The audit for this dataset came back with 8 different key findings.

1. Key client information is missing at a high volume

2. Missing information is higher for certain types of accounts than others

3. Inconsistent formatting for certain fields

4. Numeric and alphabetic codes without clear meaning

5. The name field is overloaded and produces a record duplication bug

6. An optional field’s completion rate cannot be interpretted with tracking meta-data

7. No referral linkage system

8. The one existing field related to client purchases does not provide accurate or helpful information

For more details about each finding, please refer to the full audit report linked below.

This stage takes the findings from the system audit and recommends adjustments to the dataset accordingly. These changes included but were not limited to:

1. Fix the intake process with a new SOP that ensures all team members know which fields are required and record them for all account types equally

2. Creating a new column of account reference numbers that follow a standardized format

3. Cleaning client names to reflect preferred names, separate titles from names, and ensure that all users on shared accounts have their own file

4. Use documented labels and clearer field titles instead of vague alphabetical or numeric codes

5. Restructure and expand the Google Sheet system so that clients are listed alphabetically by last name and create additional tabs that separate active and inactive clients

6. Follow up on and fill in missing data

7. Create additional fields that show more helpful client purchase information and the record ID of who referred them

8. Ensure that all client purchase information shows for each individual, not each account

This is only a sample of the changes recommended. The full audit report details all changes suggested and you can view the implementation in the Before/After Dataset Workbook linked below.

Two primary build recommendations surfaced in this project.

1. The team would benefit from moving their CRM over to Notion. This platform offers a lot of additional functions that Sheets cannot natively provide and that the team would greatly benefit from.

2. Setting up a simple automation that syncs client contact details with the Founder’s phone contacts would reduce his mental load or the need to enter it in both the CRM and in his phone manually.

For longer explanations about these recommendations and why they were proposed, please refer to the full audit report. To compare Notion to Sheets visually, open the link to the interactive Notion page.

The original CRM system was costing the team in several different ways.

1. Time was consistently wasted when team members needed to interrupt and ask the founder for client contact details.

2. Time wasted when team members have to sift through hundreds of rows of data to find what they need and trying to compile things manually using ctrl+F.

3. Inaccurate and incomplete data makes it impossible to identify client and sales trends that could open up the opportunity for more effective marketing and outreach.

4. Onboarding is more challenging because new hires won’t know that they might need to search for something in several different ways and may result in them missing data that should have been included in their search.

These costs are not easily quantifiable since team members have different salaries, but it is costing them dozens of hours per year. Additionally, any sales that may have come from an improved ability to identify client trends result in a loss for the company that is particularly difficult to quantify. The full audit report makes an attempt to understand what these numbers might look like.