Skip to content

Primary Use Case: CRM & SCRM Bidirectional Sync

Background Overview

Customer data must be synchronized between CRM and SCRM systems to maintain a single customer view. Without proper sync, customer experiences are fragmented and data is inconsistent. This primary use case describes bidirectional synchronization, data quality, and conflict resolution.

Goals & Value

  • Single Customer View: Unified customer data across all systems.
  • Real-time Collaboration: Instant updates for collaborative work.
  • Quality Assurance: Accurate and consistent data synchronization.
  • Operational Efficiency: Streamlined processes across systems.

Participating Roles

  • Data Integration Team: Manage synchronization processes.
  • Sales Teams: Use synchronized data for customer management.
  • Customer Success: Maintain customer relationships with complete data.
  • IT Teams: Maintain integration infrastructure.
  • Management: Review synchronization performance and quality.

Primary Scenario User Story

As a sales manager, I want customer data to sync automatically between CRM and SCRM, so that I always have the latest information regardless of which system I'm using.

Sub-scenario Details

Sub-scenario A: Data Mapping & Transformation

  • Roles & Triggers: Need to map data between systems.
  • Main Process:
    1. Define data mapping between CRM and SCRM fields.
    2. Transform data formats for compatibility.
    3. Handle data type conversions and validations.
    4. Test mappings with sample data.
  • Success Criteria: Accurate mappings; proper transformations; validated data.
  • Exceptions & Risk Control: Mapping errors; transformation failures; validation issues.
  • **Metric Suggestions: Mapping accuracy, transformation success, validation rate.

Sub-scenario B: Real-time Synchronization

  • Roles & Triggers: Synchronize data in real-time.
  • Main Process:
    1. Monitor data changes in source system.
    2. Trigger synchronization events.
    3. Update target system with changes.
    4. Confirm successful synchronization.
  • Success Criteria: Real-time updates; reliable synchronization; confirmation.
  • Exceptions & Risk Control: Sync delays; update failures; confirmation issues.
  • **Metric Suggestions: Sync latency, success rate, confirmation rate.

Sub-scenario C: Conflict Resolution

  • Roles & Triggers: Need to handle data conflicts.
  • Main Process:
    1. Detect conflicting data updates.
    2. Apply resolution rules (timestamp, authority).
    3. Resolve conflicts automatically or manually.
    4. Log resolution decisions and actions.
  • Success Criteria: Proper conflict detection; fair resolution; complete logging.
  • Exceptions & Risk Control: Missed conflicts; unfair resolution; incomplete logs.
  • **Metric Suggestions: Conflict detection rate, resolution accuracy, logging completeness.

Sub-scenario D: Data Quality Monitoring

  • Roles & Triggers: Need to ensure data quality.
  • Main Process:
    1. Monitor data quality metrics.
    2. Identify and flag data quality issues.
    3. Implement data quality improvements.
    4. Report on data quality status.
  • Success Criteria: High data quality; proactive monitoring; continuous improvement.
  • Exceptions & Risk Control: Quality issues; monitoring gaps; improvement failures.
  • **Metric Suggestions: Data quality score, issue detection rate, improvement rate.

Scenario-level Test Case Examples

Test Preparation: Prepare integration platform, data mapping tools, synchronization engine, and conflict resolution system.

Test Case A-1: Customer Update Sync (Positive)

  • Prerequisites: Customer data updated in CRM.
  • Steps:
    1. Customer information modified in CRM.
    2. Change synchronized to SCRM.
  • Expected Results:
    • Update detected and synced.
    • SCRM shows updated information.
    • Sync confirmation logged.

Test Case B-1: Data Conflict Resolution (Negative)

  • Prerequisites: Same data updated in both systems.
  • Steps:
    1. Conflict detected during sync.
    2. Resolution rules applied.
    3. Conflict resolved.
  • Expected Results:
    • Conflict identified accurately.
    • Resolution rule applied correctly.
    • Resolution logged for audit.

Released under the Apache 2.0 License.