Getting your CRM to fit your process feels like a win in the moment. When you add a field, rule, or stage, each one solves a real problem when it's created.

But teams often overlook scheduling a follow-up conversation about whether it's still solving that problem a year later. What happens then is that the system just continues to accumulate weight until it's far more complex (and harder to use) than the generic version you started with.

The teams that seem to avoid this treat customization as something with an expiration date by default (so, not a permanent thing). Every field or automation is tied to a person and a reason when it's built, and there's an actual recurring checkpoint where someone asks whether it's still earning its place.

The harder question is determining who owns that review. It's rarely anyone's actual job. The person who built the automation may have moved teams, and the admin consequently inherits a system full of decisions they didn't make. Cleaning it all up always seems to lose to whatever's on fire that week.

How do you handle this in practice? Is there a real cadence for auditing what's actually being used versus just left over, or does it only happen when the system gets bad enough that someone finally forces the issue?