CRM Exit by Move Big Rocks

Realistic situations, not invented customer stories

These scenarios show how CRM Exit frames a decision before any customer evidence exists. They are synthetic examples, not case studies, testimonials, benchmarks, quotes, or claims about completed migrations.

Every financial result uses Business Case formula version 1.0.0. Operational figures describe the scope to investigate and the evidence a Shadow Proof would need to produce. They are not achieved results.

Build my exit business case

Scenario A: HubSpot renewal with concentrated workflow risk

Synthetic profile: A 35-user B2B software company approaching renewal. Current annual CRM operating cost is $72,000. The modelled target costs $30,000 annually with $45,000 of transition investment.

Why the team is evaluating its options

The team wants to reduce recurring cost and regain control of customer operations, but lead routing, lifecycle automation, historical email activity, and finance handoffs make a subscription-only comparison unreliable.

Capability disposition to test

Contacts, companies, deals, owners, pipelines, and standard activities: direct mapping candidate.
Custom properties and associations: configurable mapping with data-quality review.
Lead routing and lifecycle workflows: rebuild and equivalence testing required.
Marketing automation and campaign history: retain externally, archive, or scope separately.
Billing handoff and enrichment apps: integration-by-integration decision.

Financial illustration

Three-year current TCO: $216,000.
Three-year target TCO including transition: $135,000.
Modelled net benefit: $81,000.
Monthly run-rate saving: $3,500.
Modelled payback: 12.9 months.

Decision state: Financial case supports investigation. It does not approve migration. Workflow equivalence, contract notice dates, and marketing dependencies remain decision gates.

Scenario B: Multi-hub HubSpot estate with integration uncertainty

Synthetic profile: A 140-user services company using Sales, Service, Marketing, and Operations capabilities. Current annual operating cost is $300,000. The modelled target costs $120,000 annually with $240,000 of transition investment.

Why the team is evaluating its options

Seat growth, overlapping tools, partner administration, and renewal exposure have made the cost material. The uncertainty is not basic record export; it is whether service operations, reporting, forms, files, and integration behavior can be reproduced safely.

Capability disposition to test

Core CRM records and pipeline history: direct or configurable mapping candidate.
Tickets, inbox history, knowledge, and files: source-access and completeness proof required.
Custom objects, calculated properties, and association labels: mapping and reconciliation required.
Forms, lists, scoring, workflows, and reports: rebuild, replace, retain, or archive decision.
ERP, product, identity, telephony, and data-warehouse connections: contract and behavior inventory required.

Financial illustration

Three-year current TCO: $900,000.
Three-year target TCO including transition: $600,000.
Modelled net benefit: $300,000.
Monthly run-rate saving: $15,000.
Modelled payback: 16.0 months.

Decision state: Financial case supports a fixed-scope Shadow Proof. The proof must establish record coverage, relationship integrity, supported sync behavior, workflow disposition, and named exception owners.

Scenario C: Customized Salesforce estate where staying may be rational

Synthetic profile: A 400-user organization with custom objects, Flow, Apex, managed packages, permission sets, and several downstream systems. Current annual operating cost is $1,200,000. The modelled target costs $500,000 annually with $1,100,000 of transition investment.

Why the team is evaluating its options

The renewal is large enough to justify scrutiny, but high customization and switching risk mean that a technically honest review must allow staying, renegotiating, or changing only part of the estate.

Capability disposition to test

Standard and custom records: mapping candidates subject to object and relationship inventory.
Flow, Apex, validation, approvals, and scheduled jobs: engineering assessment and explicit rebuild decision.
Managed-package data and behavior: vendor-access and replacement constraints may apply.
Profiles, roles, permission sets, queues, and sharing: authorization redesign and verification required.
CPQ, billing, identity, middleware, analytics, and data-platform dependencies: separate workstreams or retained systems may be appropriate.

Financial illustration

Three-year current TCO: $3,600,000.
Three-year target TCO including transition: $2,600,000.
Modelled net benefit: $1,000,000.
Monthly run-rate saving: approximately $58,333.
Modelled payback: 18.9 months.

Decision state: Assumption-sensitive until customization, package, authorization, and integration inventories are complete. A large headline saving is not evidence that the destination can support the operating model.

What a Shadow Proof must show

For each scenario, CRM Exit would define measurable proof criteria before connecting production data:

record counts by object and selection rule;
relationship, ownership, and required-field integrity;
file availability and checksum verification where supported;
incremental synchronization lag and failure handling;
workflow equivalence or an explicit retain, rebuild, replace, archive, or unsupported disposition;
exception severity, owner, resolution, and retest state;
cutover and rollback prerequisites;
limitations, excluded scope, dataset details, versions, infrastructure, and test duration.

None of those results is pre-filled here. Publishing invented match rates, downtime, record volumes, or quotes would turn an honest example into a false case study.

Build my business case privately

Make the next decision

Build the evidence before committing to the exit.

Build my exit business case Request a CRM Exit Audit