Evaluation exercise was made on the basis primary research in which service organizations was spoken. They were answered for questions interrelated to customer relationship management (CRM).CRM, hypothesis, exploited software, cooperative part CRM, outsourcing

Suchánek, Petr

Vaněk, Jindřich

English

Research Papers in Economics

  1 
QUESTIONARY  RESEARCH    TO  LEARN  STATE  OF  AFFAIRS  OF 
TECHNOLOGICAL SUPPORT CRM 
Jindřich Vaněk, Petr Suchánek 
Key words: CRM, hypothesis, exploited software, cooperative part CRM, outsourcing,  
Introduction 
Evaluation exercise was made on the basis primary research in which service organizations 
was  spoken.  They  were  answered  for  questions  interrelated  to  customer  relationship 
management (CRM).  
 
1 Research process 
 
1.1 Dead and realization phase 
In sequence to piece of knowledge comprehension CRM and identification keys issues in 
practices we wanted to learn, how much information a communication technology (ICT) are 
used in CRM range in monitored organizations. 
There were hypothesis define: 
H1 – Organizations do not use more extensive support for CRM. 
H2 - Notions about CRM and their ICT support are different in small and bigger firms. 
H3 – Willingness to use outsourcing exist in CRM range. 
We wanted to learn: 
  how ICT are used for support CRM, 
  how actions are guaranteed  in this way, 
  how possibilities are for using outsourcing in CRM range and how limitation are seen by 
users. 
 
1.2 Research evaluation  
There were 8 questions oriented to this problematic. Follow-up evaluation will be done at 
groups of organizations under 250 employee, over 250 employee and for all set. 
 
1.2.2. Evaluation of individual questions 
Evaluation of single questions will be done at the same time for single groups. 
How ICT are made use to support CRM 
In the first two questions respondents should give details of technical tools and software what 
they used. Answers at this questions were evaluated together and interrelated questions were 
collect to groups. Single groups may be characterized:  
CRW  software characterized like specialized to CRM bought or made 
by own 
database tools  different  database  of  customers,  simple  directories  with 
invoicing history, personal guest databank etc. 
HW  PC, displays, etc. 
IS  software  used  to  other  agents,  for  example  book-keeping, 
commerce, management information system, housing programs 
communication tools  call centre, on-line systems, internet, personal contacts, green 
link, telephony lines to sellers etc. 
organization  Education  training,  ISO  9000,  customer  centre,  individual  
request examination, customer research, customer cards, precis   2 
etc. 
basic SW  operation  system,  MS  Office,  MS  Exchange,  
MS Small business server 
no one  they do not use any tools or they did not name them 
 
Percentage  representation  groups  of  tools  for  CRM  are  shown  in  next  graph.  In  smaller 
organizations  we  can  most  frequently  see  different  evidence  or  own  software  and  basic 
software. Bigger organizations prefer manager information systems, software to basic agents 
etc.  In  other  communication  tools  and  specialized  software  to  CRW  are  more  frequent. 
Correlation  between  both  groups  is  relatively  low  (r  =  0,6213).  It  results  from  different 
personal possibilities and sources to ICT equipment. 
 
Graph 1.1 Percentage share agent groups for CRM  
9%
9%
6%
22%
11%
23%
14%
6%
13%
9%
3%
38%
22%
9%
6% 0%
CRW
database tools
HW
IS
communication tools
organization
basic SW
no one
 
Source: one´s own 
 
Outer zone shows firms over 250 employees and inward shows firms under 250 employees.  
 
Answers to question to how type may be inserted software to CRM are shown in table: 
 
Table 1.1 Exploited SW for CRM 
      under 250  over 250  Total 
A  Integrated structure of factory IS and CRM  4  4  8 
B  Series CRM, specialized factory structure  2  2  4 
C  Conceptual  framework,  let  us  say  solvent, 
implementation new structure (components) with 
usage of functionality present applications  2  4  6 
D  Solvent for specific detachment  9  4  13 
E  Application CRM  8  2  10 
F  Other  4  2  6   3 
      under 250  over 250  Total 
G  Without of answer  16  6  22 
   TOTAL  45  24  69 
Source: one´s own 
 
32% respondents did not answer at question. Structures of answers are to a certain extent 
similar structure of answers from last question. Hear too specific resolution (18,8%) and own 
applications (14,5%) are presented. Specialized CRM systems are presented in 5,8% answers. 
In section other module of book system was presented or many subjects do not use specialized 
software for CRM. Percentage distribution of answers show next graph. Outer zone shows 
firms over 250 employees and inward shows firms under 250 employees. Correlation between 
both groups is low (r = 0,060971). As well coefficient of Spearman´s serial correlation is only 
rs = 0,15. It is in virtue of using bigger integrated system in bigger organizations, new system 
with using of functionality earlier applications and specific system, in smaller organizations 
simple and own system dominate. At this group higher percentage of respondents did not give 
any answer (c. 35,5%). 
 
How activities are guaranteed in this way 
The main goal of this part was to learn, how ranges respondents prefer. Respondents have had 
a possible to choose more items. 
 
Answers to question, what is rated as the most important item of cooperate part CRM by 
respondents, are shown in table:  
Table 1.2 Components of cooperative part CRM 
      under 250  over 250  Total 
A  Electronic contact (internet, email)  10  8  18 
B  Contacts centres  1  3  4 
C 
Telecommunication contact 
(telephone, fax)  10  5  15 
D  Personal contact  35  14  49 
E 
Contact with usage of classical post 
office  1  1  2 
F  Other  0  2  2 
G  Without of answer  3  2  5 
   TOTAL  60  35  95 
Source: one´s own 
 
Hear  correlation  between  both  groups  is  relatively  high  (r  =  0,957337)  and  Spearman´s 
coefficient of serial correlation is only rs = 0,9. Personal contact is preferred, further electronic 
contact, (Internet, e-mail) and telecommunication contact (telephone, fax). Representation of 
other answers is almost insignificant. What functions are supported by CRM of respondents 
next table shows: 
Table 1.3 Functionality CRM 
      under 250  over 250  Total 
A  Monitoring of achievement identifiers in real time  7  3  10 
B  Technology of contact centre  3  6  9 
C  Control of contract life cycle  3  3  6   4 
      under 250  over 250  Total 
D  Web services  10  13  23 
E  Mobile sale support B2B  2  0  2 
F  Mobile sale support B2C  0  1  1 
G  Optimizing of logistic string  1  2  3 
H  Relationships with suppliers  14  2  16 
I  Control of relationships with partners and servants  11  4  15 
J  Control of  product life cycle  2  0  2 
K  Other   3  1  4 
L  Without of answer  12  5  17 
   TOTAL  68  40  108 
Source: one´s own 
In opinion of respondents we can see strong differences between small and big organizations. 
Respondents from small organizations prefer supplier relationships, partners and employee 
relationship management and further web services. Then come after technology of contacts 
centre. Real-time monitoring indicators of company achievement was taken aback in both 
groups  on  the  fourth  position.  Correlative  coefficient  is  r  =  0,408455  and  Spearman´s 
coefficient of serial correlation is only rs = 0,6. 
What functions are able to guarantee using system, it was the main goal of next question. 
Answers at this question shows next table: 
Table 1.4 Functions of CRM system 
      under 250  over 250  Total 
A  Support  of  marketing  and  business  activity  of 
business partners  10  11  21 
D  Creation  correct  portfolio  of  partners  (their 
correct and  well-founded selection)  7  5  12 
H  Sale planning with partners interface  6  6  12 
B  Service of business partners   9  1  10 
E  Analysis and planning partners activities  4  2  6 
K  Others  3  0  3 
G  Influence partners business channels (selection 
and modification)  2  0  2 
F  Quality  registration  and  actualization  partners 
demographic data  0  2  2 
I  On-line  training  marketing  workers,  business 
and partners services  0  1  1 
C  Control of life cycle business partners  0  0  0 
J  Collaboration portals  0  0  0 
L  Without of answer  16  7  23 
   TOTAL  57  35  92 
Source: one´s own 
 
Respondents  from  both  groups  most  often  showed  support  of  marketing  and  business 
activities of business partners (in smaller firms 17,5%, in bigger firms 31,4%). In smaller   5 
firms in next there are services of business partners (15,8%) and building regular partners 
portfolio (12,3%).  
Respondents from bigger firms in next most often showed: sale planning cooperates with 
partners (17,1%) and building regular partners portfolio (14,3%). Fourth part of respondents 
did not give any answer at this question. 
Correlative coefficient is r = 0,775758 and Spearman´s coefficient of serial correlation is rs = 
0,714693. 
How are possibilities of outsourcing using for CRM and how are limitation exist 
Outsourcing is transplantation one or several activities to external partners. Outsourcing of 
information technology is relatively extensive. Above all he makes possible smaller firms to 
use expensive technologies. Because of CRM do not represent only work with PC, we wanted 
to learn, to what degree are firm willing to use outsourcing in this range eventually what 
barriers do they see. 
Distribution of answers to this question shows next table: 
Table 1.5 Is outsourcing acceptable for CRM? 
      under 250  over 250  Total 
A  yes  15  6  21 
C  partly  4  5  9 
B  no  13  9  22 
D  Without of answer  13  3  16 
   TOTAL  45  23  68 
Source: one´s own 
23,5% respondents did not give answer at question (in smaller firms it was 29,9% and in 
bigger  13%).  If  we  look  to  percentage  distribution  respondents  which  gave  an  answer, 
negative  answer  are  approximately  the  same.  Bigger  size  of  small  firms  agrees  with 
outsourcing (small firms - 46%, bigger firms - 30%). It results from absence higher financial 
sources to buy new technologies in small firms. 
Respondents see next barriers to use outsourcing: 
 
Table 1.6 Barriers for not possible usage outsourcing in CRM 
      under 250  over 250  Total 
A  Apprehension  about  data  and  deficiently 
secure  11  5  16 
B  Misgiving to external workers  13  2  15 
C  Failure of infrastructure  1  1  2 
D  Expensiveness  16  6  22 
E  Application control waste  6  5  11 
F  Poor service offer  3  4  7 
G  Problematic  integration  with  factory 
applications  4  6  10 
H  Other  0  1  1 
I  Without of answer  13  5  18 
   TOTAL  67  35  102 
Source: one´s own 
 
Correlation  of  answers  at  this  question  is  relatively  low.  Correlation  coefficient  is  r  = 
0,306673  and  Spearman´s  coefficient  of  serial  correlation  is  rs  =  0,392857  in  spite  of   6 
respondents from both groups most often said  high price (smaller firms 23,9% and biggest 
firms 17,1%). In smaller firms we can see misgiving to external workers in confrontation with 
own employee (19,4%) and apprehension about secure data (16,4%). 
Big firms in comparison with this fact see big problems above all in integration with company 
applications (17,1%) and in control waste over own application (14,3%). Bigger firms have 
apprehension about data and deficiently secure (14,3 %). 
At structure of answers we can see that bigger firms mostly use sizable information system 
and insist on complex data processing. In small firms we can see insist on individual kind of 
work. 
 
2. Profit taking of research and hypothesis verification 
 
Most  often  we  have  got  answers  to  our  question  from  public  sector  organizations  and 
businessman.  Their most significant  groups were consumer sector. Majority organizations 
take  effect  in  home  market.  The  first  outcome  refers  with  relatively  high  percentage  no-
answered questions from range of information and communication technologies. It was 32% 
by question 14. This percentage was higher in absolute majority small firms because of little 
knowledge from ICT range in small firms. 
 
2.1 Hypothesis verification 
 
H1 – Organizations do not use more extensive support for CRM.  
We are sorry to say this hypothesis was ratified. From structure of answers to questions 12 
and  13  result,  that  firms  use  ICT  in  CRM  range  enough  little  and  rather  they  limit  to 
organization disposal or simple equipments. 
 
H2 - Notions about CRM and their ICT support are different in small and bigger firms. 
How I was supposed in start of this article, ideas about CRM and their support by ICT is 
different  in  smaller  and  bigger  firms.  It  results  from  low  correlation  coefficients  percent 
occurrence of answers refers with ICT. It is in virtue in different level highness financial and 
personal sources. 
In smaller firms we can see higher dependence to partners and customers. Bigger firms put 
the accent on complex solving of problems. 
 
H3 – Willingness to use outsourcing exist in CRM range. 
This hypothesis was not ratified. At question about availability of using outsourcing in CRM 
55% of respondents did not give any answer or said dissent. We can make out, that the main 
reason of this problem is high price, further apprehension about waste of effectivity, misuse 
data, etc. 
 
Resume 
From results of search we can say  next findings: 
1.  Organizations  do  not  use  for  CRM  sizable  support  of  ICT.  Firms  usually  limit  to 
organization measures or simple equipments.  
2.  Ideas about CRM are different in smaller and bigger firms. It is in virtue in different level 
highness financial and personal sources. In smaller firms we can see higher dependence to 
partners and customers. Bigger firms put the accent on complex solving of problems.  
3.  There is not willingness to use outsourcing in CRM. The main problem is above all high 
price and apprehension about waste of effectivity, misuse data, etc.   7 
From results of search also we can see little knowledge of offer software products. 
 
Literature: 
1.  VANĚK,  J.  Vyhodnocení  dotazníkového  šetření  ke  zjištění  situace  v  technologickém 
zabezpečení  CRM.  (Evaluation  of  questionary  research  to  learn  state  of  affairs  of 
technological support CRM). Final report of grants project 402/05/0140 „Methodology of 
marketing  relationship  and  her  position  within  the  frame  of  strategic  marketing  and 
control  relationships  with  customers  (CRM).  Practical  usage.  School  of  business 
administration in Karviná, 2005 
2.  VANĚK,  J.  Dostupné  softwarové  produkty  CRM  na  našem  trhu.  (Accessible  CRM 
Software  Products  in  Czech  Market).  Final  report  of  grants  project  402/05/0140 
„Methodology of marketing relationship and her position within the frame of strategic 
marketing and control relationships with customers (CRM). Practical usage. School of 
business administration in Karviná, 2005 
3.  WOLF, P. 2006. Basic of Information Management. [online]. Canakale, Turkey: Onsekiz 
Mart Universitesi, Canakale, November, 2005, 80 s. 
  http://biibf.comu.edu.tr/veriingm/wolf.doc  
4.  WOLF, P. 2005. Information Management & Knowledge society. [online]. North Karelia 
Polytechnic, Finland: April, 2005. 70 s. http://tiko.ncp.fi/wolf/Infor.mgm.Finsko.doc 

Questionary Research to Learn State of Affairs of Technological Support CRM

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics