It’s Not About Fewer Fields, It’s About Better Fields

TL;DR

• More fields are not automatically a problem; unmanaged fields are

  
  

• Streamlining for the sake of tidiness often removes useful context

  
  

• The real risk is fields without ownership, purpose, or logic

  
  

• Build clarity and governance, not just minimalism

Introduction

Many CRM clean-up projects begin with a single goal: reduce the number of fields. Fewer fields means less complexity, right?

Not always. In practice, a streamlined CRM can be just as messy and misleading as a bloated one. Sometimes adding more fields, provided they are well defined, owned, and connected, is the right answer.

The fixation on field count distracts from the real issue: whether fields are managed with intent.

More Fields Can Create More Clarity

A single catch-all field that tries to store multiple types of information is more damaging than three separate fields with clear purposes.

Example:

• A “Client Category” field used to store investor status, segmentation priority, and product suitability.

  
  

This one field looks simple, but breaks reporting and automation.

Split into three separate fields, each with its own owner and update logic, the CRM becomes clearer, not more complicated.

Streamlining Can Strip Away Useful Context

Teams sometimes archive fields because they are not being used enough, rather than because they are useless. A field that captures adviser preference or onboarding exceptions may not be touched daily, but when it is needed, it carries vital context.

Deleting or merging these fields in the name of tidiness often forces users into workarounds, or worse, into overloading another field with multiple meanings.

The Real Problem: Fields Without Governance

Field overload is not about raw numbers. It is about governance. Problems show up when:

• Fields have no owner, and no one maintains them

• A field is created on demand for a one-off report and left behind

• Conflicting fields exist for the same purpose across systems

• Data does not flow correctly from source systems, leaving fields broken or misleading

  
  

The field count is a symptom. Lack of process is the cause.

Building Field Discipline

Instead of obsessing over how many fields your CRM has, focus on how those fields are created, maintained, and retired. Every field should have:

• A clear purpose and defined update logic

• A named owner

• A lifecycle plan for when to archive or consolidate

• Alignment with source systems and automation

  
  

With this discipline, you can safely support hundreds of fields without creating chaos.

Final TLDR

• Too many fields are not the real problem

• Too few fields can force complexity underground

• The goal is not fewer fields, but well-governed fields

• Clarity, ownership, and process matter more than field count