The Pattern That Separated Survivors from Casualties
Over the past 25 years, I have watched technologies rise and fall with what seemed like random brutality. BlackBerry dominated mobile email until it collapsed. Yahoo commanded web search before Google overtook it. Kodak invented digital photography and then disappeared beneath it.
Conventional explanations focus on innovation gaps or market timing. After analyzing the trajectories of dozens of platforms from 1999 to 2024, a more precise pattern emerges. The companies that survived shared one defining characteristic. They treated their core product as provisional.
This distinction matters now because we are entering another transition period. Research shows that 99 percent of B2B companies use CRM systems, yet roughly 70 percent struggle to integrate sales processes into them in a way that produces meaningful value. The same pattern that shaped outcomes over the last 25 years now governs how organizations handle modern technology adoption.
The Provisional Mindset
Amazon began as an online bookstore. Microsoft built desktop operating systems. Netflix mailed DVDs. Each succeeded because leadership allowed the original product to evolve as conditions changed.
The provisional mindset shows up in behavior. Amazon reinvested profits into infrastructure instead of optimizing book margins. Microsoft rebuilt its delivery model around cloud services. Netflix dismantled its DVD business while streaming was still uncertain.
BlackBerry illustrates the opposite path. The company had strong technology, loyal customers, and ample resources. It treated its keyboard-centric design and email integration as durable advantages. When touchscreens and app ecosystems emerged, the organization defended its existing approach instead of redesigning around new usage patterns.
The constraint was not engineering talent. BlackBerry could have built competitive touchscreen devices. The constraint was orientation. Survivors treated current success as a launchpad for the next iteration. Casualties treated it as territory to protect.
The Integration Problem
Current CRM adoption reflects the same dynamic. Adoption rates are high. Functional outcomes are weak. Bain’s 2025 research across more than 1,200 executives shows that about 70 percent of companies fail to integrate sales processes into CRM systems effectively, capturing roughly 20 percent of potential value.
This creates a CRM paradox. Organizations invest in sophisticated platforms while struggling with basic utility. Sales teams spend time feeding the system instead of using it to guide action. The platform becomes administrative overhead.
Companies that extract value treat CRM as provisional infrastructure. They emphasize workflow integration, data quality, and adoption metrics. Success is measured in productivity gains and forecast accuracy, not feature depth or system complexity.
Organizations that struggle approach CRM as a completed purchase. They deploy the platform and preserve existing processes. The result is an expensive repository that produces reports without changing outcomes.
Adaptation Under Pressure
Effective CRM utilization correlates with 21 percent higher sales productivity and a 32 percent improvement in forecast accuracy. Reaching those outcomes requires continuous adjustment as markets shift.
The move to digital-first B2B interactions makes this visible. By 2025, roughly 80 percent of B2B interactions occur through digital channels. This demands new methods for capturing context, managing conversations, and maintaining relationships. Organizations with provisional mindsets are rebuilding CRM integrations to ingest unstructured inputs from email, call transcripts, and digital touchpoints.
Organizations that treat their CRM configuration as fixed attempt to force new interaction patterns into old structures. Adoption declines. Effectiveness erodes.
The provisional approach assumes each configuration is temporary. As interaction patterns shift, integrations change. As data sources expand, capture mechanisms evolve. The platform stays in place. The implementation remains fluid.
The Cost of Rigidity
Yahoo’s decline shows how quickly advantage evaporates once flexibility disappears. Yahoo built the early web directory and attracted massive traffic. The company had brand recognition, advertiser relationships, and technical depth.
Leadership treated the portal strategy as permanent. When algorithmic search emerged, Yahoo defended human curation. When social platforms reshaped attention, Yahoo clung to its media identity. The resources to adapt existed. Organizational flexibility did not.
Blockbuster followed the same path. The company controlled physical distribution, customer relationships, and content partnerships. Physical delivery was treated as durable infrastructure. When streaming became viable, the business model was defended instead of replaced.
Organizations now face similar decisions around AI integration. Research indicates that 81 percent plan to use AI-powered CRM capabilities in 2025. Teams with provisional mindsets experiment while preserving operational continuity. Teams with rigid approaches delay adoption or attempt to shield existing workflows from disruption.
The Execution Challenge
Provisional thinking complicates execution. It requires running current operations while building the next version. Resources must be split. Timing decisions carry real risk.
Adobe’s shift to Creative Cloud illustrates this tension. The company generated substantial revenue from perpetual licenses but saw subscriptions approaching dominance. Adobe invested in cloud infrastructure while maintaining desktop products. The transition demanded customer education, pricing changes, and gradual feature migration.
Revenue dipped. Investor confidence wavered. Adobe emerged with stronger customer retention, predictable revenue, and improved positioning.
CRM transformations follow a similar curve. Integration requires process changes, training, and new measurement systems. A provisional approach accepts short-term friction while teams adapt to new workflows.
Recognition and Limits
The pattern that separated survivors from casualties over the last 25 years offers guidance, not certainty. Market forces, competition, and execution quality still matter. Some organizations adapt and still fail due to external pressure.
Provisional thinking also creates internal strain. Teams prefer stability. Continuous adaptation introduces uncertainty and additional effort. Organizations must manage flexibility without sacrificing operational coherence.
The most effective approach balances both. Change occurs in response to signals, not on a fixed cadence. Stability exists at the system level while execution evolves.
CRM adoption research reinforces this pattern. Organizations that treat technology as provisional infrastructure achieve stronger integration, higher productivity, and more reliable forecasting. Platforms change. The principle holds.
The next 25 years will bring different tools and different disruptions. Organizations that treat today’s systems as temporary solutions will remain positioned to adapt when the next shift arrives.
About the Author
Dominic Cross is the Senior Vice President EMEA & Head of Partnerships at GTM Engine, a disruptive sales execution platform that turns every customer interaction into pipeline intelligence automatically. He is a GTM strategist and technology executive with 35 years of experience as a SaaS CRO and sales leader, scaling sales teams into new markets and building strategic partnerships across the tech sector.
Whether launching technology solutions into new GTM channels/geographies or building global sales teams to execute on the corporate growth strategy, Dominic leads with a commercial mindset with a focus on market penetration, scalable delivery, and long-term customer success.
His belief is simple. The best workforce solutions don’t just train, they accelerate GTM success.
