequency? We operate a regional structure for the delivery of Investors in People and as part of this have a list of post code prefixes that define which territory an organisation is within. For clarity, clients can choose to be assessed by a different partner if they request and so some Delivery Partners will have accounts that are technically not within their territory. However the CRM and website automatically allocate in accordance with our rules around territories. Whilst this is something that we do not currently do on a regular basis, it is something that we anticipate will increase post launch of the new framework as part of our marketing activity. Whilst we do currently define scoring on certain parts of the site, this is something which we are seeking to improve over time. This is still within its infancy at present. We anticipate that there would be a need to engage with Delivery Partners regarding the design of screens as part of the journey and end user testing. We are currently still working through our requirements here although at the very minimum we would require: Indicators met/not met Supporting evidence requirements met/not met Organisation status Date of assessment outcome Delivery Partner Specialist who carried out the assessment The delivery partners supply the majority of our data: Accounts, Contacts, Leads etc. The national CRM shares all Leads collected via the website, accounts, contacts etc. We restrict Delivery Partner accounts to only see data that is relevant to them. Currently we use a field called Ownership to assign accounts, leads, contacts to a Delivery Partner within the national CRM. This is not an essential requirement for us as part of this ITT. Our delivery partners would need to be able to access all assessment reports relating to their clients. Current model We currently operate two products. The core product is the IIP Framework of which most of our clients are using. The second product is the Health and Wellbeing Good Practice Award (GPA). This is an award in its own right although does not have the same breadth and depth of the framework. Therefore it is possible to be assessed against both of these Page 5

6 products either together or in separate projects. It is also possible to be accredited with both products. The frequency of assessment of the current model is every 3 years as accreditation only lasts that long. Som organisations come forward at a higher frequency but that is at the clients discretion. New model post early 2015 We will operate three products: the new framework, the current framework, H&W GPA. Frequency of assessment within the new framework will be at a minimum or three years. It has been suggested that a mandatory light touch review will be mandatory on an annual basis. This is yet to be fully agreed although we anticipate that an organisation cannot move up or down on their award level as part of a light touch review If multiple assessment, does the client assessment score change after each potentially? Can the assessor assessment information to a central mailbox? What information are assessors provided to carry out task and how are these assigned? What format is the survey data collect in and provided to IIP? What format and how is assessment data provided to IIP What level of integration is required ie CRM will not hold survey information, a. Therefore is this a push of IDs to online platform only? b. Is CRM required to maintain a link for click through/ or referencing purposes Clients will have the option to be reviewed at a higher frequency that every 3 years, as they do now. If the assessment is a full assessment (across all criteria) then it is possible their status may change as part of this. Our requirement is to have the assessment information (evidence met/not met) on record at account level. We are open to suggestion regarding how this output is achieved. Assignment currently happens at DP level and we have not considered a defined approach for all regarding allocation of work as of yet. Assessors would need to know who the contact is at the organisation as an initial starting point. Survey data will be stored within the survey solution. CRM would need the survey result outcome, ie accredited, level achieved etc. Our requirement is for this information to be collected automatically through an integration procedure. We don t currently collect this information from our partners. We are open to suggestion on the best way to collect this whether it be via manual data entry on to CRM via custom fields or through interactive PDF s. We would welcome your thoughts here. We see the CRM as providing the key to access the survey in that the user is authenticated through CRM. As indicated within the ITT we anticipate that every survey project would be mapped against an account within CRM. Page 6

7 What level of reporting is currently provided by IIP to delivery partners Does IIP currently have Qlikview skills inhouse? Please provide detail of the version(s) and number of users for both Qlikview and Scribe We have decided not to submit a bid due to your requirements around Qlickview where, although being a product we know we are not an official supplier What is the deadline for questions about this tender? We currently provide DP s with a performance scorecard at the end of each quarter which looks at key metrics across revenue, retention and customer service satisfaction. We do not currently have any Qlikview skills in house. We are keen to push support for tools externally hence the support element within this ITT. ~Qlikview Scribe: 7.8 Whilst on page 5 we specify that working with an approved Qlikview provider is preferred we will consider bidders who are not approved but have a good knowledge of the product. It is also worth mentioning that we are open to splitting out the Qlikview piece (build & support) into a separate chunk of work for a separate provider if necessary. We see the critical part of this ITT being focussed around the CRM customisation and interfacing with the IIP survey as part of the assessment process. The deadline for questions has now passed and therefore no further questions will be answered. Page 7