A Critique of the JISC Self-Analysis Framework for Relationship Management
Page 1 of 103
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 2
TABLE OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. 4
ACKNOWLEDGE ME NTS ..................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Customer Relationship Management in FE/HE ..................................................... 11 1.2 JISC Self-Analysis Framework for Customer Relationship Management ...... 11 1.3 The Process Improvement Pilot at Loughborough (PIPaL) project ................ 13
2. PROJECT AIM AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................... 14 2.1 Project Aim ...................................................................................................................... 14 2.2 Summary of Research Methodology ......................................................................... 14 2.3 Incorporation of PIPaL Project Results .................................................................. 14 2.4 Structure of This Report .............................................................................................. 15 2.5 Rationale for Report Structure .................................................................................. 17
3. REVIEW: “WHAT IS CRM?” ........................................................................................... 18 3.1 From the JISC Framework ......................................................................................... 18 3.2 From the Literature ...................................................................................................... 21 4.1 From the JISC Framework ......................................................................................... 27 4.2 From the Literature ...................................................................................................... 29
Page 2 of 103
5. REVIEW: “WHO ARE YOUR CUSTOMERS?” ............................................................ 36 5.1 From the JISC Framework ......................................................................................... 36 5.2 From the Literature ...................................................................................................... 39 .................................................................................................................................................. 40
5.3 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 41 6.1 From the JISC Framework ........................................................................................ 42 6.2 From the Literature ...................................................................................................... 47 7.1 From the JISC Framework ......................................................................................... 51 8.1 From the JISC Framework ........................................................................................ 60
.................................................................................................................................................. 61
.................................................................................................................................................. 62 8.2 From the Literature ...................................................................................................... 66 8.3 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 71
9. REVIEW: “WHICH CRM?” .............................................................................................. 72 9.1 From the JISC Framework ......................................................................................... 72 9.3 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 83
10. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 84
11. RECOMME NDAT IO NS ................................................................................................. 87
APPEND IX – JISC SELF- ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK FOR CUSTOMER RELATIONSH I P MANAGEMENT .................................................................................. 103
Page 3 of 103
Table of Figures
FIGURE 1 - TRADI T IO NAL ORGANIZAT IO N (RODGERS AND HOWLETT, 2000) .................................................................................................................................................. 19
FIGURE 2 - CRM FACIL I TATED ORGANIZATION (RODGERS AND HOWLETT, 2000)......................................................................................................................................... 19
FIGURE 3 - MODELS OF CUSTOMER LOYALTY (UNCLES ET AL, 2003) ............ 21
FIGURE 4 - FACEBOOK APPLICATION USE OF PERSONAL DATA (FELT AND EVANS, 2008)......................................................................................................................... 25
FIGURE 5 - CLASSIC BALANCED SCORECARD (KAPLAN AND NORTON, 1992) .................................................................................................................................................. 28
FIGURE 6 - COMPARISON BETWEEN STUDENT AND CONSUMER LIFECYCLES (SVENSSON AND WOOD, 2005) ............................................................. 31
FIGURE 7 - NEURAL NETWORK PREDICT I NG PROBABIL I TY OF STUDENT DROPOUT (LUAN, 2002).................................................................................................... 33
FIGURE 8 - BUSINESS QUESTIONS THAT CRM DATA MIN I NG COULD HELP WITH (LUAN, 2002).............................................................................................................. 33
FIGURE 9 - POTENTIAL DATA SOURCES FOR KPIS (KIM ET AL, 2003) ............34
FIGURE 10 - GENERIC VALUE MAP EXAMPLE (DONAGHY, 2008) ...................... 37
FIGURE 11 - ANALYTICAL USES OF CRM (XU AND WALTON, 2005) .................. 40
FIGURE 12 - THE CRM CONTINU U M (PAYNE, 2006) ................................................ 42
Page 4 of 103
FIGURE 13 - INSTITU T I O NAL MATUR ITY (HEYWOOD ET AL, 2007) ..................43
FIGURE 14 - NUMBER OF YEARS SINCE CRM IMPLE M E N TE D (HEYWOOD ET AL, 2007)................................................................................................................................. 43
FIGURE 15 - INVESTMENT IN CRM TECHNOLOGY TO DATE (HEYWOOD ET AL, 2007)................................................................................................................................. 44
FIGURE 16 - BUSINESS AND COMMUN I TY ENGAGEMENT TRANSACTIONS MANAGED BY PRIMARY CRM SYSTEM (HEYWOOD ET AL, 2007) ...................... 44
FIGURE 17 - PROPORTION OF ACADEMIC STAFF USING CRM SYSTEM REGULARLY (HEYWOOD ET AL, 2007)......................................................................... 45
FIGURE 18 - GRAPHICAL SUMMARY OF CRM CASE STUDIES (HEYWOOD ET AL, 2007)................................................................................................................................. 45
FIGURE 19 - APPROACHES TO SYSTEM IMPLE ME N TAT IO N (INFONET, 2008) .................................................................................................................................................. 46
FIGURE 20 - POTENTIAL BENEFI TS FROM CRM (CAP GEMI N I, 2005) .............48
FIGURE 21 - CRM BENEFI TS ASSESSMENT MODEL (CAP GEMI N I, 2005) .......48
FIGURE 22 - CRM BENEFI TS MATRIX (CAP GEMIN I, 2005) ..................................49
FIGURE 23 - CRM BENEFI TS FROM LONDON AUTHOR I T I ES (CAP GEMIN I, 2005)......................................................................................................................................... 49
FIGURE 24 - CHANGE MANAGEMENT (INFONET, 2006)........................................51
FIGURE 25 - DIFF ICU LTY AND DISTURBANCE, INFONET (2006) AFTER PENNI NG TON (2003) .......................................................................................................... 52
FIGURE 26 - STAKEHOLDER MODEL FOR PIPAL UNIF I E D DATABASE
Page 5 of 103
(HAMI LTON ET AL, 2010).................................................................................................. 53
FIGURE 27 - COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS VIEW OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT (OLSEN AND EOYANG, 2001) ............................................................ 54
FIGURE 28 - ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOP ME NT - INFONET (2006), AFTER BURKE AND LITWIN (1992).............................................................................................. 55
FIGURE 29 - TYPES OF CHANGE (ACKERMAN, 1997) .............................................56
FIGURE 30 - EPISODIC VERSUS CONTI NUO US CHANGE (MUNDUATE AND BENNEBROEK GRAVENHORST, 2003)......................................................................... 56
FIGURE 31 – THE ZONE OF COMPLEX ITY (ZIMMER MAN, 2001) .........................57
FIGURE 32 - BUILD I NG COMMI T M E N T TO ORGANIZAT IO NAL CHANGE (CONNER AND PATTERSON, 1982)................................................................................ 58
FIGURE 33 - GENERIC BUSINESS PROCESS RE- ENGINEER I NG MODEL (VAKOLA ET AL, 1998)....................................................................................................... 60
FIGURE 34 - UNDERGRADUATE PROSPECTUS PROCESS MAP (HAMI LTON ET AL, 2010)........................................................................................................................... 61
FIGURE 35 - DARO TELEPHONE CAMPAIGN PROCESS MAP (HAMI LTON ET AL, 2010)................................................................................................................................. 62
FIGURE 36 - EXTERNAL AFFAIRS INQUIRY PROCESS MAP (HAMI LTON ET AL, 2010)................................................................................................................................. 63
FIGURE 37 - ANNUAL REPORT PROCESS MAP (HAMI LTO N ET AL, 2010) .......63
FIGURE 38 - MAJOR GIFT TEAM PROCESS MAP (HAMI LTON ET AL, 2010) ....64
FIGURE 39 - CONSULTANCY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS MAP (HAMI LTO N ET
Page 6 of 103
AL, 2010)................................................................................................................................. 65
FIGURE 40 - BUSINESS PROCESS RE- ENGINEER I NG TECHN IQ UES (KITT I NGER ET AL, 1997)................................................................................................. 66
FIGURE 41 - GOOGLE GROUP CREATION PROCESS .............................................. 68
FIGURE 42 - SENDING GOOGLE GROUP INV ITAT I ONS ........................................68
FIGURE 43 - VALUE STREAM MAP APPROACH TO PROCESS MAPPING ........69
FIGURE 44 - 5 STEPS TO SUCCESSFUL SELECTION (INFONET, 2006) .............72
FIGURE 45 - PROJECT SET- UP (INFONET, 2006) ...................................................... 73
FIGURE 46 - PROJECT ROLES (INFONET, 2006) ....................................................... 73
FIGURE 47 – EVALUATE SUPPLIERS (INFONET, 2006) .......................................... 74
FIGURE 48 - A NEW MODEL FOR CRM STRATEGY AND IMPLE M E N TAT I O N (PAYNE AND FROW, 2006)................................................................................................ 76
FIGURE 49 - OVERVIEW AUDIT OF CRM KEY PROCESSES (PAYNE AND FROW, 2006).......................................................................................................................... 77
FIGURE 50 - RELATIVE IMPLE ME NTAT I O N IMPORTANCE OF CRM CAPABILI T I ES FOR DIFFERE NT CRM IMPLE M E NTAT I O N PATHS (HENNEBERG, 2006)........................................................................................................... 77
FIGURE 51 - HYPOTHET I CAL CRM IMPLE M E N TAT I O N MODEL (HENNEBERG, 2006)........................................................................................................... 78
FIGURE 52 - IMPLE ME N TAT I O N TIMEFRAME ANALYSIS (ADEBANJO, 2003) .................................................................................................................................................. 80
Page 7 of 103
FIGURE 53 - TIME BASED CONFIGURABI L I TY OF E-CRM APPLICATIONS (ADEBANJO, 2003)............................................................................................................... 80
Page 8 of 103
Acknowledgements
I wish to extend my heartfelt thanks to Dr XYZ Business School, who supervised this project XYZ University stakeholders and their nominees provided the raw material for this study. I am indebted to them for sparing me the time to discuss their work, and for their contributions to the feedback provided in this report on the JISC Self-Analysis Framework. I am particularly grateful to XYZ, Pro-Vice Chancellor (Enterprise); XYZ, Director of Marketing & Communications, Information Officer for Development and Alumni Relations. This report builds upon work carried out for the “Process Improvement Pilot at Loughborough� (PIPaL). Systems
Committee
programme.
PIPaL was funded under the Joint Information
(JISC)
Business
and
Community
Engagement
I gratefully acknowledge the support provided by JISC
Programme Managers XYZ during the PIPaL project, and their valuable feedback on this report. The process maps included in this report were developed by XYZ from IT Services, in consultation with the stakeholders being interviewed for the PIPaL project.
Page 9 of 103
Executive Summary This report provides a critique of the theory underlying the JISC Self-Analysis Framework for Relationship Management (Donaghy, 2008). This relates to Customer Relationship Management technology in a Further and Higher Education context, and is informed by the results of the PIPaL project, a study conducted at Loughborough (Hamilton, 2010). Key findings of this report are that a future revision of the Framework would benefit from: • Consideration of the sector’s use of techniques such as the Balanced Scorecard and Key Performance Indicators. Some examples have been cited in this report of Key Performance Indicators from leading UK institutions (HEFCE, 2009) • Consideration of the role of Customer Experience Management (CEM) in the success of leading brands such as Apple and Virgin, if no appropriate case studies can be found for the HE/FE sector (Burton, 2005) • Greater use of the literature around CRM in Further and Higher Education (e.g. Svensson and Wood, 2005) • Coverage of the subtle distinctions between “partner” and “customer” relations (Hamilton et al, 2010) • Inclusion of further material from other JISC projects, including the JISC InfoNet infoPack on Change Management (InfoNet, 2006) and the KSA Partnership study (Heywood et al, 2007) • Exploration of additional/alternative process mapping techniques such as Value Stream Mapping (Rother and Shook, 2003) • Greater use of the literature around CRM failures and how these may be avoided - such as by improving engagement with employees (e.g. Bohling et al, 2006) Page 10 of 103
1. Introduction 1.1 Customer Relationship Management in FE/HE Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is a popular business strategy to foster a broader and deeper engagement between a firm and its customers. Examples of this approach at work include loyalty card schemes such as Tesco’s Clubcard (Dennis et al, 2005), and purely online systems such as Amazon recommendations (“people who bought X also bought Y”), as described in Linden et al (2003). CRM is typically implemented through software such as Microsoft Dynamics or Oracle Peoplesoft (Reinartz et al, 2004), but this is only a small part of the picture. There is a substantial body of evidence that to be successful with CRM an organization should examine its existing business processes and adapt or reinvent them to take advantage of the centralized customer database provided by the CRM system – Payne (2006), Boulding et al (2005). In Further and Higher Education, CRM is still in its infancy, and there is an ongoing debate over the nature of “relationship management” in an educational context – Driscoll and Wicks (1998), Svensson and Wood (2005).
1.2 JISC Self-Analysis Framework for Customer Relationship Management
The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) is funded by the Learning and Skills Council, the Higher Education Funding Councils, the Research Councils and the Department for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland. JISC describes its objectives (JISC, 2010) as: “1) Provide cost-effective and sustainable shared national services and resources 2) Help institutions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their
Page 11 of 103
corporate and business systems 3) Help institutions to improve the quality of learning and teaching and the student experience 4) Help institutions to improve the quality, impact and productivity of academic research 5) Be a responsive, reflective and learning organisation that demonstrates value for money” At the time of writing JISC operated 49 services including the JANET network, and 207 projects within 31 programmes (JISC, 2010a). A recent JISC programme resulted in the development of a “Self-Analysis Framework for Relationship Management” (Donaghy, 2008). This is intended to provide institutions with a way of measuring their readiness for Customer Relationship Management.
The JISC Framework also aims to assist
organizations in assessing their “institutional maturity” - the breadth and depth of any current use of this technology at an organization. The JISC Framework resource consists of: •
Web pages providing an introduction to Customer Relationship Management, Business Process Modelling (Daniel Hunt, 1996) and Business Process Re-engineering (Grint and Willcocks, 2007).
•
Templates and tools for self-reflection, to be used in conjunction with stakeholder interviews, workshops etc
•
Advice on mapping out existing business processes using a simple flowchart based Business Process Modelling technique inspired by the Unified Modelling Language (UML) (Fowler, 2003)
Page 12 of 103
1.3 The Process Improvement Pilot at Loughborough (PIPaL) project
The Process Improvement Pilot at Loughborough (PIPaL) project was funded by JISC to apply the Self-Analysis Framework for Relationship Management at Loughborough and report back on the results. In the course of this work a number of key stakeholders were interviewed, a workshop was held, and Business Process Modelling was carried out in many of the external facing areas of the institution. It should be noted that (at the time of writing) Loughborough only made “tactical” use of CRM technology – notably in the form of the Raiser’s Edge system used by the Development and Alumni Relations Office to coordinate fundraising and advancement activities. The JISC programme that funded PIPaL was of particular interest to stakeholders in external facing departments, who had already been discussing the possibility (and potential pitfalls) of a single central CRM system. Findings from the PIPaL project (Hamilton et al, 2010) are noted in this report where appropriate, and have been incorporated in to the critique of the JISC Self-Analysis Framework. The reader should be aware that PIPaL’s remit was to apply the UML based Business Process Modelling technique advocated in the Self-Analysis Framework, rather than to explore possible alternatives.
Page 13 of 103
2. Project Aim and Research Methodology 2.1 Project Aim
This aim of this project was to provide a critique of the academic theory underlying the JISC Self-Analysis Framework for Relationship Management (Donaghy, 2008), hereinafter “JISC Framework”. The findings of this critique are used to make suggestions for improvements or clarifications to be considered by JISC for a future revision of the Framework.
2.2 Summary of Research Methodology
The methodology chosen for this work was a examination of the JISC Framework’s primary sources – summarizing and critiquing the literature referred to. For reference, a copy of the Framework is attached to this report as an Appendix.
2.3 Incorporation of PIPaL Project Results
Where appropriate, data gathered during the PIPaL project is used to inform the critique. This material includes: • Notes from nine interviews which I conducted with CRM stakeholders from the University’s external facing departments. The interviews were loosely structured around the sections of the JISC Framework document, with a particular goal of gathering information about existing business processes and their quirks. • Findings from a stakeholder workshop convened by the project to consider the evidence unearthed through the stakeholder interviews. Page 14 of 103
This brought together a number of key figures including the Director of Marketing, the Director of Alumni Relations and Development, and the Director of External Affairs. The workshop was facilitated by an external consultant with expertise in CRM technology. • Maps of 14 business processes. These included a number of tasks requiring a high degree of inter-departmental cooperation, often a problem due to the lack of a central “customer” database such as would be provided by a CRM system.
These process maps were
constructed from my interview notes by my colleague Anjana Lad. The findings of the PIPaL project were synthesized into a Case Study (Hamilton et al, 2010) which constituted the project’s major deliverable.
2.4 Structure of This Report
This report is structured to mirror the JISC Framework, with major sections covering each of the following JISC Framework topics (section numbers from this report are shown in brackets): •
“What is CRM?” (3) – introduces the area and discusses business drivers for CRM. The potential impact on organizational structure is noted, along with the need for a robust approach to process mapping. Academic models of customer loyalty are examined, and issues around privacy, security and data protection are explored.
•
“The Needs of HEIs and FECs” (4) – considers the use of techniques such as the Balanced Scorecard and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to monitor and manage performance, existing use of KPIs in the sector, and the literature around CRM in Higher Education and the “student as consumer”.
•
“Who are your customers?” (5) – identifying customer groups, the needs of those groups, and ways of mapping and managing value; use
Page 15 of 103
of tools such as the Value Map to visualize this cost/benefit relationship, and the importance of the customer experience. •
“Where are you now?” (6) – explores the concept of “institutional maturity”, and the range of approaches (operational, tactical, strategic) that organizations have followed with their CRM implementations; the results of a survey of UK Further and Higher Education institutions’ use of CRM, and lessons learned from the CRM National Programme in local government.
•
“Are you ready for change?” (7) – provides advice on assessing the institution’s readiness for change, including “people factors” such as resistance to change and senior management buy-in, and tools that the organization can use to measure its “will or desire” for change.
•
“Process Mapping” (8) – examines the JISC Framework’s suggested light touch approach to Business Process Modelling, considers the wider context of Business Process Re-Engineering, and discusses some alternative strategies (such as Value Stream Mapping) that may be more effective in some cases. Particular use is made here of the findings of the PIPaL project, which conducted process mapping tests in most of Loughborough’s external facing departments using the JISC Framework’s methodology.
•
“Which CRM?” (9) - details the steps required in order to develop the business case for introducing CRM including requirements gathering and costing, and good practice in project management. The JISC Framework only provides generic project management examples – I have augmented this with examples from the literature that focus specifically on the introduction of CRM.
Page 16 of 103
2.5 Rationale for Report Structure
Each section of this report has three subsections: • “From the JISC Framework” – the references from the corresponding section of the JISC Framework are highlighted and discussed. References have been followed and in some cases additional material has been indentified that I feel the JISC Framework would benefit from including in a future revision.
Results from the PIPaL project are
included in this section, given their direct relationship to the JISC Framework. • “From the literature” – the academic literature (typically peer reviewed journal papers) is investigated for additional material that might usefully augment the JISC Framework. The JISC Framework is notably light on examples of CRM in a Further/Higher Education context, hence it was of particular interest to determine whether there was a motherlode of more relevant material in the literature that could be of use to JISC. • “Summary” – each section has a short summary which aims to highlight the key findings. The section summaries are brought forward to
form
the
basis
of
the
report’s
overall
conclusions
and
recommendations to JISC. Whilst this is a somewhat unusual approach, I chose to take it due to the length of the JISC Framework – breaking the Framework down into sections meant that I was able to preserve the context of the topic under discussion, e.g. the unique requirements of the education sector (section 4) or approaches to Business Process Modelling (section 8).
Page 17 of 103
3. Review: “What is CRM?”
This section of the JISC Framework is concerned with introducing the underlying concepts of Customer Relationship Management (CRM).
3.1 From the JISC Framework
Feinberg and Kadam (2002) report back on a study of customer satisfaction with retail Web sites. They are quoted in the JISC Framework observing that: “CRM is a business and marketing strategy that integrates technology, process and all business activities around the customer.” Das Gupta (2005) defines CRM as: “a management strategy that enables an organisation to become customer-focussed and develop stronger relationships with its clientele. It helps piece together information about customers, sales, marketing effectiveness, responsiveness and market trends” The JISC Framework also references the widely cited Handbook of CRM (Payne, 2006). This advises that organizations should: “Keep the technological aspects of CRM in perspective as the means, not the end. Think ‘successful corner shop’ as an underlying principle. There, a working ‘memory’ of customers, supported by two-way dialogues,
is
what
enabled
effective
customer
relationship
management” Rodgers and Howlett (2000) illustrate
two different approaches to
Relationship Management in the figures below. The first is an organization with “front of house” and “back of house” activities:
Page 18 of 103
Figure 1 - Traditional Organization (Rodgers and Howlett, 2000)
The second is a modern organization that puts the customer at the centre of its processes, facilitated by the central CRM customer database:
Figure 2 - CRM Facilitated Organization (Rodgers and Howlett, 2000)
This JISC Framework quotes a blog posting by Phinney (2001) discussing the importance of process mapping in introducing Customer Relationship Management. Phinney states that: “By definition – a business is only as successful as its processes” Phinney also goes on to make the following case for mapping and understanding business processes.
This is not quoted in the JISC
Framework, but would make a useful addition to a future revision of the document. Page 19 of 103
Phinney notes that a process mapping based approach: “1. Locks in agreement on how things work among sales process owners 2. Provides an efficient environment to discuss or produce change 3. Provides least cost initiative approaches 4. Compresses the time needed to decide on changes 5. Provides an accurate picture of the steps and relative ROI of each for prioritization 6. Provides documentation and internal disciplines to re-create change downstream” Burton (2005) discusses the use of CRM at airline EasyJet: “The airline industry is extremely competitive and while safety record, image, price and flight convenience are undoubtedly influences on passenger behaviour, it is service that is the real differentiator” The references and quotes reproduced above are typical of the JISC Framework’s introductory material.
Whilst they help to establish some
general principles, I would argue that the lay reader is left somewhat in the dark as to what a Customer Relationship Management system is, how it works – and why large companies such as EasyJet are so interested in it.
Page 20 of 103
3.2 From the Literature
Verhoef (2003) provides a useful summary of the literature in this area and highlights two key areas for commercial use of CRM technology: Customer Retention and Customer Share Development. Verhoef defines the latter (after Peppers and Rogers, 1999) as: “the ratio of a customer’s purchases of a
particular category of
products or services from supplier X to the customer’s total purchases of that category of products or services from all suppliers.” To this end all aspects of a customer’s dealings with a company are recorded and subject to predictive analysis. This is used to determine the likes of special offers made under loyalty schemes and the content of direct marketing mailshots. Uncles et al (2003) discuss three academic models of customer loyalty, as illustrated in the Figure below:
Figure 3 - Models of customer loyalty (Uncles et al, 2003)
Page 21 of 103
These models are characterised by Uncles et al as follows: 1. “loyalty as primarily an attitude that sometimes leads to a relationship with the brand” – e.g. see Day (1969), Jacoby and Chestnut (1978), Foxall and Goldsmith (1994) and Reichheld (1996). 2. “loyalty mainly expressed in terms of revealed behaviour (i.e. the pattern of past purchases)” – e.g. see Ehrenberg (1988), Fader and Hardie (1996), Kahn et al (1988), Massey et al (1970). 3. “buying moderated by the individual’s characteristics, circumstances, and/or the purchase situation” – e.g. see Belk (1974, 1975), Blackwell et al (1999), Fazio and Zanna (1981). There is a clear implication here that an organization may find that it has put into place the “wrong” CRM system, or at least one not best suited to the behaviour exhibited by its customers. Boulding et al (2005) discuss strategic approaches and potential pitfalls, in particular issues around privacy and security: “Sometimes the firm can unobtrusively collect information about the customer at the time of the transaction. Other times, the firm must rely on the customer providing this information.” Lewis (2005) found that customer behaviour changes when the customer is aware that they are being monitored and profiled. These conclusions are amplified by Boulding et al (2005): “Lewis shows that some customers anticipate what a firm will do after it observes customer behavior. This leads these customers to modify their own behavior. In other words, the customers act strategically, this reduces the firm’s share of the value creation pie, even if the firm anticipates these reactions, though anticipation on the part of the firm will reduce this reduction in share of the value pie.” The JISC Framework discusses resistance to change from staff members, but does not cover privacy and data protection. I contend that these are key Page 22 of 103
issues - who has access to which customer information, with whose permission, and what is being done with it? Note that information may have been provided by a third party not covered under institutional policies for staff and students, such as a tenant or a conference delegate. Amplifying the disclosure theme identified above, Rygielski et al (2002) look at data mining techniques and policy issues. They conclude that: “One basic principle for businesses using personalized technology is to disclose to their consumers the kinds of information they are seeking and how that information will be used. Some groups list objectives for ethical information and privacy management. Others have developed a Privacy Bill of Rights that includes fair access by individuals to their personal information, responsible linkage of online and off-line information, suitable criteria for opt-in and opt-out privacy options, standardizing the disclosure to consumers of any existing privacy policy, independent verification of implementation and execution of privacy and security policies, and fair mechanisms for resolving disputes by a trusted third party” We often hear of information being disclosed inadvertently through the loss or theft of computer equipment – e.g. the recent loss of 63,000 current and former employees’ personal information by Stanford University (Naraine and Danchev, 2010). High profile data breaches have been chronicled by the Open Rights Group in the UK (ORG, 2010) and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in the United States (PRC, 2010). Taber (2010) warns organizations to be extremely careful in their use of CRM to avoid potential legal issues with legislation such as EU Directive 2002/58 on Privacy and Electronic Communications (the “E-Privacy Directive”), FERPA/HIPAA in the US, and lawsuits from competitors seeking access to data or aggrieved customers seeking redress after a data breach. This is an area where there is already a substantial body of work that a future revision of the JISC Framework could draw upon – particularly in the area of online commerce. Page 23 of 103
For example, Chellappa and Sin (2005) study the
dichotomy between privacy and personalization for the online consumer. Boyens et al (2002) look at privacy conflicts between consumer oriented features and data mining carried out by service operators – often contracted out to third parties. In an ideal world you would have control over who did what with your personal data. However, this requires “buy in” from a number of participants. In a widely cited paper on IT systems techniques for preserving privacy, Karjoth et al (2002) sketch out a “Platform for enterprise privacy practices” that puts information disclosure under the control of the consumer. This is based on the work of the World-Wide Web Consortium’s on Internet privacy, which was subsequently wound down in 2007 after concluding (W3C, 2007): “there was insufficient support from current Browser implementers for the implementation of P3P 1.1” There is now a body of work around the privacy issues that have arisen with one service provider alone – Facebook. For example, see Acquisti and Gross (2006) and Dwyer et al (2007). For the purposes of this report I shall use Facebook as an example of the more general areas that need to be addressed around privacy, security and data protection in relation to CRM. Facebook have been widely criticized for introducing technologies that remove or reduce users’ privacy, such as News Feeds (Boyd, 2008) and the ill fated “Beacon” system (Perez, 2007): “Off-Facebook activities that can be broadcast to one's Facebook friends include purchasing a product, signing up for a service and including an item on a wish list.” Jones and Soltren (2005) surveyed students at four US Universities: “As a whole, users are familiar with the privacy features Facebook offers, and choose not to use them. […] of the 380 users who gave information regarding their use of “My Privacy," 234 (62%) said they use the feature, while 146 (38%) said they do not. Actively choosing to not use “My Privacy" indicates that users believe there is a benefit to Page 24 of 103
providing information and allowing others to see it.” Jones and Soltren (2005) also noted that: “We asked users to guess whether or not Facebook can share your information with other companies. Of 374 respondents, 174 (47%) believed Facebook could not do this, while 200 (53%) believed Facebook could. Facebook can indeed share your information with other companies for advertising or other purposes, as indicated in their privacy policy” Felt and Evans (2008) looked at 150 Facebook applications, and found that it was commonplace for applications to use information that they had not explicitly been given permission to, as shown below.
Figure 4 - Facebook application use of personal data (Felt and Evans, 2008)
Of course Facebook is a public web service, far removed in many ways from the private databases collected for the purposes of Customer Relationship Management. However, many of the same considerations apply – e.g. the case of disclosure to third parties noted above is particularly relevant when information was provided to a related entity such as a University subsidiary that handles conference and accommodation bookings.
Page 25 of 103
3.3 Summary
I have examined the Customer Relationship Management introductory material provided by the JISC Framework and identified several cases where better use could be made of the literature referred to by the Framework - e.g. the various JISC InfoNet infoKits (InfoNet, 2008 etc). A lack of clarity has been noted over core concepts – the JISC Framework’s descriptions of CRM and its uses tend to be at quite a high level. Business stakeholders and staff affected by the introduction of a CRM system would require additional information about day-to-day practicalities. Some examples have been provided from the literature, e.g. Boulding et al (2005) note the effect on consumer behaviour of being monitored and profiled via CRM. Introductory examples from the peer reviewed literature have been supplied. These reinforce the rather upbeat messages about CRM technology highlighted in the JISC Framework, and also provide some cautionary tales. Examples have been drawn from Facebook’s “sinister” side (e.g.
Jones
and Soltren, 2005), in the absence of CRM specific literature covering data protection and privacy.
Page 26 of 103
4. Review: “The Needs of HEIs and FECs”
This section of the Framework considers the application of CRM technology in the context of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and Further Education Colleges (FECs).
4.1 From the JISC Framework
The Framework considers how one might measure the success of a CRM programme, quoting from Hughes (2008): “No matter what anyone says, the purpose of CRM, like all other marketing programs, is to increase profits by increasing sales by more than the cost of the CRM. These global measures conceal a number of vital steps towards profits that CRM, if it is working, will be able to bring about. They are: 1. Increased customer retention (less defections each year) 2. Increased visits or orders per customer per year 3. Increased average spending per order or visit 4. Increased cross sales – customers buy in more categories 5. Increased up sales – customers buy higher priced items 6. Increased reactivation of previous customers 7. Increased referrals of new customers by existing customers 8. Doing all of the above while keeping increased costs (required to make them happen) from exceeding the increased sales”
This section of the JISC Framework also considers managing the outcomes of introducing CRM. It contains just one other citation from the literature, the Page 27 of 103
landmark paper where Kaplan and Norton (1992) introduce the Balanced Scorecard and the use of Key Performance Indicators.
The figure below
illustrates the concept of the Balanced Scorecard.
Figure 5 - Classic Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1992)
In an educational context, what would these goals and measures (Key Performance Indicators) be? I will look into this in further detail in the next section, but will note at this point that CRM is only one component of a larger portfolio of metrics, reflecting the breadth and depth of the institution’s activities. The JISC Framework offers a template for identifying the outcomes of introducing CRM that organizations can adapt for their own self-analysis. This is, however, rooted in the language of business and may be inappropriate for an educational setting. For example one of the first statistics to be monitored is “Overall profit generated”.
Page 28 of 103
4.2 From the Literature
The lack of detailed coverage of CRM in a Further/Higher Education context lets the JISC Framework down considerably. This is a critical area, because an institution developing its own business case for CRM would need to find the equivalent of Hughes’ vital steps above. What is the equivalent of customer retention, what do “sales” mean in an educational context, and are Hughes’ cross/up selling meaningful concepts? Moving beyond the JISC Framework, there is a substantial body of work looking at Customer Relationship Management in the Higher Education context.
For example, Svensson and Wood (2005) address the issue of
student-as-consumer, and conclude that: “the citizen-authority relationship metaphor provides a more accurate description of the relationship between universities and students than the traditional customer-supplier relationship metaphor. Knowledge and the official pursuit of it through the attainment of a degree has been turned into a readily-for-sale commodity. Universities need to collectively enlighten their students that they are citizens of the university community and not just customers of the university product alone.“ This is a common theme for the literature covering use of CRM in Higher Education.
Driscoll and Wicks (1998, p. 59) identify a number of risks
associated with treating education as a commodity to be bought and sold e.g.: “if students are able to negotiate curriculum and evaluation based on their perceived needs as customers, then universities may possibly erode the quality to which students were attracted in the first place.“ This work proved remarkably prescient, with the subsequent introduction and failure of the Individual Learning Account (PAC, 2003). However, Wolf (2008)
Page 29 of 103
offers a contrary viewpoint: “In fact, individuals are in a better position to know what is good for them than are governments, because they are close to "their" labour market, and know what sort of work fits their lives. The record of "youth training" and "adult retraining" schemes, in which governments decide what training to offer, with benefits often dependent on attendance, is uniformly dreadful.” Writing in the International Journal of Education Management, Lust (1998, p. 34) considers the student-as-consumer dilemma, and concludes that: “If we think only of the short term customer satisfaction, the longer term benefits of intrinsic motivation and intellectual exploration will be lost. “ This is problematic for CRM, given its focus on tools and techniques that have been brought in from the world of business. Tierney (1999, p. 126) notes that these may not be applicable in an educational context: “A customer driven focus certainly runs the risk of destroying standards if the definition of such a focus is to blindly adapt to the marketplace and merely meet the whims of whoever comes to classes.“ Svensson and Wood (2005) offer a simple diagrammatic view of the differing rights and obligations involved in the customer and student lifecycles:
Page 30 of 103
Figure 6 - Comparison between student and consumer lifecycles (Svensson and Wood, 2005)
This highlights that there is a far deeper question that (by taking the introduction of the CRM system as a given) has yet to be addressed – what is the purpose of the CRM system in an educational context? It may be that use of CRM technology is limited to “customer facing” scenarios such as call centres run during clearing or alumni fundraising, but it would be helpful to a wider institutional view. Again there is literature to draw upon. Grant and Anderson (2002) describe their vision for Customer Relationship Management in Higher Education, and list some goals that institutions might aspire to: •
“Increased revenue through improved recruitment and retention
•
Reduced recruitment costs
•
Improved customer service
•
Quicker yield conversions
•
Improved customer satisfaction”
However, they also sound a note of caution, observing that these goals can only be achieved through a sea change in the way that IT systems are
Page 31 of 103
implemented, as part of a holistic programme rather than existing in silos: “The evolution from point-to-point integration between applications to a single institution-wide database with integrated business rules and a workflow process library will blur the distinction between student, finance, alumni, and human resource systems.” Grant and Anderson (2002) also offer an example of possible use of CRM within a Higher Education institution: “A personalized mailing campaign would […] be launched using both email and traditional mail. Within each mailing, prospects would be given a personal identification code for access to the university. All prospects not responding by any channel (Web, e-mail, phone, fax, or other) would be sent follow-up e-mails. A prospect receives the e-mail three days before the receipt of the paper letter. The prospect then activates the hyperlink and is linked to the university’s recruitment Web page. The prospect is requested to enter his or her personal identification code and then is linked to a personalized home page and portal. The Web page is customized, based on interests known from the search data. For example, if the prospect is interested in sports or band, links to the university’s athletic department or music club Web pages are provided.” Coverage in the literature of CRM in a Higher Education context typically focuses on those situations that most closely resemble a conventional customer/supplier relationship – recruitment and advancement/fundraising. But what purposes will the customer database be put to? Luan (2002) offers us some clues as to this in his paper on Data Mining in Higher Education:
Page 32 of 103
Figure 7 - Neural network predicting probability of student dropout (Luan, 2002)
Figure 8 - Business questions that CRM data mining could help with (Luan, 2002)
Clearly there are some very sensitive topics potentially under consideration – and what should an institution do in order to react sensitively when a computer system predicts that a student is likely to drop out or fail their course? It may be best not to acknowledge the source of the information due to the preconceptions that will arise about computer (or operator) error – see Tait and Entwistle (1996) and Parker (1999). Kim et al (2003) study the implementation of a Balanced Scorecard approach, and highlight a number of areas where data may be gathered in to populate Page 33 of 103
Key Performance Indicators, e.g. through the interactions shown in the figure below.
Figure 9 - Potential data sources for KPIs (Kim et al, 2003)
Many UK Universities publish their Key Performance Indicators on their public websites.
For example, the University of Birmingham’s institutional KPIs
(UoB, 2010), and the Newcastle University Library KPIs (UoN, 2009).The Higher Education Funding Councils also produce high level KPIs for the sector (HEFCE, 2009). A useful addition to a future revision of the JISC Framework would be a section covering KPIs in use across the sector, and in particular any use of KPIs to monitor the introduction of a CRM system. This could be based on a survey of existing institutional practice coupled with web based research. Croteau and Li (2003) examine the literature around Critical Success Factors (CSF) for CRM implementations, and study CRM implementations in 57 large organizations in Canada. They conclude that top level management support and involvement is a critical pre-requisite for success, and to defuse potential resistance to change.
Page 34 of 103
4.3 Summary
This section highlights the commercial view of CRM as a technology to drive sales, increase customer loyalty, and so on. This is contrasted with institutional goals, which are typically expressed in rather different language, e.g. reducing drop out rates and failure to complete courses. This is an area where the JISC Framework is notably weak, in that no attempt is made to draw examples from the education sector – even though these are readily available. Examples include Svensson and Wood (2005), Driscoll and Wicks (1998), Wolf (2008) and Tierney (1999). It is suggested that a future revision of the JISC Framework might benefit from including a study of the sector’s use of techniques such as the Balanced Scorecard and Key Performance Indicators to satisfy the broader agenda of performance management beyond that which may be achieved purely through adoption of CRM. Some examples have been cited in this report of Key Performance Indicators from leading UK institutions (HEFCE, 2009)
Page 35 of 103
5. Review: “Who are your customers?”
This section of the JISC Framework is concerned with identifying customer groups, the needs of those groups, and ways of creating and mapping customer value.
5.1 From the JISC Framework
Bennis (1989) states that: “The true measure of any society is not what it knows but what it does with what it knows” The JISC Framework also cites the “Doing the Business” case study into collaboration between Further Education colleges and employers (Fusion, 2007). This observes that consultation around the implementation of a CRM: “…is a wide process that involves utilizing regional and sub regional labour market intelligence as well as working with partner organizations across the immediate area to identify gaps. Also each provider would work with each of their employers individually or in a cluster across a sector to ascertain whether or not there are gaps in the local market. This can be shared with the consortium to ensure the sharing of best practice and maintain strong referral routes and sign posting opportunities.” Dwyer (2008) introduces the concept of the Value Map and describes how this may be applied to the hospitality industry – where CRM technology is already widely used. The figure below provides an illustrative example of the Value Map technique. I was unable to find examples of Value Maps in an education context in the literature, and this would be a useful area for a future revision of the JISC Framework to cover. Page 36 of 103
Figure 10 - Generic Value Map example (Donaghy, 2008)
Peppers and Rogers (2007) discuss the difference between Customer Experience Management and Customer Relationship Management (CEM): “...CRM, that’s how a customer looks to a company ...CEM, that’s really how the company looks to the customer. In way too many cases, the way a customer looks to a company is sort of the way prey looks to a vulture.” Alperin (2005) offers this helpful definition of CEM: “Broadly defined, Customer Experience Management (CEM) is the process of managing the events and personal interactions that make up a customer’s experience. By looking outside of itself, an institution or organization gains valuable insight into the customer’s perspective. This process determines customers’ experience by managing “touchpoints”— interactions with all who come in contact with a customer. Customer Experience Management is the process that successfully builds brand loyalty and repeat business. A further quote from Alperin (2005) on examples of Customer Experience “touchpoints” beyond the key teaching and learning experience would be Page 37 of 103
useful to include in a future revision of the JISC Framework: 1. Student
housing
preferences
–
campus
appearance,
ensuite
bedrooms, computer labs, coffee bars etc 2. Technology, e.g. wireless Internet access 3. Fitness and athletics – Alperin states that students expect to find facilities matching or exceeding those of a private health club 4. Dining – increased choices, presence of brand name franchises, food prepared as you watch 5. Entertainment – cultural and sporting events, invited speakers and other opportunities to bring outsiders to campus and present a vibrant image of the institution However, an important question follows from this: what is the scope of the CRM activity? The recent JISC PIPaL case study concluded that this was perhaps the key issue for any project. From Hamilton et al (2010): “There was clear consensus that a Relationship Management programme can only be successful given effective business processes, committed people and supporting technology. The scale of the effort involved at an institution could vary drastically depending on the scope of the project – e.g. a system for use only by external facing units, versus a system or systems for cross-institutional use.
Some
consideration should be given to institutions taking a dual-path approach, with separate (but integrated) Relationship Management systems targeting particular business areas.” It is perhaps worth noting that some University staff members (typical in administrative and support roles) already have a requirement to monitor and track dialogue on an ongoing basis – e.g. to facilitate conference and accommodation bookings, to liaise with the press, to manage consultancy and research contracts, and so on. For people working in these roles a carefully implemented CRM system could be hugely beneficial and is likely to be welcomed rather than feared.
Page 38 of 103
5.2 From the Literature
There is a body of work covering Customer Experience Management in an educational context, driven primarily by the Quality Assurance agenda. For example, Aldridge and Rowley (1998) reviewed the literature on CEM in Higher Education and carried out a survey on the student experience. Key findings were: “Continued perceived poor quality will […] lead to disconfirmation which may be expressed through course and module questionnaires and other formal measurements of student summative evaluations. Disaffirmation occurs when the student ceases to be an effective member of the educational community. This withdrawal may be exhibited through formal withdrawal, or through failure. On occasion, disaffected students will remain in the institution, and continue to perform poorly; although disaffected they may feel that they have no option but to continue with their
studies.
These
students
are
likely
to
be
vulnerable
to
dissatisfaction, disconfirmation and dissonance.” This section of the JISC Framework also highlights that the Framework provides very little coverage of CRM in relation to managing partner relations – e.g. with funding councils, regional development agencies, peer institutions and so on.
There are subtle differences between “partner” relations and
“customer” relations Xu and Walton (2005) discuss the analytical uses to which data gathered by a CRM may be put, and offer this helpful diagram summarizing their findings:
Page 39 of 103
Figure 11 - Analytical uses of CRM (Xu and Walton, 2005)
Xu and Walton also note what they feel is a key role of a CRM system in providing analytical support: “An analytical CRM should provide customer profiling and customer segmentation functions with the capability to identify strategically significant customers.�
Page 40 of 103
5.3 Summary
The JISC Framework introduces the Value Map tool (Dwyer, 2008), which is evidently intended to be a key concept. Unfortunately the Value Map examples provided in the Framework are generic and no exceptions are made for the education sector’s unique characteristics. The Framework introduces the concept of Customer Experience Management (CEM), but does not elaborate further upon this – even where there are some obvious quotes from the referenced material, and a body of published peer reviewed work such as Alperin (2005) and Peppers and Rogers (2007). It might be appropriate for a future revision of the Framework to consider the role of CEM in the success of brands such as Apple and Virgin, if no appropriate case studies can be found for the HE/FE sector. A significant problem with this section of the Framework is that it fails to address issues around the scope of the CRM implementation – how does an institution decide whether to put a “full service” system in for use by everyone, or a system for use by (say) staff in external facing departments only? Advice and survey/case study results would be very helpful here. The KSA Partnership study (Heywood et al, 2007) offers much in the way of source material. Similarly the distinctions between “partner” and “customer” relations (Hamilton et al, 2010) are not addressed in the Framework, and coverage of this area would be a welcome addition to a future revision of the Framework. An observation from the literature of some relevance is that to carry out the analytical work required to scope out a CRM implementation, it may be necessary to put into place something that comes close to the functionality of a CRM system (Xu and Walton, 2005). This in itself may be a clue as to why many CRM implementations are reported as failing or being incorrectly specified (Lindgreen, 2004). Page 41 of 103
6. Review: “Where are you now?”
This section of the JISC Framework is concerned with establishing institutional “maturity” in terms of Customer Relationship Management, i.e. any systems already in use and the breadth and depth of their use.
6.1 From the JISC Framework
The JISC Framework draws upon Payne (2006) to suggest that there is a “continuum” of CRM use at organizations, from tactical to strategic:
Figure 12 - The CRM Continuum (Payne, 2006)
Whilst there are no further literature references, this section of the JISC Framework also draws upon prior work funded by JISC – a study conducted by KSA Partnership (Heywood et al, 2007) and advice from the JISC InfoNet advisory service on System Implementation models (InfoNet, 2008). Arguably the key KSA Partnership finding was the concept of “institutional maturity”, as illustrated in the figure below:
Page 42 of 103
Figure 13 - Institutional maturity (Heywood et al, 2007)
The KSA Partnership study carried out a survey of institutions (with 69 respondents), followed up with a series of face to face interviews and a workshop. Inevitably the quantitative elements of the study will be overtaken by events and become less relevant as time passes. However, several of the quantitative results may be helpful to institutions seeking to understand how CRM systems are being used in the sector, e.g. see the figures below.
Figure 14 - Number of years since CRM implemented (Heywood et al, 2007)
Page 43 of 103
Figure 15 - Investment in CRM technology to date (Heywood et al, 2007)
Figure 16 - Business and Community Engagement transactions managed by primary CRM system (Heywood et al, 2007)
Page 44 of 103
Figure 17 - Proportion of academic staff using CRM system regularly (Heywood et al, 2007)
It is also unfortunate that greater use is not made of the qualitative results of the KSA Partnership work – notably the case studies conducted with institutions, summarised graphically below.
Figure 18 - Graphical summary of CRM case studies (Heywood et al, 2007)
Page 45 of 103
The JISC Framework refers to the implementation models described in (InfoNet, 2008), and notes that: “The appropriateness of each model will depend on the circumstances of your institution. You do not have to move from peripheral straight to strategic.
Many developers/consultancies advise
on
a
phased
approach so that the organization can get accustomed to the changes and any difficulties can be resolved without huge consequences to the entire organization.“ The figure below illustrates the different approaches characterized in InfoNet (2008). It should be noted that this is a generic document dealing with the introduction of new IT systems, and not specific to Customer Relationship Management per se.
Figure 19 - Approaches to system implementation (InfoNet, 2008)
Page 46 of 103
6.2 From the Literature
I was unable to find examples of “CRM maturity” in the literature covering CRM’s use in an educational setting. However, there have been a number of publications exploring CRM maturity more generally in the public sector. King (2006) considers the use of CRM in local government by examining the lessons learned from eight CRM Pathfinder projects, and notes that: “Customer relationship management (CRM) is seen as a key element in delivering citizen-centric public services in the UK. However, CRM originated in the private sector as a technology to support customer acquisition,
retention
and
extension
(cross-selling).
The
appropriateness of this technology to organizations striving to meet complex goals such as improving the quality of life for vulnerable people is open to question.” It is important to note that the Pathfinder projects were part of a larger government initiative to incorporate CRM technology into processes and interaction with the citizen – the CRM National Programme (eGov, 2004). The goal of the CRM National Programme was to facilitate “joined up eGovernment” in time for a central Government deadline in 2005. CRM Bassham (2005), summarises the lessons learned from the national programme. Unfortunately much of the information relating to this work is no longer generally available.
Ironically this is a direct result of embracing new
technologies – the
primary resource
www.crmacademy.org
website,
which
for the programme was the is no
longer available.
Some
information has been captured by the Internet Archive project and is available via their “Way Back Machine” (IA, 2010). Other
key
resources
were
the
Local
e-Government
website
-
www.localegov.gov.uk, and the CRM National Project site www.crmnp.net, but again these have been allowed to lapse. The material from these sites Page 47 of 103
could still be helpful to the FE/HE community on its own CRM journey, if a digital preservation ethos had been adopted (Farrell, 2010). As it is there are now few visible outputs of this ÂŁ4.27m taxpayer funded project. One of the available outputs is the report of a benefits realization study conducted for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Cap Gemini, 2005). The study provides an insight into the areas where it was felt that CRM could make the greatest impact. The chart below summarises its results:
Figure 20 - Potential benefits from CRM (Cap Gemini, 2005)
Cap Gemini also developed a model for quantifying benefits which exposes the underlying process logic, e.g. reduced transaction time, reduced number of transactions, and improved staff productivity. This is illustrated below:
Figure 21 - CRM benefits assessment model (Cap Gemini, 2005)
Page 48 of 103
The Cap Gemini study highlights a number of areas where CRM may be beneficial, as shown in the figure below:
Figure 22 - CRM benefits matrix (Cap Gemini, 2005)
Cap Gemini also provide evidence of the potential benefits of CRM using data gathered from two London authorities, as shown below:
Figure 23 - CRM benefits from London authorities (Cap Gemini, 2005)
Page 49 of 103
6.3 Summary The JISC Framework introduces the concept of “institutional maturity”, which is presented without any further comment. This makes it difficult for the lay reader to determine whether institutional maturity is something that has been invented for the Framework, or is already in widespread use. A literature search has determined that this is a common label (King, 2006 and Cap Gemini, 2005), but failed to identify any literature focusing on the education sector. The KSA Partnership (Heywood et al, 2007) carried out both qualitative and quantitative research into CRM adoption in the sector, and it is unfortunate that greater use is not made of their results to inform the Framework. This would be more relevant to readers in FE and HE than many of the examples that the Framework uses, which are drawn for the most part from the world of business. This section of the JISC Framework refers to an “infoPack” on System Implementation planning (InfoNet, 2008) produced by the JISC InfoNet service. Whilst this is hugely useful as a training and development resource, it is in the wrong part of the Framework and should be moved to one of the later sections. This lack of examples in the education sector should be countered by the wealth of data available about the recent initiative to introduce CRM across local government. Unfortunately key results from the programme appear to have been lost due to there being no Digital Preservation strategy (Farrell, 2010) in place at the time of this work. The key players in the “CRM National Programme” are well known, and qualitative interviews might help to inform further work by JISC in this area.
Page 50 of 103
7. Review: “Are you ready for change?” This section of the JISC Framework considers readiness for change, and tools that the institution can use to measure their “will or desire” for change. Strategies for dealing with different organizational cultures are explored, along with tactics for introducing change without alienating the people of the organization.
7.1 From the JISC Framework
The Framework draws from the JISC InfoNet “infoKits” on Change Management (InfoNet, 2006) and Creating a Managed Learning Environment (InfoNet, 2003). The Change Management infoKit offers a particularly apt figure that summarises graphically the issues involved around this topic:
Figure 24 - Change Management (InfoNet, 2006)
Whilst this section of the JISC Framework makes minimal use of the literature, the Change Management InfoKit has a very thorough investigation of Change Management theory. I will return to this document in section 7.2 below. Page 51 of 103
The JISC Framework quotes Pennington (2003), who proposes a tool to assist organizations in diagnosing the impact of a proposed change. This is shown in the figure below, which is not included in the JISC Framework but would be a welcome addition to it.
Figure 25 - Difficulty and disturbance, InfoNet (2006) after Pennington (2003)
In a report entitled “Effecting change in HE”, the Higher Education Funding Council for England writes (HEFCE, 2004): “Academics are challenging individuals - it is the nature of academia to debate, discuss and criticise. Engaging in debate is essential if there is to be buy-in from the academic community and criticism should not necessarily be seen as a lack of support.” It should be noted at this point that academics as a group, whilst not wholly excluded from the JISC Framework, are certainly under-represented. On the role of the academic in a CRM project, the PIPaL project stakeholder consultation found that (Hamilton et al, 2010): •
“Academics are the key to new relationships but the pressure of their roles leaves little time for on-going relationship development or account
Page 52 of 103
management •
For research and consultancy it is the academic who is contacted in an estimated 95% of enquiries
•
In what is a competitive situation a more consistent and simple contact procedure would improve the partner experience
•
Information and the relationship is retained by the academic with further and duplicate information built up in other departmental touch points
•
Major companies often need/want a wide range of services. The combined relationship value of Enterprise and Academics is more powerful and could be successfully deployed if Enterprise had an greater awareness of current partners and their existing relationships with for example Academics”
The PIPaL project went on to develop a unified database model that made Academics “first class” users, alongside external facing departments:
Figure 26 - Stakeholder model for PIPaL unified database (Hamilton et al, 2010)
Page 53 of 103
7.2 From the Literature This section of the report draws heavily upon sources identified by the JISC InfoNet team in their Change Management infoKit (InfoNet, 2006) - the InfoNet work includes a comprehensive literature review. The relationship between Complexity Theory and change management is introduced through the work of Lewin and Regine (1999) and Olson and Eoyang (2001). Olson and Eoyang offer a view of change management through the lens of Complex Adaptive System theory (Holland, 1992), as illustrated in the table below. Traditional
Complex Adaptive System
Few variables determine outcomes
Innumerable variables determine outcome
The whole is equal to the sum of the parts (reductionist)
The whole is different from the sum of the parts (holistic)
Direction is determined by design and the power of a few leaders
Direction is determined by emergence and the participation of many people
Individual or system behaviour is knowable, predictable and controllable
Individual or system behaviour is unknowable, unpredictable and uncontrollable
Causality is linear: every effect can be traced to a specific cause
Causality is mutual: Every cause is also an effect, and every effect is also a cause
Relationships are directional
Relationships are empowering
All systems are essentially the same
Each system is unique
Efficiency and reliability are measures of value
Responsiveness to the environment is the measure of value
Decisions are based on facts and data
Decisions are based on tensions and patterns
Leaders are experts and authorities
Leaders are facilitators and supporters
Figure 27 - Complex Adaptive Systems view of Change Management (Olsen and Eoyang, 2001)
Page 54 of 103
Stacey (1999) notes that: “Most textbooks focus heavily on techniques and procedures for longterm planning, on the needs for visions and missions, on the importance and the means of securing strongly shared cultures, on the equation of success with consensus, consistency, uniformity and order. [However, in complex environments] the real management task is that of coping with and even using unpredictability, clashing countercultures, disensus, contention, conflict, and inconsistency. In short the tasks that justifies the existence of all managers has to do with instability, irregularity, difference and disorder.” These themes are quite at odds with the more traditional “causal” view of change management espoused by the likes of Burke and Litwin (1992):
Figure 28 - Organisational Development - InfoNet (2006), after Burke and Litwin (1992)
Page 55 of 103
Ackerman (1997) observes that there are several distinct models of change to be found in the literature. Change is typically planned, as shown in the table below, but can also be emergent (Mintzberg, 1989).
Type of Change
Characteristics
Developmental
May be either planned or emergent; it is first order, or incremental. It is change that enhances or corrects existing aspects of an organisation, often focusing on the improvement of a skill or process.
Transitional
Seeks to achieve a known desired state that is different from the existing one. It is episodic, planned and second order, or radical. Much of the organisational change literature is based on this type.
Transformationa
Is radical or second order in nature. It requires a shift in assumptions made
l
by the organisation and its members. Transformation can result in an organisation that differs significantly in terms of structure, processes, culture and strategy. It may, therefore, result in the creation of an organisation that operates in developmental mode - one that continuously learns, adapts and improves.
Figure 29 - Types of Change (Ackerman, 1997)
Episodic change is introduced by Weick and Quinn (1999), and amplified by Munduate and Bennebroek Gravenhorst (2003), as shown below:
Tempo
Episodic Short time-span development of
Continuous Sequence of events in the development of
Metaphor Analytical
radical change Reach new equilibrium Change is intentional and has
incremental change Constant adjustment and growth People are attracted to new situations that
framework Change agent
dramatic impact Transactional leadership
gradually evolve Transformational leadership (Attraction)
(Replacement)
Figure 30 - Episodic versus Continuous Change (Munduate and Bennebroek Gravenhorst, 2003)
Weick (1993) states that it is incorrect to view organizational change: Page 56 of 103
"as a bounded activity that occurs at a fixed point in time ... [where] structures are assumed to be stable solutions to a set of current problems" Instead, Weick proposes that change: “tends to be emergent and visible only after the fact. Thus, the design is a piece of history, not a piece of architecture. [...] Design, viewed from the perspective of improvisation, is more emergent, more continuous, more filled with surprise, more difficult to control, more tied to the content of action, and more affected by what people pay attention to than are the designs implied by architecture.” Zimmerman (2001) builds upon Stacey’s Agreement & Certainty Matrix (Stacey, 1999) to highlight the area that she calls “The Zone of Complexity”:
Figure 31 – The Zone of Complexity (Zimmerman, 2001)
Page 57 of 103
From Zimmerman (2001): “There is a large area on this diagram which lies between the anarchy region and regions of the traditional management approaches. Stacey calls this large center region the zone of complexity - others call it the edge of chaos. In the zone of complexity the traditional management approaches are not very effective but it is the zone of high creativity, innovation, and breaking with the past to create new modes of operating.” Conner and Patterson (1982) examine how support is built up for change, both at an organizational and individual level. They assert that a linear model applies, where each stage builds upon (and relies on) the previous one:
Figure 32 - Building Commitment to Organizational Change (Conner and Patterson, 1982)
Chen and Wang (2006) studied commitment to change in employees: “participants with more internal locus of control were more likely to have high affective and normative commitment to change, whereas participants with more external locus of control were more likely to have high continuance commitment to change“
Page 58 of 103
7.3 Summary The role of Academics in the introduction of a CRM system was discussed, and the results of the PIPaL project (Hamilton et al, 2010) used to augment the literature referred to in the JISC Framework. The difficulties of reaching agreement in an environment (academia) where all the actors are effectively independent operators was noted (HEFCE, 2004). The Complexity Theory perspective on Change Management was introduced (Lewin and Regine,1999 and Olson and Eoyang, 2001), and contrasted with a more traditional process and procedure oriented approach to project management. The impact of emergent and episodic behavior was discussed. Stacey’s Agreement & Certainty Matrix was used to
illustrate the “co-
creation” approach to Change Management (Zimmerman, 2001 and Stacey, 1999). The key finding on readiness for change is that the JISC InfoNet team had already conducted a thorough literature review for their own document (InfoNet, 2006), and the results of this are readily re-usable in the context of the JISC Framework.
Page 59 of 103
8. Review: “Process mapping” This section of the JISC Framework is concerned with establishing the modus operandi for successful process mapping (also referred to as Business Process Modelling) using a simple technique inspired by the Unified Modelling Language (Fowler, 2003). I give several examples drawn from the results of the PIPaL project (Hamilton et al, 2010) to illustrate areas where this approach breaks down, introduce possible alternative techniques and provide a worked example of the Value Stream Map (Rother and Shook, 2003). I should also note that much of the PIPaL related material originally appeared in that project’s findings, of which I am the principal author.
8.1 From the JISC Framework
Vakola et al (1998) offer a generic model for Business Process Reengineering, as shown in the Figure below:
Figure 33 - Generic Business Process Re-engineering model (Vakola et al, 1998)
Page 60 of 103
Proesel (2001) notes that: “When you KNOW what you are doing, there are often little quirks you don’t see. The process of committing your process to paper exposes these anomalies and affords you with the opportunity to make conscious choices. We often think that what we don’t know is what gets us in trouble. In reality it’s what we KNOW and act on that just ain’t so that gets us in more trouble.” A key conclusion from the PIPaL project (Hamilton et al, 2010) was that the approach which had been developed to process mapping by JISC should prove highly valuable as the institution takes a broader and deeper view of its practices. However, even from the relatively small number of processes that were studied for the PIPaL project, it was clear that things were often more complex than they needed to be. The diagram below demonstrates this general principle by showing some of the steps involved in the production and distribution of the University’s undergraduate prospectus.
Figure 34 - Undergraduate prospectus process map (Hamilton et al, 2010)
Page 61 of 103
In reality the process is far more complicated, and student recruitment more generally takes in the likes of student “ambassadors� visiting schools and prospective student visits to the University. In our primary context of Business and Community Engagement there are direct parallels with the benefits that accrue from networking events. A number of processes appeared mercifully simple, until one considered the steps required to gather the information being used in the process. A good example of this is the process followed by DARO when conducting an alumni telephone campaign:
Figure 35 - DARO telephone campaign process map (Hamilton et al, 2010)
This seems to be almost trivial, until one considers the effort required to maintain the contact information for each of the approximately 150,000 registered Loughborough Alumni. This issue of where to draw the line when mapping out a business process turned out to be a common theme across the programme
of
Relationship
Management
projects,
and
was
neatly
summarised in Perry (2009). Similarly, the process map below illustrates the difficulties of providing information to senior management where the data is held by different units in disjoint databases, with few opportunities to correlate. In reality the recursion involved could be almost infinite as more and more individuals are consulted!
Page 62 of 103
Figure 36 - External Affairs inquiry process map (Hamilton et al, 2010)
Another apparently simple process, the distribution of the University’s Annual Report, contains a deceptive element:
Figure 37 - Annual report process map (Hamilton et al, 2010)
Without a coordinated approach to recording and maintaining contact details, it is almost inevitable that some people will receive multiple copies of such publications, and others will cease to receive them as they change address or move on to work for another organization.
A tacit assumption on most
people’s part would be that informing “the University” of a change of name or address would result in any and all references to that information being updated. However, this is difficult to do without a customer database.
Page 63 of 103
Workflow is another requirement for successful Relationship Management:
Figure 38 - Major Gift team process map (Hamilton et al, 2010)
This process map tries to capture the situation whereby a junior member of staff discusses advancement with a potential benefactor, and refers them upwards due to the magnitude of the gift involved. In the past these “Major Gifts” have included the establishment of Chairs and even the funding for new University buildings, and such situations must be handled with great delicacy. In a well implemented Relationship Management system workflow also applies in numerous (and more pedestrian) day-to-day scenarios. Then there are also processes that defy characterization through the mechanism advocated by the JISC Framework. One such example is shown below – the process that the Enterprise Office follows when entering into a consultancy contract between an Academic and an outside company.
Page 64 of 103
Figure 39 - Consultancy engagement process map (Hamilton et al, 2010)
The reality of the situation is that no two consultancy engagements are created alike, and it would be easy to draw up a number of alternative permutations of the diagram above – particularly where intellectual property is a key factor.
This highlights a certain flawed assumption in the process
mapping approach, in that there will inevitably be processes (and perhaps critical ones) that cannot be reduced to a simple flowchart. This should not be regarded as a failure.
Page 65 of 103
8.2 From the Literature
A number of techniques could be used to augment the Process Mapping approach advocated in the JISC Framework and as part of a larger Business Process Review and Re-engineering exercise. Giaglis (2001) and Kittinger et al (1997) provide a useful summary of these. Kittinger et al also have some useful guidance on applicability as shown in the figure below:
Figure 40 - Business Process Re-Engineering techniques (Kittinger et al, 1997)
It was highlighted in the final PIPaL project report to JISC that the selection of a single technique for process mapping was unfortunate and might yield undesirable results. Ideally a future version of the JISC Framework would incorporate a matrix such as the one shown in the figure above, leading to advice for users on appropriate next steps. Tools that could be considered as possible alternatives to the JISC Framework’s UML based approach to Process Mapping include Role Activity Diagrams (Huckvale and Ould, 1995) Speech Interaction Modelling (Scherr 1993, Winograd and Flores 1986), and Value Stream Mapping (Rother and Shook, 2003). Timing and available resources dictate that only one of these can be followed Page 66 of 103
up in any detail. Value Stream Mapping has been selected for this follow up work, as an example of an outcome focused approach.
The benefits of
concentrating on outcomes for the customer/service user are discussed further in the report’s recommendations. Value Stream Mapping is a technique that arose through the Lean movement (Womack and Jones, 2003) and related initiatives such as Six Sigma (Yang and El-Haik, 2009). In this worked example I will look at its application in IT systems rather than the manufacturing context more traditionally associated with the Lean approach. Users of enterprise IT systems now have high expectations, set by their experiences of using “Web 2.0” services such as those provided by Microsoft, Yahoo and Google. A notable feature of these is that users are typically empowered to carry out most operations themselves (O’Reilly, 2007). A quid pro quo applies here in that pure play Internet companies typically provide little or no end user support via human beings, telephone hotlines and suchlike. Instead the user is usually expected to navigate through Frequently Asked Questions and online forums if they have a problem with the service. By contrast, organizations with their own IT functions will often have staff dedicated to operating a Service Desk and providing direct end user support. The contrast between the most successful of the Web 2.0 services and the typical enterprise IT provision can often be striking. For this example I will compare the process of setting up a shared workspace using Google’s “Groups” facility with the equivalent process at my institution. Google Groups: -
Click “create a group”
-
Choose a group name
-
Indicate whether your group should be accessible to the general public
-
Enter the email addresses of the people you would like to invite to join the group (or add their names directly), including external collaborators
-
Now click on “visit your new group” and your group is now ready to use
Page 67 of 103
The figures below illustrate just how straightforward the Google process is. I then go on to show the current process as a Value Stream Map (Rother and Shook, 2003).
Figure 41 - Google Group creation process
Figure 42 - Sending Google Group invitations
Page 68 of 103
IT Service Desk Manager
Service Level Agreement etc
Request made by Faculty member
Provide feedback on performance
R equest entered into IT Service D esk R equest Tracker system
N otification that request has been fulfilled
Monitor case load , first line fix rate etc
!
C hasing if necessary
Worst case scenario , e. g. Bank Holiday : 4 days
!
Create shared area of filestore with initial ownership and permissions , then assign case to Internet Applications team
Typically 12 days 5 minutes
C hasing if necessary
C hasing if necessary
Systems Services : Create shared area
IT Service Desk : Process request
Carry out initial analysis of request and assign to Systems Services team for actioning
Internet Applications : Create mailing list
!
!
Set up a mailing list for the project group, and a Web accessible archive of posting to the list
Typically 12 days 10 minutes
Web team : Create Intranet area
10 minutes
!
Set up an area on the UniversityÕ s Intranet for this group Ğnote that this is not accessible to externals
Typically 12 days
Figure 43 - Value Stream Map approach to process mapping
Page 69 of 103
Service available to students
Agreeing services to be provided and Service Levels ; targets for response times when requests are made; chasing progress and receiving / acting on feedback
10 days 10 minutes
40 minutes
In the interests of completeness it should be noted that: 1. A collaborator who is external to the institution can only have access if they have registered as a University IT user, which requires a form to be completed and a counter-signatory from University Faculty to confirm that the need for access to IT systems is genuine. 2. I have shown a single request being made, however anecdotal evidence suggests it is usually more effective from the end user’s point of view to make separate requests for each “service”. 3. At Loughborough there is a duplication of service between “Intranet” storage and “filestore”. It is not always clear which is the most appropriate for a given request. 4. Staff and students are provided with individual areas for publishing to the Web, but it is not possible to share one of these spaces e.g. with a project group. 5. The IT department loosely works to office hours, Monday to Friday. Therefore there are long periods where requests will go unactioned. Clearly my institution has some way to go before it can match the five minute setup time for Google Groups. The Value Stream Map shows a worst case scenario of some 10 days to action the various elements of the request, of which only some 40 minutes actually adds any value. Even if the request was immediately handed from one team to another within the department, it would still take some eight times longer to complete than with the Google system – and this is before any external collaborators are taken into account. Using the JISC Framework’s preferred approach to process mapping, the nuances of this example would be lost. I conjecture that there are two key problems with the JISC Framework’s one-size-fits-all approach, namely that no account is taken of a) the stages of the process where value is added, and b) timescales involved. Including this information provides a very powerful feedback mechanism as to whether the current business process is efficient and functional.
Page 70 of 103
8.3 Summary
The JISC Framework presents a single approach to process mapping (based on Fowler, 2003), implying that this will always be appropriate.
I have
included examples from the PIPaL project (Hamilton et al, 2010) to highlight the problems that may arise when a “one size fits all” approach is followed. In fact there are a range of techniques that may be applied when conducting Business Process Modelling (BPM). I have highlighted several well respected tools (Huckvale and Ould 1995, Scherr 1993 and Winograd and Flores 1986), and also presented a matrix model that allows the analyst to choose an effective tool for a given process mapping scenario (Kittinger et al, 1997). I have selected the Value Stream Mapping technique (Rother and Shook, 2003) for a worked example. This approach is particularly appealing as it combines information about the stages of a process where value is added with information about the timescales of the various stages of the process – e.g. time spent waiting, and what for. The example presented in this report is of another key area where CRM would come into play – the IT Service Desk. A future revision of the JISC Framework should acknowledge that there are multiple approaches to BPM. It should recommend a larger tool set so that cases such as the IT Service Desk example can be properly represented. Value Stream Mapping should be considered as one of these tools.
Page 71 of 103
9. Review: “Which CRM?�
This section of the JISC Framework details the steps required in order to develop the business case for introducing CRM, requirements gathering and costing, and good practice in project management.
9.1 From the JISC Framework
This section of the JISC Framework draws principally from the JISC InfoNet infokit on System Selection (InfoNet, 2006). This includes advice on overall project and programme management, as shown below:
Figure 44 - 5 Steps to Successful Selection (InfoNet, 2006)
Page 72 of 103
InfoNet (2006) also provides some generic guidelines on project governance, including key tasks and deliverables, and the role of groups and roles such Project Sponsor and Steering Group – as shown in the figures below.
Figure 45 - Project Set-Up (InfoNet, 2006)
Figure 46 - Project Roles (InfoNet, 2006)
Page 73 of 103
InfoNet (2006) notes the importance of Stakeholder analysis and suggests that analysis of existing business processes is an essential pre-requisite of the invitation to tender for a new system. It also provides advice on supplier evaluation, as shown below.
Figure 47 – Evaluate Suppliers (InfoNet, 2006)
This material is all drawn from the literature around project management and in particular the PRINCE2 methodology (Cadle and Yates, 2004). The JISC Framework adds nothing specifically from the literature about implementation of CRM, although this is an area where information is readily available. This is explored further in the following section.
Page 74 of 103
9.2 From the Literature It is anecdotally reported that a large proportion of CRM projects end in failure. Why might this be? Bull (2003) uses the case study of ELMS Limited to examine strategic issues around CRM implementation and common failure modes. He notes that: “The results of the study are cause for concern, for they support the findings of other surveys that show a high failure rate for CRM. […] The ELMS case is an archetypal study of a CRM implementation that has failed to deliver in these core areas and where many lessons can be learnt by other adopters. It is an interesting example of the affect of CRM and how it is forcing companies to change. Despite a decade of developments in respect of business process change, systems integration and information sourcing, it is only now with the threat of CRM centric competition, targeting customers effectively, that ELMS are exposed by their indifference to change in such areas. The impact of CRM is real and so are the problems for certain organisations in terms of successful implementation. This is a disturbing scenario because of the accumulation of diverse and complex factors that now need addressing, the lack of expertise to resolve them and the lack of time in which to respond appropriately.” Gefen and Ridings (2002) review the literature around failure of CRM systems, and the potential shown by Social Exchange Theory: “The importance of gaining user approval is highlighted by industry reports suggesting that configuration problems account for an estimated 65 percent of CRM project failures and that user resistance is one of the major reasons ERP implementations fail.” Gefen and Ridings also note that: “ […] perceived responsiveness is associated with an increased favorable assessment of large complex software packages during their implementation. A possible reason for this, extrapolating from SET, is that responsiveness helps confirm user expectations from the Page 75 of 103
implementation team, especially given the necessity of system configuration and support before the system can be deployed successfully.� Payne and Frow (2006) examine alternative approaches to CRM strategy development and propose a new model for strategy and implementation as shown below.
Figure 48 - A new model for CRM strategy and implementation (Payne and Frow, 2006)
Payne and Frow suggest that the CRM readiness assessment (essentially equivalent to the bulk of the JISC Framework) should be informed by an overview audit of key CRM processes, as shown in the figure below.
Page 76 of 103
Figure 49 - Overview audit of CRM key processes (Payne and Frow, 2006)
Henneberg (2006) studies CRM implementation models, and concludes that: “Two clear CRM implementation foci can be distinguished: a dominant “hard” implementation of CRM (focussing on analytics, centralisation, and campaign management) and a “soft” implementation of CRM (focussing on decentralised customer experience management at the touch point level). Further analysis of the “hard” implementation model shows that companies using this path often have only a vague strategic understanding of the CRM project in place before they define the process and technical requirements.” From his research, Henneberg develops a matrix of CRM capabilities:
Figure 50 - Relative implementation importance of CRM capabilities for different CRM implementation paths (Henneberg, 2006)
Page 77 of 103
Henneberg also proposes an alternative model of CRM implementation, with the organization initially following either a “soft” or “hard” approach depending on their unique characteristics, but then followed up by complementary work taking the opposing approach to ensure that all bases are covered:
Figure 51 - Hypothetical CRM implementation model (Henneberg, 2006)
Bohling et al (2006) surveyed 101 US firms on their experiences implementing CRM systems, and success factors in particular. Bohling et al found that: “Respondents indicated that CRM success was most strongly associated with CRM ownership being at the corporate level. […] However, in another part of the survey, for those respondents who reported CRM ownership for their organization, the most commonly cited domain was marketing (39%), followed by sales (29%), corporate (26%), customer service (15%), and then IT (12%). Hence, whereas managers recognize the importance of CRM ownership being higher in the organization, this is not always achieved in practice.”
Page 78 of 103
Bohling et al also note criteria for success of the CRM system in the commercial sphere, from their survey findings: “Based on top-box score, the two most important criteria are (a) proven customer impact in terms of retention and satisfaction (46%) and (b) quantifiable revenue growth (46%). They were followed by (c) improved information and insights (25%), (d) quantifiable cost reduction (24%), (e) improved employee productivity (16%), (f) usage by employees (9%), and (g) compliance to specifications (9%).” Whilst I was not able to find something similar for CRM in the educational sector, this would be a useful addition to the JISC Framework, and perhaps the subject for a JISC project to follow up the original survey conducted by the KSA Partnership (Heywood et al, 2007). Adebanjo (2003) considers the difficulty in selecting a CRM system when the marketplace offers a highly diverse range of offerings: “In an analysis of CRM failures, Trembly (2002) noted that many organisations foster a false expectation that simply buying a piece of software will lead to CRM benefits. With the availability of hundreds of commercial software applications, the selection of the appropriate application can pose a major challenge. This difficulty is facilitated by the fact that CRM means different things to different people with a scope ranging from direct e-mails to mass customisation to call centres” Adebanjo suggests that the key relationship is between cost, timeframe to implement, and complexity, as shown in the figure below.
Page 79 of 103
Figure 52 - Implementation timeframe analysis (Adebanjo, 2003)
Adebanjo notes that: “The study identified that the factors that impact the configurability of eCRM applications include database compatibility, process alignment, user definition (e.g. the ability of the user to specify information displayed and format of display) and the presentation template (i.e. the layout of the page viewable by the user). Basic stand-alone applications are typically the least configurable followed by modular ERP systems. “Best of breed'” and bespoke applications are usually most configurable as these can be modified or built to exact user definition, presentation preferences and process alignment.” This continuum is illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 53 - Time based configurability of e-CRM applications (Adebanjo, 2003)
Page 80 of 103
Lindgreen (2004) considers the evaluation and monitoring of a CRM implementation, using the example of a large Danish newspaper publisher as a case study. Lindgreen notes that: “The client company’s ability to perform in relation to the loyaltygenerating processes will determine if the investments in the CRM programme will be profitable over time. Therefore, it is essential that these processes are monitored on an ongoing basis, and that the company keeps working on increasing its performance. In January 1998, there were 38,008 subscribers (27,607 regular subscribers and 4,661 were relatively new). In August 2002, the same numbers were 53,106, 33,704, and 5,311 respectively.” Again it is interesting to consider what metrics would be meaningful in the context of, say, a University - where recruitment (of home students) is tightly controlled.
It
could
be
conjectured
that
retention,
satisfaction
and
recommendations are useful indicators. The work of Svensson and Wood (2005) and Driscoll and Wicks (1998) quoted in section 4 is also very relevant here. Large scale formal IT projects are often mired in bureaucracy but also inadequately specified to begin with. Notable examples of this syndrome in the UK have included the London Ambulance Service dispatch system (Fitzgerald and Russo, 2005) and the National Health Service national IT programme (Avison and Young, 2007). In his book The Second Cycle, Lars Kolind (2006, p.129) discusses the benefits that may accrue from taking a new look at existing processes and procedures: “When new eyes begin looking at well-established procedures and habits, it becomes clear that many procedures and habits can be eliminated or improved. Both the employee and the company gain tremendously from fresh eyes addressing old issues.”
Page 81 of 103
In the context of the Business Process Re-Engineering that would typically accompany the introduction of a CRM system, Kolind’s insights are particularly keen.
Kolind suggests that there are four key issues to be
addressed: o Understanding the true purpose of the organization – Kolind’s hearing aid manufacturer Oticon had felt that its purpose was to sell hearing aids. However, after a re-examination it became clear that its true goal was to help people to have the best possible hearing. o Changing the organization in response to success and growth – the assumption that whatever the organization is presently doing will continue to serve it well.
This is summarized in Kolind’s “lifecycle
curve”. o New organizational structures that promote innovation – a move from line management hierarchy to a more collaborative approach, which Kolind describes as the spaghetti organization. o Moving away from unhelpful mental models – e.g. oppositional behaviour between management and staff members, and treating the customer as a nuisance or an irritation.
Kolind also notes what he describes as the “acid test”: What would happen if the organization (e.g. the IT department, or the institution) ceased to exist? Whilst the reader may not agree with Kolind’s assertions, these are the sorts of high level questions that the introduction of a sweeping new IT system such as CRM may (or should) provoke. The JISC Framework presents this phase of the project very much as “system selection”, which if followed too closely may preclude the possibility of Business Process Re-Engineering by setting in stone existing inappropriate or inefficient practices (Bull, 2003).
Page 82 of 103
9.3 Summary
The JISC Framework makes frequent reference to the JISC InfoNet infoKit series, but in a generic way that adds no particular material relating to CRM from the literature – the generic examples are complemented by anecdotal evidence around the introduction of CRM in the public sector. However, due to the proportion of failed (or non value generating) CRM implementations there is a large body of published work examining the issues involved (e.g. Bohling et al, 2006). The results of this work, some of which have been presented in this report, would be highly beneficial to incorporate in a future revision of the JISC Framework. The literature suggests that both the mechanistic elements (project and programme management) and the softer (people oriented) side need to be considered alongside each other, and that a time of great upheaval such as the introduction of a CRM system can usefully lend itself to a re-examination of the organization’s “mental model” (Kolind, 2006).
Page 83 of 103
10. Conclusions
I have examined the Customer Relationship Management introductory material provided by the JISC Framework and identified several cases where better use could be made of the literature referred to by the Framework - e.g. the various JISC InfoNet infoKits (InfoNet, 2008 etc). A lack of clarity has been noted over core concepts – the JISC Framework’s descriptions of CRM and its uses tend to be at quite a high level. Business stakeholders and staff affected by the introduction of a CRM system would require additional information about day-to-day practicalities. Some examples have been provided from the literature, e.g. Boulding et al (2005) note the effect on consumer behaviour of being monitored and profiled via CRM. Introductory examples from the peer reviewed literature have been supplied. These reinforce the rather upbeat messages about CRM technology highlighted in the JISC Framework, and also provide some cautionary tales. Examples have been drawn from Facebook’s “sinister” side (e.g.
Jones
and Soltren, 2005), in the absence of CRM specific literature covering data protection and privacy. The JISC Framework consistently fails to draw examples from the education sector and the peer reviewed literature. I have demonstrated that there is much prior work in this area, and that the findings are readily available. Examples include Svensson and Wood (2005), Driscoll and Wicks (1998), Wolf (2008) and Tierney (1999). The JISC Framework makes no special allowances for the unique nature of the education environment.
Indeed the language of the Framework
documents is that of business, and the jargon of “prospects”, “leads” and “sales” is still quite alien to most staff working in Higher Education - for this reason the PIPaL Case Study (Hamilton et al, 2010) refers to “Relationship Management” with no “Customer” prefix.
Page 84 of 103
The concept of Customer Experience Management (CEM) is introduced in passing but merits further coverage –there are some obvious quotes from the referenced material, such as Alperin (2005) and Peppers and Rogers (2007). The JISC Framework fails to adequately address issues around the scope of the CRM implementation – how does an institution decide whether to put a “full service” system in for use by everyone, or a system for use by (say) staff in external facing departments only? Advice and survey/case study results would be very helpful here. The KSA Partnership study (Heywood et al, 2007) offers much in the way of source material. The KSA Partnership carried out both qualitative and quantitative research into CRM adoption in the sector, and it is unfortunate that greater use is not made of their results to inform the Framework. This would be more relevant to readers in FE and HE than many of the examples that the Framework uses. An observation from the literature of some relevance is that to carry out the analytical work required to scope out a CRM implementation, it may be necessary to put into place something that comes close to the functionality of a CRM system (Xu and Walton, 2005). This in itself may be a clue as to why many CRM implementations are reported as failing or being incorrectly specified (Lindgreen, 2004) The concept of “institutional maturity” is presented without any further comment. This makes it difficult for the lay reader to determine whether institutional maturity is something that has been invented for the Framework, or is already in widespread use. Further literature searches have determined that this is a common label (King, 2006 and Cap Gemini, 2005), but failed to identify any literature focusing on the education sector. The key role of Academics in the introduction of a CRM system is discussed, and the results of the PIPaL (Hamilton et al, 2010) project used to augment the literature referred to in the JISC Framework. The difficulties of reaching agreement in an environment (academia) where all the actors are effectively independent operators was noted (HEFCE, 2004). The Complexity Theory perspective on Change Management was introduced Page 85 of 103
(Lewin and Regine,1999 and Olson and Eoyang, 2001), and contrasted with a more traditional process and procedure oriented approach to project management. The impact of emergent and episodic behavior was discussed. Stacey’s Agreement & Certainty Matrix was used to
illustrate the “co-
creation” approach to change management (Zimmerman, 2001 and Stacey, 1999). The link between the Business Process Mapping and Business Process Reengineering (Vakola et al, 1998 and Proesel, 2001) is not explicitly stated and there is a clear danger that users of the framework will leap to the conclusion that the Relationship Management system should be implemented around existing processes. The JISC Framework presents a single approach to process mapping (based on Fowler, 2003), implying that this will always be appropriate.
I have
included examples from the PIPaL project (Hamilton et al, 2010) to highlight the problems that may arise when a “one size fits all” approach is followed. In fact there are a range of techniques that may be applied when conducting Business Process Modelling (BPM). I have highlighted several well respected tools (Huckvale and Ould 1995, Scherr 1993 and Winograd and Flores 1986), and also presented a matrix model that allows the consultant to choose an effective tool for a given process mapping scenario ( Kittinger et al, 1997). I have selected the Value Stream Mapping technique (Rother and Shook, 2003) for a worked example. This approach is particularly appealing as it combines information about the stages of a process where value is added with information about the timescales of the various stages of the process – e.g. time spent waiting, and what for. The example presented in this report is of another key area where CRM would come into play – the IT Service Desk. The JISC Framework makes frequent reference to the JISC InfoNet infoKit series, but in a generic way that adds no particular material relating to CRM from the literature – the generic examples are complemented by anecdotal evidence around the introduction of CRM in the public sector.
Page 86 of 103
11. Recommendations
From this report and its conclusions I suggest that a future revision of the JISC Framework might benefit from consideration being given to the following: • The sector’s use of techniques such as the Balanced Scorecard and Key Performance Indicators presently in use. Some examples have been cited in this report of Key Performance Indicators from leading UK institutions (HEFCE, 2009) • The role of CEM in the success of leading brands such as Apple and Virgin, if no appropriate case studies can be found for the HE/FE sector (Burton, 2005) • Greater use of the literature around CRM in Further and Higher Education (e.g. Svensson and Wood, 2005) • Coverage of the subtle distinctions between “partner” and “customer” relations (Hamilton et al, 2010) • Inclusion of further material from other JISC projects, including the JISC InfoNet infoPack on Change Management (InfoNet, 2006) and the KSA Partnership Relationship Management study (Heywood et al, 2007) • Exploration of additional/alternative process mapping techniques such as Value Stream Mapping (Rother and Shook, 2003) • Greater use of the literature around CRM failures and how these may be avoided - such as by improving engagement with employees (e.g. Bohling et al, 2006) The JISC Framework refers to the infoPack on System Implementation (InfoNet, 2008) planning produced by the JISC InfoNet service. Whilst this is hugely useful as a training and development resource, it is in the wrong part
Page 87 of 103
of the Framework and should be moved to one of the later sections. There should be a wealth of data available about the recent initiative to introduce CRM across local government. Unfortunately key results from the programme appear to have been lost due to there being no Digital Preservation strategy (Farrell, 2010) in place at the time of this work – something to avoid for future projects. The key players in the “CRM National Programme” are well known, and qualitative interviews might help to inform further work by JISC in this area. The literature suggests that both the mechanistic elements (project and programme management) and the softer (people oriented) side need to be considered alongside each other, and that a time of great upheaval such as the introduction of a CRM system can usefully lend itself to a re-examination of the organization’s “mental model” (Kolind, 2006). Finally, it has been observed that documents such as the JISC Framework play an important part in channelling research results back to practitioners. JISC potentially have a key role here in terms of fostering deeper engagement between Academics and practitioners.
Page 88 of 103
References Ackerman, L (1997) Development, transition or transformation: the question of change in organisations. In Van Eynde, D., Hoy, J. and Van Eynde, D. (eds) Organisation Development Classics. San Francisco, Jossey Bass. Acquisti, A and Gross, R (2006) Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing, and Privacy on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 6th workshop on privacy enhancing technologies, pp. 36-58. Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Adebanjo, D (2003) Classifying and selecting e-CRM applications: an analysis-based proposal. In Management Decision, Volume 41, Number 6, pp. 570-577. Aldrige, S and Rowley, J (1998) Measuring customer satisfaction in higher education. In Quality Assurance in Education, Volume 6, Number 4, pp. 197204. Alperin, B (2005) Customer Experience Management: Competing successfully in Higher Education. Aramark Education Internet publication: http://www.aramarkhighered.com/pdfs/articles/CustomerExperienceMgmt.pdf Anghern, A (2004) Behind the EIS Simulation: An overview of models underlying the simulation dynamics. CALT Report http://www.calt.insead.edu/eis/documents/EISSimulationUnderlyingModels.pdf
Avison, D and Young, T (2007) Time to rethink health care and ICT? In Communications of the ACM, Volume 50, Issue 6, pp. 69-74. Bassham, M (2005) Lessons Learned from the CRM National Project. eGov monitor Weekly, Internet publication: http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/186 Belk, R W (1974) An exploratory assessment of situational effects in buyer behavior. In Journal of Marketing Research, Volume 11, pp. 156-163. Belk, R W (1975) Situational variables and consumer behavior. In Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 2, pp. 157-164.
Page 89 of 103
Bennis, W. (1989). Why leaders lead. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Blackwell, S A, Szeinbach, S L, Barnes, J H, Garner, D W and Bush, V (1999) The antecedents of customer loyalty: an empirical investigation of the role of personal and situational aspects on repurchase decisions. In Journal of Services Research, Volume 1, Number 4. Bohling, T, Bowman, D, LaValle, S, Mittal, V, Narayandas, D, Ramani, G and Varadarajan, R (2006) CRM Implementation: Effectiveness Issues and Insights. In Journal of Service Research, Volume 9, Number 2, pp. 184-194. Boulding, W, Staelin, R, Ehret, M and Johnson, W J (2005) A Customer Relationship Management Roadmap: What is Known, Potential Pitfalls and Where to Go. In Journal of the American Marketing Association, Volume 69, Number 4, pp. 155-166. Boyd, D (2008) Facebook’s Privacy Trainwreck – Exposure, Invasion and Social Convergence. In Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, Volume 14, Number 1, pp. 13-20. Boyens, C, Gunther, O and Teltzrow, M (2002) Privacy conflicts in CRM services for online shops: a case study. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on Privacy, security and data mining, Volume 14, pp. 27-35. Bull, C ( 2003) Strategic issues in Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Implementation. In Business Process Management Journal, Volume 9, Number 5, pp. 592-602. Burton, G (2005) (ed) CRM flying high with EasyJet, In Enterprise Information. Internet publication: http://www.eimagazine.com/display.asp? articleid=7C6F13A9-BF2C-4CD5-B2FE-AA21AC0E5F6C Burke, W and Litwin, G H (1992) A Causal Model of Organisational Change. In Journal of Management, Volume 18, Number 3, pp. 523-545. Cadle, J and Yates, D (2004) Project Management for Information Systems. Pearson Education. Page 90 of 103
Cap Gemini (2005) The Benefits of CRM. Local e-Government National Projects Internet publication: http://www.localtgov.org.uk/webfiles/Benefits/CRM%20DOCUMENT.pdf Chellappa, R K and Sin, R G (2005) Personalization versus Privacy: An Empirical Examination of the Online Consumer’s Dilemma. In Information Technology and Management, Volume 6, Numbers 2-3, pp. 181-202 Chen, J and Wang, L (2006) Locus of control and the three components of commitment to change. In Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 42, Number 3, pp. 503-512. Conner, D R and Patterson, R B (1982) Building Commitment to Organizational Change. In Training and Development Journal, Volume 36, Number 4, pp. 18-30 Croteau, A-M and Li, P (2003) Critical Success Factors of CRM Technological Initiatives. In Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Volume 20, Number 1, pp. 21-34. Daniel Hunt, V (1996) Process Mapping: How to Reengineer Your Business Processes. John Wiley & Sons. Daraoumis, T, Rodriguez-Ardura, I, Faulin, J, Juan, A A, Xhafa, F and Martinez-Lopez, F (2010) Customer Relationship Management applied to higher education: developing an e-monitoring system to improve relationships in electronic learning environments. In International Journal of Services Technology and Management, Volume 14, Number 1, pp. 103-125. Das Gupta, S (2005). CRM: beyond technology. Network Magazine: Technology Decisions for the Enterprise: May 2005. Internet publication: http://www.networkmagazineindia.com/200505/coverstory01.shtml Day, G S (1969) A two dimensional concept of brand loyalty. In Journal of Advertising Research, Volume 9, pp. 29-35. Dennis, C, Fenech, T and Merrilees, B (2005) Sale: The 7 Cs -
Page 91 of 103
teaching/training aid for the (e-)retail mix. In International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Volume 33, Number 3, pp. 179-193. Donaghy, M (2008) JISC Self-Analysis Framework for Relationship Management. Online publication: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/gradschool/crm/ Driscoll, C and Wicks, D (1998) The customer-driven approach in business education: a possible danger? In Journal of Education for Business, Volume 74 Number 1, pp. 58-61. Dwyer, C, Hiltz, S and Passerini, K (2007) Trust and Privacy Concern Within Social Networking Sites: A Comparison of Facebook and MySpace. In Proceedings of 13th Americas Conference on Information Systems. Internet publication: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2007/339 Dwyer, K (2008) Mapping Customer Value. Internet publication: http://www.4hoteliers.com/4hots_fshw.php?mwi=2764 eGov (2004) Conference Report: National CRM Programme Event. eGov monitor Weekly, Internet publication: http://www.egovmonitor.com/features/crmreport.html Ehrenberg, A S C (1988) Repeat-Buying: Facts, Theory and Application. Oxford University Press. Fader, P S and Hardie, B (1996) Modeling consumer choice among SKUs. In Journal of Marketing Research, Volume 33, pp. 442-452. Farrell, S (2010) (ed) A Guide to Web Preservation. JISC Internet publication: http://jiscpowr.jiscinvolve.org/wp/guide/ Fazio, R H and Zanna, M P (1981) Direct experience and attitude behavior consistency. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 14, pp. 161-202.
Page 92 of 103
Fizgerald, G and Russo, N L (2005) The Turnaround of the London Ambulance Service Computer-aided Despatch System (LASCAD). In European Journal of Information Systems, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp. 244-257. Feinberg, R & Kadam, R (2002) E-CRM Web service attributes as determinants of customer satisfaction with retail Web sites. In International Journal of Service Industry Management, Volume 13, Number 5, pp. 432-451. Fowler, M (2003) UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modelling Language. Addison-Wesley. Foxall, G R and Goldsmith, R E (1994) Customer Psychology for Marketing, Routledge, London. Fullan, M (2003) Change forces with a vengeance. Routledge. Fusion (2007) “Doing the Business� case study. Internet publication: http://www.west-cheshire.ac.uk/fusion/project/phase-three/doing-thebusiness-c&wcc.pdf Gefen, D, and Ridings, C M (2002) Implementation team responsiveness and user evaluation of customer relationship management: A quasi-experimental design study of social exchange theory. In Journal of Management Information Systems, Volume 19, Number 1, pp. 47-69. Giaglis, G (2001) A Taxonomy of Business Process Modelling and Information Systems Modelling Techniques. In International Journal of Flexible Systems, Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 209-228. Grant, G B and Anderson, G (2002) Customer Relationship Management- A Vision for Higher Education. In Katz, R N (ed) Web Portals and Higher Education: Technologies to Make IT Personal. Jossey-Bass and EDUCAUSE Internet publication: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub5006f.pdf Grint, K and Willcocks, L (2007) Business process re-engineering in theory and practice: business paradise regained? In New Technology, Work and
Page 93 of 103
Employment. Volume 10, Issue 2, pp. 99-109. Hamilton, M, Lad, A, Addison, A and Brown, S (2010) Process Improvement Pilot at Loughborough (PIPaL) Case Study. JISC Internet publication: http://jiscpipal.wordpress.com HEFCE (2004) Effecting change in HE. Higher Education Funding Council for England, report number GMP 201. HEFCE (2009) Participation in higher education continues to widen, Higher Education Funding Council for England Key Performance Indicators. Internet publication: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2009/pi.htm Henneberg, S C (2006) An exploratory analysis of CRM implementation models. In Journal of Relationship Marketing, Volume 4, Number 3, pp. 85104. Heywood, M, Nixon, I, Bowden, A, Bell, R (2007) Study of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Issues in UK Higher Education Institutions. JISC Internet publication: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/themes/bce/crmstudyfinalreport20070 817.pdf Holland, J H (1992) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. MIT Press. Huckvale, T and Ould, M (1995) Process Modelling – Role Activity Diagramming. In Business Process Change: Concepts, Methods and Technologies, Grover, V and Kettinger, W J (eds), Harrisburg PA: Idea Publishing, pp. 330-349. Hughes, A M (2008) How to measure CRM success. Database Marketing Institute Internet publication:http://www.dbmarketing.com/articles/Art224.htm IA (2010) Way Back Machine results for www.crmacademy.org, Internet Archive Internet publication: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.crmacademy.org InfoNet (2003) JISC infoKit: Creating a Managed Learning Environment.
Page 94 of 103
Internet publication: http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/creating-an-mle InfoNet (2006) JISC infoKit: Change Management. Internet publication: http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/change-management InfoNet (2006a) JISC infoKit: System Selection. Internet publication: http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/system-selection InfoNet (2008) JISC infoKit: System Implementation. Internet publication: http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/system-implementation Jacoby, J and Chestnut, R (1978) Brand Loyalty Measurement and Management. John Wiley and Sons. JISC (2010) JISC Strategy 2010-2012. Online publication: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/aboutus/strategy.aspx JISC (2010a) What We Do. JISC website Internet publication: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo.aspx Jones, H and Soltren, J H (2005) Facebook: Threats to Privacy. MIT Term Paper, Internet publication: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/student-papers/fall05papers/facebook.pdf Kahn, B M, Kalwani, M U and Morrison, D G (1988) Niching versus changeof-pace brands: using purchase frequencies and penetration rates to infer brand positioning. In Journal of Marketing Research, Volume 25, Number 4, pp. 384-390. Kaplan, R S and Norton, D P (1992) The balanced scorecard – measures that drive performance. In Harvard Business Review, Volume 70, Number 1, pp. 71-79. Karjoth, G, Schunter, M and Waidner, M (2002) Platform for enterprise privacy practices: privacy-enabled management of customer data. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on privacy enhancing technologies, pp. 69-84.
Page 95 of 103
Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Kettinger, W, Teng, J and Guha S (1997) Business Process Change: A Study of Methodolgies, Techniques and Tools. In MIS Quarterly, Volume 21, Number 1, pp. 55-80. Khalifa, A S (2004) Customer value: a review of recent literature and an integrative configuration. In Management Decision, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp.645 – 666. Kim, J, Suh, E, Hwang, H (2003) A model for evaluating the effectiveness of CRM using the balanced scorecard. In Journal of Interactive Marketing, Volume 17, Number 2, pp. 5-19. King, S F (2006) Citizens as customers: Exploring the future of CRM in UK local government. In Government Information Quarterly, Volume 24, Number 1, pp. 47-63. Kolind, L (2006) The Second Cycle: Winning the War Against Bureaucracy. Wharton School Publishing. Lewin, R and Regine B (1999) The Soul at Work: Unleashing the power of complexity science for business success. Orion Business. Linden, G, Smith, B and York, J (2003) Amazon.com recommendations: itemto-item collaborative filtering. In Internet Computing, Volume 7, Number 1, pp. 76-80. Lindgreen, A (2004) The design, implementation and monitoring of a CRM programme: a case study. In Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Volume 22, Number 2, pp. 160-186. Lust, P (1998) Students as consumers: would you like fries with your Shakespeare? In Osborn, R E E (ed) Scholarship, Service and Integrity -Benchmarks in a Changing Landscape. ACHE Proceedings, p.54. Manduate, L and Bennebroek Gravenhorst, K M (2003) Power Dynamics and Organisational Change: An Introduction. In Applied Psychology, Volume 52, Number 1, pp. 1-13. Page 96 of 103
Massey, W F, Montgomery, D B and Morrison, D G (1970) Stochastic Models of Buyer Behavior. MIT Press. Mintzberg, H (1989) Mintzberg on Management: inside our strange world of organizations. Chicago, Free Press. Naraine, R and Danchev, D (2008) Stanford University data breach leaks sensitive information of approximately 62,000 employees. Zero Day blog posting: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/stanford-university-data-breachleaks-sensitive-information-of-approximately-62000-employees/1326 Ngai, E.W.T. (2005) Customer relationship management research (19922002): An academic literature review and classification. In Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp.582 – 605. Emerald Group. O’Reilly, T (2007) What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. In International Journal of Digital Economics, Number 65, pp. 17-37. Olson, E E and Eoyang, G H (2001) Facilitating Organizational Change: Lessons from Complexity Science. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. ORG (2010) UK Privacy Debacles. Open Rights Group Internet publication: http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/UK_Privacy_Debacles Orlikowski, W (1996) Improvising organisational transformation over time: a situated change perspective. In Information Systems Research,Volume 7, Number 1, pp. 63-92. PAC (2003) Individual Learning Accounts - Tenth Report of Select Committee on Public Accounts. Internet publication: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmpubacc/544/ 54403.htm Parker, A (1999) A Study of Variables that Predict Dropout from Distance Education. In International Journal of Educational Technology, December 1999. Internet publication: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ijet/v1n2/parker/ Payne, A (2006). Handbook of CRM: Achieving Excellence in Customer Page 97 of 103
Management, Butterworth Heinemann. Payne, A and Frow, P (2006) Customer Relationship Management: from Strategy to Implementation. In Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 22, Number 1, pp. 135-168. Pennington, G. (2003) Guidelines for Promoting and Facilitating Change. York: Teaching and Learning Support Network – Generic Centre Peppers, D and Rogers, M (1999) Enterprise One-to-One: Tools for Competing in the Interactive Age. New York: Doubleday. Peppers, D and Rogers, M (2007) Significant differences between customer experience management (CEM) and CRM. Internet publication: http://searchcrm.techtarget.com/answer/Significant-differences-betweencustomer-experience-management-CEM-and-CRM Perez, J C (2007) Facebook’s Beacon More Intrusive Than Previously Thought. PC World Internet publication, December 1 st 2007: http://www.pcworld.com/article/140182/facebooks_beacon_more_intrusive_th an_previously_thought.html Perry, S (2009) Modelling - How do you know when to stop? JISC Relationship Management Support and Synthesis Internet blog posting: http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/accessibility/2009/12/15/modelling-how-do-you-knowwhen-to-stop/ Pfeffer, J and Sutton, R (2000) The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publications. Phinney, S. (2001). The role of process in CRM. In ZDNet TechRepublic blog. Internet publication: http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_111033219.html PRC (2010) Chronology of Data Breaches, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Internet publication: http://www.privacyrights.org/data-breach
Page 98 of 103
Proesel, J. (2001). The role of process in CRM: Putting it on paper. ZDNet TechRepublic Internet publication: http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-108780.html?forumID=14&threadID=73200&messageID=445865 PT (2004) CRM Hot Topic: Analysis of CRM National Project role & goals. publicTechnology.net, Internet publication: http://www.publictechnology.net/content/595 Reichheld, F F (1996) The loyalty effect. Harvard Business School Press. Reinartz, W, Krafft, M and Hoyer, W D (2004) The customer relationship management process: its measurement and impact on performance. In Journal of Marketing Research, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp. 293-305. Rodgers, K and Howlett, D (2000) What IS CRM? A White Paper by TBC Research in association with Goldmine Software (Europe) Ltd.Internet publication: http://www.solica.com/brochures/WhatIsCRM.pdf Romano, N C and Fjermestad, J (2004) Electronic Customer Relationship Management: A Research Agenda. In Information Technology and Management, Volume 4, Numbers 2-3, pp. 233-258. Rother, M and Shook J (2003) Learning To See. Lean Enterprise Institute. Rowley, J (2006) An analysis of the e-service literature: towards a research agenda". In Internet Research, Volume16, Issue 3, pp.339 – 359. Rygielski, C, Wang, J-C and Yen, D C (2002) Data mining techniques for customer relationship management. In Technology in Society, Volume 24, Number 4, pp. 483-502. Seeman, E D and O’Hara, M (2006) Customer relationship management in higher education: Using information systems to improve the student-school relationship. In Campus-Wide Information Systems, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp. 24-34. Stacey, R (1999) Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics: The
Page 99 of 103
Challenge of Complexity. Prentice Hall. Svensson, G and Wood, G (2007) Are university students really customers? When illusion may lead to delusion for all. In International Journal of Education Management, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp. 17-28. Taber, D (2010) Don’t let your CRM system feed the lawsuit beast. In ComputerWorldUK online magazine. Internet publication: http://www.computerworlduk.com/how-to/it-business/3138/dont-let-your-crmsystem-feed-the-lawsuit-beast/ Tait, H and Entwistle, N (1996) Identifying students at risk through ineffective study strategies. In Higher Education, Volume 31, Number 1, pp. 97-116. Tapp, A, Hicks, K and Stone, M (2006) Direct and database marketing and customer relationship management in recruiting students for higher education. In International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp. 335-345. Tierney, W G (1999) Building the Responsive Campus: Creating High Performance Colleges and Universities. Sage Publications. Trembly, A (2002) Why has CRM failed in insurance? In National Underwriter, Volume 106, Number 26, p. 25. Uncles, M D, Dowling, G R and Hammond, K (2003) Customer loyalty and customer loyalty programs. In Journal of Consumer Marketing, Volume 20, Number 4, pp. 294-316. UoB (2010) Key Performance Indicators for 2010, University of Birmingham Planning Office Internet publication: http://www.planning.bham.ac.uk/corpplan/kpi.shtml UoN (2009) Key Performance Indicators, Newcastle University Library Internet publication: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/library/about/standards/kpi/ Vakola, M, Rezgui, Y, Mitev, N, Thompson, J, (1998). D3100 Business
Page 100 of 103
Process Re-engineering Strategy. CONDOR ESPRIT 23105 Deliverable Verhoef, P C (2003) Understanding the Effect of Customer Relationship Management Efforts on Customer Retention and Customer Share Development. In Journal of Marketing, Volume 67, pp. 30-34. Weick, K E (1993) Organizational Redesign as Improvisation. In Huber, G P and Glick, W H (eds) Organizational Change and Redesign. Oxford University Press, pp. 346-379. Weick, K E and Quinn, R E (1999) Organisational change and development. In Annual Review of Psychology, Volume 50, pp. 361-386. Wilson, H, Daniel, E and McDonald, M (2002) Factors for Success in Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Systems. In Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 18, Issue 1/2, pp. 193-219. Winograd, T and Flores, F (1986) Understanding Computers and Cognition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Wolf, A (2008) Time to have another go at individually driven learning. In The Guardian, Tuesday 2nd December 2008. Internet publication: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/dec/02/reintroducing-individuallearning-accounts W3C (2007) Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P) Project homepage. World-Wide Web Consortium Internet publication: http://www.w3.org/P3P/Overview.html Womack, J P and Jones, D T (2003) Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation. Free Press. Xu, M and Walton, J (2005) Gaining customer knowledge through analytical CRM. In Industrial Management & Data Systems, Volume 105, Number 7, pp. 955-971. Yang, K and El-Haik, B (2009) Design for Six Sigma: A Roadmap for Product Development. McGraw-Hill Professional.
Page 101 of 103
Zimmerman, B (2001) Ralph Stacey’s Agreement and Certainty Matrix. Internet publication: http://www.plexusinstitute.org/edgeware/archive/think/main_aides3.html
Page 102 of 103
Appendix – JISC Self-Analysis Framework for Customer Relationship Management
Because of its length, this is provided as a separate document. The JISC Framework can also be viewed online – see Donaghy (2008).
Page 103 of 103