Qualitative research methods are designed to help researchers understand people and the
social contexts within which they live. Kaplan and Maxwell (1994) argue that the goal of
understanding a phenomenon from the point of view of the participants is largely lost
when textual data is quantified. Since one of the major reasons for doing qualitative
research is to gain more experience with the phenomenon under study in order to
investigate complex and sensitive issues, the researcher adopted qualitative methods to
understand and explore CRM initiatives in their real-life context.
The approach in the case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary
phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between
phenomenon and context are not clearly evident (Yin, 2002) Since the case study is an
ideal methodology when a holistic, in-depth investigation is needed
and when a “how” or “why” question is being asked about a contemporary set of events,
over which the investigator has little or no control (Yin, 1984), this approach was the
most suitable for investigating CRM in the real-life context in different organizations.
Due to certain restrictions faced during data collection and limitations placed by some of
the organizations approached by the researcher for the purpose of her research, the results
therefore, differ in size but not in content. To live with and bypass such restrictions and
limitations, the researcher accessed differently structured and varying sized
organizations, which were as follows:
1. Ford of Britain Motor Company.
This was chosen as central study case. This large corporate entity not only
manufactures the products it sells, it also offers after sales services to its
customers in the UK, which run into millions.
2. The researcher’s next choice was banks; three major international, regional and
national banks:
Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), UK
National Commercial Bank (NCB), Saudi Arabia, and
Al Rajhi Bank, Saudi Arabia.
All of the above banks offer and manage the full gamut of banking services,
including but not limited to private banking and investment portfolio services.
Their customers run into millions, across continents. The difference between Ford
and these banks is that, whereas Ford sells its products along with after sales
services, the banks provide services to their customers for or based on the latter's
cash assets not the banks'.
3. Saudi Arabian Airline and Standard Life (SL), UK, (Insurance, Re- Insurance)
followed. Both are major corporate organizations in their own right with transcontinental
reach and coverage. However, they offer dissimilar customer services
simply because their customers differ drastically. Whereas Standard Life is a
leader in Europe’s assurance industry, Saudi Arabian Airline has been
traditionally dominating the domestic flight business in Saudi Arabia because of
its monopoly.
4. Finally, the researcher collected data from two small family businesses in
Saudi Arabia, where family businesses are still the rule, not the exception:
Al Bahrawi Trading Company and
Noortech, Technologies.
The Bahrawi Company is one of the oldest trading companies in Saudi Arabia.
Noortech are Systems Integrators based in Saudi Arabia and specialize in
providing intelligent solutions for buildings and facilities.
Although the sizes of the case studies differ, identical data collection methods were used
with all the companies. In-depth interviews using open-ended questions were the main
source of information obtained for use in this study. Any open-ended question is designed
to encourage meaningful answers from interviewees by allowing them to express their
own knowledge and/or feelings. The questions were formulated according to the CRM
conceptual model proposed by the researcher for this study. Interviews were not the only
source of data in this study. Since the interviews took place in the interviewees' places of
work, this provided the researcher the opportunity to directly observe their respective
CRM environments and gather relevant data from their published documents like their
annual reports, company brochures, marketing literature and annual performance reports.
The researcher was given the opportunity to participate in CRM team meetings in one of
the organizations studied, which proved to be extremely beneficial.
The analysis of the data gathered went through two main stages. The first stage was to
transcribe the data collected from all the organizations chosen and produce detailed writeups
for each case. In every case the write-ups were similarly structured to help the
researcher in the second stage, the cross-case analysis. The cross-case analysis was based
on the researcher’s proposed conceptual CRM model.
Unique patterns emerged during the analysis phase and common issues were raised.
When the research questions were answered, the results were consistent with the
available CRM literature. The CRM model proposed was then altered according to the
findings. One important alteration made to the model was to make the sequential phasing
commence with a CRM business plan before getting into the details of customer data
analysis. Another alteration made was the addition of an essential supporting condition,
inter-departmental collaboration.
With respect to
RQ1: What are the critical success factors of CRM initiatives?
The answers received resulted in the emergence of some critical success factors, such as:
1. Senior Management Support
2. Business Plan and Vision
3. Making the Change in Small Steps
4. Inter Departmental Collaboration
5. Clear Ownership of Data
6. Training for End-users
7. End Users' Acceptance of Change
8. Degree of Analysis and Customer Segmentation
9. Degree of Alignment
10. Language Considerations
11. Internet Presence
The first four factors were distinctly apparent in all the organizations studied and they
proved to be the most important critical success factors for CRM initiative success.
With respect to RQ2:
What are the common difficulties when adopting a CRM initiative?
The answers came up with the following common difficulties:
1. Resistance to Change
2. Human Errors in Feeding the System
3. Governmental Legislation
4. Cultural Barriers
With respect to RQ3:
What does CRM mean for different organizations?
The answers exposed a common interesting finding that different organizations
considered CRM to be different things. Some considered CRM to be branded CRM
software, others as call-centers, yet others as loyalty programs and/or simple tools to
manage and satisfy customers. This confirmed that CRM meant different things to
different organizations. CRM, as mentioned in the academic field, was observed as being
theoretically implemented only in the financial services industry at the three banks
studied. At the same time other organizations in the current study proved themselves to
be good at managing their customers with the use of simple tools and without the need of
sophisticated software.
With respect to RQ4:
Is CRM the right solution for every organization?
The answers proved that if branded software from recognized vendors only was to be
recognized as CRM, then this standard and rigid kind of CRM could not always be
implemented by all organizations. On the other hand, if the managerial concepts behind
CRM were to be taken into consideration, then CRM could indeed be implemented by
every organization.
0 comments:
Post a Comment