CRM.News
Opinion

The Great Unbundling: Why Fewer Companies Want One Person Owning the Whole CRM Stack

The single admin who owned "the CRM" end to end made sense when there was one system. Most companies don't have one system anymore.

For a long time, the standard org chart answer to "who owns the CRM" was one person: the CRM administrator. They configured it, maintained it, ran reports out of it, and fielded every "can you add a field for that" request. That model worked when the CRM was genuinely the center of the universe and everything else was a plugin bolted onto it.

It works a lot less well when the actual stack is a CRM, a marketing automation platform, a customer data platform, a billing system, a support desk, and a data warehouse stitching all of it together — which describes a large share of mid-market and growth-stage companies today. Asking one person to be the expert-owner of all of that isn't really "CRM administration" anymore; it's systems architecture for the whole revenue org, and it doesn't fit in one job description without something getting shortchanged.

What's replacing the single-owner model

  • A RevOps function with specialists. One person on CRM data and automation, another owning integrations and the data warehouse layer, another focused on reporting and forecasting — same broad mission, split by system boundary instead of stacked on one person.
  • A platform owner plus embedded specialists. A central RevOps lead who owns strategy and governance, with specialists embedded in sales, marketing, and success who each maintain their own tool but follow shared data standards.
  • Vendor-managed pieces. Increasingly, some of what used to be in-house CRM admin work — complex integrations, migrations, specialized automation builds — gets handed to external implementation partners for the build, with an internal owner for day-to-day maintenance.

The tradeoff nobody loves

Unbundling the role fixes the "one person can't know everything" problem, but it introduces a coordination problem instead: more handoffs, more places for a change in one system to silently break something in another, and a real risk that no single person can see the whole picture anymore — which is exactly the kind of gap that shows up later as a case study in what happens when nobody owned the full picture.