In the first part of this series, we examined the immediate and short-term pitfalls of using a generic CRM platform as your permitting and planning solution. In this next installment, we examine the long-term organizational consequences and technical debt impacts.
When a government agency selects a generic CRM platform—like Salesforce, Dynamics, or similar—as the foundation for its permitting and planning operations, the immediate challenges are often visible: complex configuration, missing features, and high implementation costs. Yet the more profound impacts emerge over time, manifesting not just as technical problems, but as organizational strain, sustainability challenges, and service delivery constraints.
These long-term effects stem from a simple reality: governments are not software companies, and when they take on a generic CRM platform to build out a permitting solution, they inadvertently assume the responsibilities of one. The following analysis outlines the most common organizational obstacles that agencies face as these systems age.
Every heavily customized CRM-based permitting solution carries an invisible burden: technical debt. Because generic platforms lack built-in regulatory and workflow intelligence, agencies must design those capabilities through code, plug-ins, or third-party modules. Each customization introduces dependencies that complicate upgrades, integrations, and system performance over time.
Initially, this complexity might seem manageable. But as regulations evolve, permit types expand, or internal processes shift, each small change becomes disproportionately difficult. Agencies find themselves increasingly dependent on external consultants or specialized developers who understand the system’s bespoke configuration.
The end result is a system that drifts further from maintainable, vendor-supported code and deeper into a fragile, high-cost maintenance cycle. This makes modernization increasingly difficult—ironically, the very outcome the agency was trying to avoid when it moved away from its legacy system in the first place.
Unlike commercial enterprises, public agencies face ongoing constraints in recruiting and retaining specialized IT talent. Generic CRM platforms, particularly those that have been deeply customized, require niche skillsets that may not exist in-house—such as developers certified in Salesforce Apex or Dynamics Power Platform.
Governments often struggle to compete with the private sector for these professionals, both in terms of salary and career progression opportunities. When staff turnover occurs or vendor contracts end, critical system knowledge walks out the door. Institutional memory suffers, and simple updates can require external intervention at consulting rates.
This creates a long-term sustainability gap: the system may function day-to-day, but it becomes brittle when key technical staff are unavailable. Agencies that rely on managed service contracts to offset this risk often see costs balloon over time, eroding any initial cost savings from the platform’s supposed “low-code” promise.
By contrast, purpose-built permitting solutions typically emphasize configuration over customization—allowing agencies to make business rule changes through administrative interfaces rather than custom development. This difference dramatically lowers the technical barrier to long-term management.
Government permitting processes don’t operate in isolation. They intersect with finance, GIS, inspection, code enforcement, and public works systems—often spanning multiple departments and external agencies.
Generic CRM-based systems frequently undermine this interconnectedness because they lack a shared data model purpose-built for permitting and planning. To fill gaps, agencies bolt on third-party tools for payments, plan review, or inspections, creating a web of loosely coupled systems.
The result is data fragmentation:
This fragmentation creates operational friction internally and confusion externally. Applicants experience inconsistent statuses or duplicated data requests. Staff lose time reconciling mismatched records and managing duplicate workflows.
Over time, the lack of unified data architecture also hampers strategic decision-making. Agencies cannot easily analyze trends across permits, geographies, or project types because their datasets live in separate silos. In an era where evidence-based policy and transparency are public expectations, this becomes a major liability.
“Generic CRM-based systems frequently undermine this interconnectedness because they lack a shared data model purpose-built for permitting and planning. To fill gaps, agencies bolt on third-party tools for payments, plan review, or inspections, creating a web of loosely coupled systems. The result is data fragmentation.”
When a permitting solution is built atop a generic CRM platform, support responsibility becomes diffuse. The base platform vendor (e.g., Salesforce) supports only the core infrastructure. The configuration and code customizations, however, are often owned by third-party implementers or consultants.
This creates a fragmented support ecosystem where no single entity fully understands—or guarantees—the behavior of the entire system.
When issues arise, agencies can be caught in a loop of “support deflection”:
This fractured model also complicates long-term product evolution. Because so much of the system is custom code, future enhancements or integrations may not be compatible without rework. Even minor changes—like updating the online application form or integrating a new payment gateway—can require vendor re-engagement.
Purpose-built solutions avoid this problem by providing single-vendor accountability: the core application, configurations, and integrations are part of a unified product architecture, fully supported by the software vendor under a single service-level agreement.
Generic CRM systems, despite their flexibility, often fail to align with how government actually works. The initial system design tends to mirror legacy processes too closely or, conversely, is oversimplified to fit the platform’s limits. In both cases, organizational misalignment emerges over time.
Because changes require technical intervention, agencies often postpone or avoid necessary process updates. Staff create offline workarounds—spreadsheets, shared drives, or manual tracking—to compensate for system gaps. The result is process drift: the software and the business process gradually diverge.
This not only diminishes system value but also reduces staff confidence. Employees begin to view the permitting system as a constraint rather than an enabler. In many jurisdictions, this disillusionment leads to parallel “shadow systems” that undermine the goals of digital transformation.
A less obvious but equally significant impact of adopting a generic CRM platform is the innovation ceiling it imposes. Because these systems are so heavily customized and interdependent, introducing new features—such as advanced analytics, citizen self-service portals, or mobile inspections—can require significant reengineering.
As a result, agencies struggle to keep pace with evolving public expectations for digital service delivery. What begins as a “modern” cloud system quickly becomes another legacy environment—difficult to modify, expensive to extend, and misaligned with newer technologies.
Purpose-built permitting systems, by contrast, evolve continually within a focused domain. Their roadmaps anticipate emerging needs—like digital signatures, AI-assisted plan reviews, or open data APIs—because they are developed specifically for government permitting and licensing operations.
Over a five- to ten-year horizon, the cumulative effects of these challenges manifest as organizational strain and budget inflexibility. Technical debt, staff turnover, and integration maintenance costs consume an ever-larger share of IT budgets.
More critically, agencies lose strategic agility. Instead of focusing on policy modernization, community engagement, or service innovation, leadership is preoccupied with managing technical risk and system reliability.
This inversion of priorities—where the system dictates organizational capacity rather than enabling it—represents perhaps the most consequential long-term cost of choosing a generic CRM-based permitting solution.
“Ultimately, when governments choose technology for critical regulatory functions, they are also choosing how their organizations will evolve. The more complex the solution’s foundation, the greater the likelihood that administrative energy will be spent managing technology rather than improving governance. The lesson is clear: in the long run, purpose-built systems don’t just deliver better permitting—they support better government.”
The decision to implement a permitting system atop a generic CRM framework may appear pragmatic—leveraging familiar platforms and promising rapid delivery. Yet as the system matures, its architectural compromises become organizational liabilities.
Governments find themselves managing not just software, but ecosystems of customization, skill shortages, data silos, and vendor dependencies. These are not temporary growing pains; they are enduring structural issues that shape how an agency operates, collaborates, and serves its citizens.
In contrast, purpose-built permitting solutions—designed from the ground up for government workflows, compliance obligations, and cross-departmental collaboration—avoid many of these pitfalls. They align technology with mission, not the other way around.
Ultimately, when governments choose technology for critical regulatory functions, they are also choosing how their organizations will evolve. The more complex the solution’s foundation, the greater the likelihood that administrative energy will be spent managing technology rather than improving governance. The lesson is clear: in the long run, purpose-built systems don’t just deliver better permitting—they support better government.
