Quick And Reilly Case Summary

Quick & Reilly was a firm in trouble but with tremendous potential. Quick & Reilly was in urgent need of a CRM, for which Siebel was the best in the market.
Positives of Gregg Carman’s performance:
 Carman’s style of working was very much in accordance with Siebel’s TAS framework
 Quick & Reilly was acquired by FleetBoston, a long time Siebel customer. He was right in not comparing Siebel directly with competition but first guided the executives to a demo run. This idea helped him to be sure of the interest that Q&R executives had for Siebel products and how it was required to be pitched
 Carman was very accurate in assessing the opportunity; he concludes that the business was his to lose.
Negatives of Gregg Carman’s performance:
 The first step in the TAS framework is to identify the project need of the customer. Quick and Reilly was ready to give details about their requirements, Carman should have been more patient and attentive in gathering the detailed requirement of their needs. His lack of attention to the most important question of how big a system Quick & Reilly will need is definitely a negative on Carman’s part.

 The third mistake he did was not to enquire about the financial condition of Quick & Reilly. When the executives started discussing about working condition as a part of Fleet Boston, Carmen should have been more proactive in enquiring about the acquisition process and Quick & Reilly processes are being mapped at