7 signs it’s time to “break up” with your CLM platform

Sometimes, despite our best intentions, relationships just don’t work out. The same truth applies to your Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) platform.

Maybe you blissfully glided through the procurement courtship with demos that promised everything, proof-of-concepts that seemed perfect, and implementation plans that felt like destiny. But now, months or years into your relationship, the spark is gone. Your legal team avoids using the software, your procurement professionals find workarounds, and your executives question why the promised Return On Investment (ROI) hasn’t materialized.

As they say, breaking up is hard to do. But staying in a relationship with the wrong CLM vendor costs far more than putting in the work to find the right fit.

Let’s explore seven telltale signs that your current CLM vendor might not be “the one,” featuring hospitality giant Accor’s journey from the wrong CLM to the right fit.

Sign #1: They don’t speak your language (or your data structure)

Your CLM vendor should speak your language and fully understand how your unique organization operates.

Take, for instance, what happened with Accor. When the Paris-based company first implemented a CLM platform back in 2019, they quickly discovered a fundamental compatibility issue: the platform wasn’t a fully relational database.

Accor needed to attach contracts to their hotel properties, creating relationships between different records. They wanted to click on a hotel record, see who manages that property, view associated sales data, and access related contracts, and unfortunately, their CLM of choice couldn’t do it.

“They’re not the right fit for Accor,” Richard Dudley, Accor’s ITSM Project Manager, put simply.

But Dudley and his team aren’t alone. 77% of in-house counsel have experienced failed technology implementations, often because the selected platform doesn’t align with how the organization actually works.

When your CLM can’t handle your fundamental data structure, it’s like being in a relationship where you literally speak different languages. If you’re constantly explaining to your vendor why their “standard approach” doesn’t work for your business, that’s a red flag waving in the Valentine’s Day breeze.

Sign #2: They make you get on the phone just to make simple changes

Imagine being in a relationship where you need your partner’s permission to rearrange the furniture in your own house. That Kafka-esque scenario is what Accor experienced with their first CLM vendor.

When Accor’s legal team needed to update contract permissions or reassign contract populations to new user groups, they couldn’t do it themselves.

“I had to go to [the vendor’s] implementation team for topics or subjects that I was not able to do,” Dudley recalled.

Mass editing contracts presented similar challenges: Accor’s CLM platform lacked this capability entirely, forcing them to seek vendor help for updates that should have been straightforward. The inability to make autonomous changes creates dependency on IT resources that slows down your organization and inflates Total Cost of Ownership (TCO).

Gartner research on CLM peer experiences emphasizes the importance of platforms that adapt to your business rather than forcing you to adapt to rigid structures. When your CLM platform requires vendor involvement just to implement routine changes, you’re basically paying for a relationship that requires constant couples therapy just to function.

Sign #3: They promised flexibility but provided rigidity instead

Nothing stings quite like discovering your “adaptable” and “flexible” CLM partner is actually control-freak rigid!

Accor’s original CLM had inflexibility baked into its permissions architecture, with each reorganization becoming a nightmare scenario. Contract permissions were “almost hard coded,” making it extraordinarily difficult to adapt the system when organizational structures changed.

This problem compounds over time as platforms lacking no-code configuration force organizations to choose between expensive professional services for every change or living with processes that no longer match business reality. Agiloft’s no-code platform represents the opposite philosophy; business users can configure workflows, permissions, and processes themselves without IT intervention or vendor professional services. When Accor migrated their legacy system to Agiloft, they finally gained the autonomy their business demanded.

Sign #4: You’ve documented 100 things the software can’t do (and counting)

Healthy relationships involve occasional disappointments — after all, nobody’s perfect. But when you’re maintaining a running list of your partner’s shortcomings that stretches into three figures, maybe it’s time to reevaluate.

Accor did exactly this, documenting every capability their legacy CLM platform lacked as colleagues repeatedly asked for functions that weren’t possible. “We gradually built up an idea of everything that we were missing,” Dudley explained. That list became their wishlist for a replacement solution with more than 100 specific requirements when they began their search. “We could have gone on,” Dudley added.

When Accor sent their requirements to eight vendors initially, they discovered their top two choices couldn’t meet even 70% of Proof of Concept (PoC) requirements. The team went back, expanded their search, and ultimately tested Agiloft against their most demanding use cases, choosing a vendor based on objective criteria rather than sales promises.

Sign #5: They drag their heels when you ask for your own data

Picture this: you’re in a relationship that’s clearly over, and when you ask for your belongings back so you can move on, your ex-partner takes six months to return them. Unacceptable in romance, and unacceptable in CLM. Yet that’s precisely what happened to Accor.

“I requested that [our existing CLM] provide us with all of those 50,000 contract files in October [of] last year, and they didn’t do it until March this year,” Dudley revealed. This vendor recalcitrance cost Accor months of preparation time for their migration.

This behavior reveals something deeper: a vendor viewing customers as captives rather than partners. Vendor cooperation is essential, and a vendor making data extraction difficult is waving a massive red flag that should have you calling alternative CLM vendors immediately.

Sign #6: They don’t ‘play well’ with your other important relationships

Imagine having pets that your partner hates, forcing you into an unenviable situation of having to pick between them or toeing the line. Similarly, a CLM platform that fails to integrate seamlessly with your other enterprise applications creates unnecessary complexity and forces manual workarounds that undermine CLM’s benefits.

57% of enterprise buyers identify ease of integration as highly critical when selecting CLM platforms, second only to overall value. Agiloft’s Integration Hub addresses this directly with more than 1,000 pre-built system connectors to enterprise applications such as Teams, Workday, and SAP. These integrations feature drag-and-drop configuration that non-technical users can easily manage without constant IT support.

When your CLM plays nicely with others, contract data flows seamlessly: triggering purchase orders when agreements execute, updating CRM with renewal dates, syncing financial commitments to your ERP, and feeding business intelligence tools with contract analytics.

Sign #7: The magic has worn off and reality has set in

Remember the excitement during that first product demo? The relatable use cases, the enthusiastic sales promises, and the implementation team assuring you the platform absolutely supports your unique requirements?

Fast forward six months to when the system is live, initial training happens, and reality hits. The platform works, technically, but it doesn’t solve the problems you need solved. User adoption remains low, workflows haven’t improved, and you’re not seeing the ROI that justified the investment. As CLM expert Lucy Bassli describes in a LinkedIn post, “after the excitement of system launch/implementation… the harsh realities set in that there is a mismatch of expectations.”

Successful CLM implementation requires more than good technology demands clear objectives, stakeholder engagement, realistic expectations, and a phased rollout with continuous improvement. But when the platform itself doesn’t fit your needs whatsoever (when it’s the wrong match, not the wrong implementation), sadly no amount of effort will create a successful business relationship.

Choose self-love (and a better CLM platform)

Here’s the silver lining to all that CLM heartbreak: learning from failed relationships makes you wiser for the next one.

The decision to migrate CLM paltforms isn’t easy, requiring executive buy-in, budget justification, change management, and disruption to ongoing operations. But staying in the wrong relationship costs more. Inefficient contract management can cost organizations up to 9% of their annual revenue. When your CLM platform creates inefficiency rather than solving it, those costs compound while you pay licensing fees for the privilege of underperformance.

Recognizing that your CLM relationship isn’t working doesn’t mean you failed; it means you’re ready for something better. If any of these signs sound familiar to your relationship with your CLM platform or vendor, take heart. Other organizations, like Accor, have successfully migrated and found platforms that genuinely fit their needs.

And when the stars align and you find the right CLM partner, trust us. You’ll just know.

Learn why Agiloft is the #1 for second-time CLM implementations. Contact us today for a demo tackling your toughest use cases.