21 - Designing A Predictive Performance Measurement and Control System

Designing a Predictive Performance
Measurement and Control System to

Maximize Customer Relationship
Management Success
MARI
A ROSA LLAMAS-ALONSO
University of Le oon, Spain
ANA ISABEL JIME
NEZ-ZARCO
University of Catalonia, Spain
MARI
A PILAR MARTI
NEZ-RUIZ
University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain
JOHN DAWSON
University of Edinburgh and University of Sterling,
United Kingdom and ESADE, Spain
Customer Relationship Management (CRM) performance measure-
ment is reviewed with two main intentions: (a) to encourage
theoretical and empirical research and (b) to provide a useful pre-
dictive measurement system that is easy to implement. Special
emphasis is placed on Balanced Scorecard methodologies as mea-
surement systems to both evaluate and predict CRM performance.
The use of a Balanced Scorecard (BSC) methodology to design
CRM predictive performance measurement and control systems
(PMCS) may provide several benefits to firms since (a) it reduces
the risk and the uncertainty associated with the decision-making
processes related to a CRM strategy and (b) it provides a strategic
resource to the development of competitive advantages. The article
concludes by proposing an holistic measuring system in the CRM
field, including accountable, leading, repeatable, and linked
metrics over the following areas and dimensions: strategy (business
orientation, business atmosphere, and competitive strategy);
Address correspondence to Mar a Pilar Mart nez-Ruiz, A
rea de Comercializaci oon e

Investigaci oon de Mercados, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Avenida de los Alfares, 44, 16071
Cuenca, Spain. E-mail: MariaPilar.Martinez@uclm.es
1
Journal of Marketing Channels, 16:141, 2009
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1046-669X print=1540-7039 online
DOI: 10.1080/10466690802147896
resources (financial, human, and technological), business
processes (integration and innovation); products and services
(superiority and product=company synergy), customers (prospec-
tive and current); and external factors (competition and market).
KEYWORDS Balanced scorecard (BSC), customer relationship
management (CRM), marketing metrics, predictive performance
measurement and control system (PMCS), relationship marketing
Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is both a business approach and
a management tool. By combining strategy and technology, CRMs objective
is to establish long-lasting relationships between the firm and its customers
through two actions: (a) increasing knowledge about customers and (b)
establishing two-way cooperative relationships between the firm and its cus-
tomers. Both actions enable the creation of firmcustomer links that may
generate valuable knowledge, and whose management can be translated into
an improvement of the efficiency, effectiveness, and profitability of business
processes (Gronroos, 2000; Wayland & Cole, 1997) and higher levels of
customer satisfaction (Thakur & Summey, 2005; Thakur, Summey, &
Balasubramanian, 2006).
There is substantial evidence of the increasing importance of the concept
of CRM. Jain (2005) has shown that a firm must be able to monitor and con-
stantly detect changes in customer needs and quickly adjust its business
accordingly, in order to compete successfully. Srivastava, Shervani, and Fahey
(1999) pointed out that the CRM strategy is one of the three key aspects in
business processes since it lets the firm identify customers, create knowledge,
build relationships with customers, and shape their perceptions about the firm
and its products. Moreover, Greenberg (2001) states that we are on the verge
of the most significant transformation in business due to CRM, and Day (2004,
p. 18) views CRM as an important part of the new dominant logic for market-
ing. Jain (2005) suggests that CRM should become an integrated part of the
marketing management paradigm. For this reason, he presents a managerial
model of CRM that adds a fifth P (i.e., profiling the customer) to the classical
marketing mix framework.
Despite the high visibility of CRM as a business strategy and a manage-
ment tool and its avowed influence on a firms success, there is a lack of empiri-
cal academic research on this topic (Ang & Buttle, 2002; Kim, Suh, & Hwang,
2003; Plakoyiannaki & Tzokas, 2001; Winer, 2001). The reason is the complex-
ity of the CRM approach: CRM philosophy, although simple to understand, is
difficult to implement successfully and even more difficult to evaluate. This
complexity emerges in part, from the large number of people, organizations,
and relationships involved, what Gummesson (2004) terms networks
of relationships, as well as from the wide range of communication channels
2 M. R. Llamas-Alonso et al.
available for the customer to interact with the firm (telephone, e-mail, Web, fax,
SMS) and through sensory stimuli.
In order to reduce the level of risk, Payne and Frow (2005) propose
that CRM requires a cross-functional integration of processes, people, opera-
tions, and marketing capabilities that is enabled through information, tech-
nology, and applications. Thus, the works of Zablah, Danny, and Johnston
(2004) and Rigby, Reichheld, and Schefter (2002), among others, show
how in those situations where firms fail to face these challenges, CRM does
not have any positive impact on business performance (Zablah et al., 2004),
or can even have an inefficient implementation that damages customer
relationships.
The complex and multidimensional nature of CRM has led authors such
as Woodcock (2000), and consulting firms such as Gartner Group (2001) to
suggest that before the implementation of CRM, some foundation steps must
be followed in order to increase its probability of success:
. Define clearly the strategic objectives to be achieved by implementing
CRM.
. Identify the antecedents (decisive factors) of CRM that determine the future
ability of CRM to achieve the strategic objectives.
. Establish a measurement system that makes it possible to predict the future
ability of CRM as well as the firms ability to have, develop, or control the
decisive factors.
The development of measurement systems (as a set of metrics) allow man-
agers to anticipate how CRM will work and determine the way CRM will influ-
ence the achievement of the strategic firms objectives (Winer, 2001). The
importance of this issue has been outlined by several institutions such as
The Marketing Science Institute, which has echoed this problem having given
the topic Implementing and assessing the impact of CRMtop priority for the per-
iod of 2004 to 2006 (Marketing Science Institute, 2004). Within this field, several
works (e.g., Plakoyiannaki et al., 2001; Srivastava et al., 1999; Winer, 2001;
Woodcock, 2000) propose the need to create and use performance measure-
ment systems before, during, and after the implementation and use of CRM sys-
tems. Therefore, by designing and implementing balanced, complex, and
multidimensional measurement systems, the firm will be able to anticipate the
future ability of CRM to achieve its objectives through a predictive performance
measurement system or establish the level of real success achieved by CRM
through an evaluative performance measurement system. More specifically,
. A predictive measurement system of CRM performance starts with the
companys abilities and resources prior to the implementation of CRM.
Making an analysis of the current business situation allows prediction of
the effect of CRM assuming it will achieve the set objectives.
Designing a PPMC System to Maximize CRM Success 3
. An evaluative measurement system of CRM performance establishes to what
extent the main CRM objectives (e.g., better customer knowledge, customer
satisfaction, customer loyalty) have been achieved.
By comparing the predicted objectives and the achieved objectives the
firm will be able to establish the divergences between the expected results
and the achieved results, thereby being able to improve the efficiency and
efficacy of CRM strategy.
Several studies have proposed performance measurement systems in
the field of CRM. However, there have been two main limitations. On the
one hand, the traditionally proposed performance measurement systems
typically have been based on the use of financial indicators only. Neverthe-
less, more recently the interest in the use of nonfinancial indicators has
increased (Andre & Saraiva, 2000; Clark, 1999; Marketing Science Institute
2004; Assessing Marketers Worth, 2001; Moorman & Rust, 1999; Schultz,
2000; Shaw & Mazur 1997) since they make it possible to predict and assess,
depending on the established system, the level of success of CRM, given its
ability to achieve the proposed objectives as well as to improve the business
performance. On the other hand, the evaluative nature of these systems have
focused on assessing the end results of CRMthat is, to know to which extent
an implemented CRM initiative has achieved the proposed final objectives
(Phua & Rowlinson, 2004). Therefore, few works have really provided a mea-
surement of the performance of the CRM system, which is surprising given the
high risk and financial, human, and technological investment associated with
the design and implementation of CRM initiatives.
Thus, given the increasing importance for firms to have adequate mea-
surement systems to forecast the future impact of CRM strategies, we explore
CRM performance measurement systems in order to highlight gaps and to
encourage theoretical and empirical research. In the first section, the main
characteristics and implications of CRM are defined. Considering that the final
objective of CRM is the creation of close and long-lasting relationships with
customers, the second section explores the underlying objectives of the final
CRM goal. The drivers of CRM success are analyzed since they influence the
future ability of CRM to achieve the strategic objectives, and consequently,
to improve business performance. The use of performance measurement
and control systems (PMCS) in the marketing field are investigated, placing
special emphasis on the BSC methodology, given its adequacy to establish
multidimensional and well-balanced measurement systems. The final section
proposes a predictive measurement and control system (PMCS) based on
BSC in order to predict the success of the implementation of a CRM initiative.
This PMCS provides a holistic perspective since it includes metrics in the
following areas and dimensions: strategy (business orientation, business atmo-
sphere, and competitive strategy); resources (financial, human, and technolo-
gical); business processes (integration and innovation); products and services
(superiority and product=company synergy); customers (prospective and
current); and external factors (competition and market).
CRM: STRATEGIC CHANGE AND
RELATIONSHIPS ORIENTATION
CRM deployment has been fostered by the recent changes experienced in the
strategic and marketing approach of the firms (Boulding, Staelin, Ehret, &
Johnston, 2005). On the one hand, strategic management thinking has
become more oriented to the improvement of the internal management of
the organization through quality management, outsourcing, reengineering
of processes, and more recently, configuration of the firm as a networked
organization (Achrol & Kotler, 1999; Fjermestad & Romano, 2003). In parallel
with the change in the strategic paradigm there also has been a change in the
marketing orientation adopted by firms, seeking to develop customer-led
policies within marketing, for example customer-led innovation and product
development, experiential marketing, and customer responsive channels
(Boulding et al., 2005). So, these changes in market and strategic orientations
since the early 1990s have created a set of preconditions for the emergence of
CRM (Buckler & Zien, 1996; Davenport & Beck, 2002).
On the other hand, the presence of more informed and demanding custo-
mers with differentiated purchase patterns and behaviors has provided a more
sharply defined set of customer demands. The values that customers expect in
a relationship have thus become more clearly articulated through identifiable
group behaviors generating behaviorally and temporally defined segments.
This has resulted in customers having more influence in their relationships
with firms, engendering a customer centric approach from firms as they
emphasize two-way communication and cooperation, retaining customers
and sharing customer values (Day, 2004; Day & Montgomery, 1999; Jain, 2005).
Conceptual and Strategic Implications of CRM Adoption
With the emergence of CRM, there has been a plethora of definitions trying to
catch the essence of this concept. Table 1 illustrates the scope of these defini-
tions. The lack of consensus is evident in the abundance of definitions that
has created a barrier, to a certain extent, to research and implementation
of CRM programs. It has also made implementation difficult for managers
in their understanding of how functional areas of the organization interact
within CRM (Ramsey, 2003). In an extensive review of the literature, Law-
son-Body and Limayem (2004) found six components that lie behind the
CRM concept influencing most of the definitions. The identified concepts
are (a) customer prospecting, (b) relations with customers, (c) interactive
management, (d) understanding customer expectations, (e) empowerment,
(f) partnerships, and (g) personalization. Similarly, Payne et al. (2005)
TABLE 1 Definitions of CRM
Authors Definition Relevant Aspects
Gronroos (1990) CRM is a way to establish,
maintain, enhance and
commercialize customer
relationships so that the
objectives of the parties
involved are met
Organizations need to establish
long-term alliances with
customers that are mutually
beneficial.
Shani &
Chalasani
(1992)
CRM is an integrated effort to
identify, maintain, and build
up a network with individual
consumers and to
continuously strengthen the
network for the mutual
benefit of both sides,
through interactive,
interactive, individualized
and value-added contacts
over a long period of time
CRM intends to capture
increasing amounts of the
lifelong loyalty of the best
customers by offering
products and services that
respond to their individual
needs.
Handen (2000) The process of acquiring,
retaining and growing
profitable customers
Organizations need to better
understand customers
requirements and be in
position to act quickly.
Massey,
Montoya-Weiss,
& Holcom
(2001)
CRM is about attracting,
developing and maintaining
profitable customer
relationships over time
Organizations need to focus on
customer needs over time.
Greenberg (2001) The commitment of the
company to place the
customer experience at the
centre of its priorities and to
ensure that incentive
systems, processes, and
information resource
leverage the relationship by
enhancing experience
The experience of the
customer is a cumulative
effect of a series of
interactions. Then, the
objective of CRM basically is
to enhance this cumulative
effect and thus the loyalty of
the customer.
Croteau & Li
(2003)
CRM is a customer-focused
business strategy that aims to
increase customer
satisfaction and customer
loyalty by offering a more
responsive and customized
service to each customer
CRM allows firms to tailor their
products and services to
customers preferences.
Kotler &
Armstrong
(2004)
The overall process of
building and maintaining
profitable customer
relationships by delivering
superior customer value and
satisfaction
Organizations need to
understand customers
requirements to offer them
higher value and satisfaction.
Sin, Tse, & Yim
(2005)
A comprehensive strategy and
process that enables an
Organizations need to focus on
customers as a way of
(Continued)
analyzed a wide range of definitions and descriptions of CRM from different
sources, which led them to categorize CRM definitions taking into account
three different perspectives: (a) emphasis on information technology (IT)
implementation (narrow and tactical focus); (b) wide range of customer-
oriented IT and Internet applications; and (c) customer centric focus (holistic
and strategic approach).
Regarding the common elements in the definitions, there is a strong
consensus about the strategic orientation to the relationships, making it
necessary to have a more interactive and customized marketing orientation.
This marketing orientation considers customers as core elements and imple-
ments the required actions in order to encourage the establishment of long-
lasting relationships (Czepiel, 1990; Gronroos, 2000; Gummesson, 2004; Tati-
konda & Stock, 2003). As pointed out by McKenna (1993), the building of
strong customer relationships has been suggested as a means for gaining
competitive advantage. In the same vein, Reinartz and Kumar (2003) and
Ross (2005) show that it is much more profitable to keep and satisfy current
customers than to renew a constantly changing customer base. The adoption
of this approach, however, involves a great challenge for the firm since it
means a new way of conceiving the marketing activity, aligning continuously
the whole organization around the customer (Gronroos, 2000). The most
important implications of the adoption of CRM are summarized in Table 2.
The adoption of CRM implies the design and implementation of an infor-
mation management system to organize the customer knowledge (Argyres,
1999; Tzokas & Saren, 1997). Through the gathering, management, and diffu-
sion of information regarding the customers, the firm will gain knowledge
about the characteristics and behavior of every customer as well as of the
actions oriented to customers (Jaworski & Kolhi, 1993). The information system
manages, in an automatic and decentralized way, all contacts among the mem-
bers of the organization, facilitating the dissemination of useful information
(Sorensen & Lundh-Snis, 2001). A high level of integration among the agents
and the CRM processes makes it easier and more efficient to establish relation-
ships between the firm and the customers by favoring the transference of
information and knowledge as well as the development of a cooperative beha-
vior within the firm (Kahn, 2001).
TABLE 1 Continued
Authors Definition Relevant Aspects
organization to identify,
acquire, retain and nurture
profitable customers by
long-term relationships with
them
long-term relationships with
them.
T
A
B
L
E
2
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
a
n
d
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
I
m
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
t
h
e
A
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
R
M
I
m
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
I
s
s
u
e
E
f
f
e
c
t
E
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
A
n
a
l
y
z
i
n
g
T
h
e
s
e
E
f
f
e
c
t
s
E
X
T
E
R
N
A
L
M
a
r
k
e
t
N
e
w
w
a
y
o
f
a
n
a
l
y
z
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
a
r
k
e
t
T
h
e
m
a
r
k
e
t
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
e
v
o
l
v
e
s
f
r
o
m
a
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
s
i
m
p
l
e
d
y
a
d
i
c
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
w
o
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
,
t
o
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
o
n
e
t
h
a
t
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
s
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
i
n
a
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
e
c
o
n
o
m
y
.
A
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
,
F
o
r
n
e
l
l
,
&
L
e
h
m
a
n
(
1
9
9
4
)
;
H
a
k
a
n
s
s
o
n
(
1
9
8
9
)
;
H
a
k
a
n
s
s
o
n
&
J
o
h
a
n
s
o
n
(
1
9
9
2
)
;
J
o
h
a
n
s
o
n
&
M
a
t
t
s
s
o
n
(
1
9
8
5
)
C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
N
e
w
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
T
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
a
s
a
s
o
p
h
i
s
t
i
c
a
t
e
d
a
g
e
n
t
w
h
o
r
e
j
e
c
t
s
b
e
i
n
g
a
n
o
n
y
m
o
u
s
a
n
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
.
B
o
u
l
d
i
n
g
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
5
)
A
c
t
i
v
e
r
o
l
e
o
f
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
T
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
a
d
o
p
t
s
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
r
o
l
e
i
n
t
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
t
a
k
i
n
g
p
a
r
t
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
,
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
.
C
R
M
p
u
t
s
c
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
a
t
t
h
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
.
A
p
p
l
e
y
a
r
d
,
(
2
0
0
3
)
;
V
o
n
H
i
p
p
e
l
(
1
9
8
6
,
1
9
8
8
,
2
0
0
1
,
2
0
0
5
)
N
e
w
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
a
s
a
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
u
m
,
w
i
t
h
m
a
n
y
n
o
n
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
s
s
u
e
s
u
n
d
e
r
l
y
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
s
u
c
h
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
l
,
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
,
h
e
d
o
n
i
c
,
a
n
d
s
y
m
b
o
l
i
c
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
.
G
r
o
n
r
o
o
s
(
2
0
0
0
)
;
G
r
o
n
r
o
o
s
&
G
u
m
m
e
s
s
o
n
(
1
9
8
5
)
;
R
a
v
a
l
d
&
G
r
o
n
r
o
o
s
(
1
9
9
6
)
I
N
T
E
R
N
A
L
M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
F
i
e
l
d
o
f
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
y
p
e
o
f
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
i
s
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
o
o
d
a
s
a
g
l
o
b
a
l
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
t
h
a
t
i
s
s
p
r
e
a
d
t
o
a
l
l
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
s
i
d
e
a
n
d
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.
B
i
t
n
e
r
(
1
9
9
5
)
;
G
r
o
n
r
o
o
s
(
2
0
0
0
)
;
G
r
o
n
r
o
o
s
&
G
u
m
m
e
s
s
o
n
(
1
9
8
5
)
;
S
e
l
n
e
s
(
1
9
9
8
)
8
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
T
h
e
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
g
o
e
s
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
a
u
t
o
m
a
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
p
h
a
s
e
;
i
t
i
s
a
s
y
m
b
i
o
t
i
c
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
w
i
t
h
a
m
u
t
u
a
l
f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
.
J
o
h
n
e
&
S
t
o
r
e
y
(
1
9
9
8
)
;
M
c
K
e
n
n
a
,
(
1
9
9
3
)
;
R
o
b
e
r
t
s
(
2
0
0
4
)
;
T
z
o
k
a
s
&
S
a
r
e
n
(
1
9
9
7
)
;
V
o
r
h
i
e
s
,
H
a
r
k
e
r
,
&
R
a
o
(
1
9
9
9
)
;
W
e
e
r
a
w
a
r
d
e
n
a
(
2
0
0
3
)
W
e
l
l
s
&
F
u
e
r
s
t
(
1
9
9
9
)
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
N
e
w
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
o
f
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
T
h
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
s
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
a
s
a
g
l
o
b
a
l
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
o
f
g
o
o
d
s
a
n
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
l
o
o
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
h
i
m
=
h
e
r
w
i
t
h
a
d
d
e
d
v
a
l
u
e
.
G
r
o
n
r
o
o
s
(
1
9
9
6
,
2
0
0
0
)
;
R
a
v
a
l
d
&
G
r
o
n
r
o
o
s
(
1
9
9
6
)
;
W
e
b
s
t
e
r
(
1
9
9
4
)
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
g
e
t
t
i
n
g
t
o
k
n
o
w
a
n
d
r
e
t
a
i
n
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
F
i
d
e
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
h
a
s
b
e
c
o
m
e
a
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
f
o
r
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
n
o
w
a
d
a
y
s
.
B
e
r
r
y
,
C
a
r
b
o
n
e
,
&
H
a
e
c
k
e
l
(
2
0
0
2
)
;
F
o
r
n
e
l
l
(
2
0
0
1
)
;
K
o
t
l
e
r
&
A
r
m
s
t
r
o
n
g
(
2
0
0
4
)
;
T
h
o
m
a
s
(
2
0
0
1
)
;
S
i
n
,
T
s
e
,
&
Y
i
m
(
2
0
0
5
)
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
s
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
h
a
s
b
e
c
o
m
e
c
o
r
n
e
r
s
t
o
n
e
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
d
e
s
i
g
n
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
.
A
p
p
l
e
y
a
r
d
(
2
0
0
3
)
;
S
i
n
k
u
l
a
(
1
9
9
4
)
;
V
a
v
r
a
(
1
9
9
7
)
;
V
i
l
a
s
e
c
a
&
T
o
r
r
e
n
t
(
2
0
0
3
)
M
I
X
V
a
l
u
e
N
e
w
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
o
f
v
a
l
u
e
P
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
w
i
t
h
v
a
l
u
e
i
s
a
t
t
h
e
c
o
r
e
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
.
T
h
e
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
f
i
d
e
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
i
s
v
a
l
u
e
.
D
o
y
l
e
(
2
0
0
0
)
;
E
d
v
i
s
s
o
n
&
M
a
l
o
n
e
(
1
9
9
7
)
;
G
r
o
n
r
o
o
s
(
1
9
9
4
)
;
M
c
D
o
u
g
a
l
l
,
W
y
n
e
r
,
&
V
a
z
d
a
u
s
k
a
s
(
1
9
9
7
)
;
M
c
K
e
n
n
a
(
1
9
9
3
)
;
R
a
v
a
l
d
&
G
r
o
n
r
o
o
s
(
1
9
9
6
)
;
R
y
a
l
s
(
2
0
0
5
)
.
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
N
e
w
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
o
f
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
C
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
t
r
y
t
o
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
m
o
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
o
n
d
s
.
B
e
r
r
y
&
P
a
r
a
s
u
r
a
m
a
n
(
1
9
9
1
,
1
9
9
3
)
;
B
e
r
r
y
(
1
9
9
5
)
;
G
o
n
r
o
o
s
(
2
0
0
0
)
G
u
m
m
e
s
s
o
n
(
1
9
9
6
,
1
9
9
8
)
;
G
u
r
v
i
e
z
(
1
9
9
7
)
;
M
o
r
g
a
n
&
H
u
n
t
(
1
9
9
4
)
;
O
M
a
l
l
e
y
&
T
y
n
a
n
(
1
9
9
7
)
9
Finally, considering these premises, CRM can be regarded as a combina-
tion of a customer-centric strategic orientation and ICTs (Information and
Communication Technologies) applications that is aimed at supporting busi-
ness processes in order to increase customer knowledge, by meeting custo-
mer demands in a customized way, achieving strong, close, dynamic and
interactive customer relationships through time, and a continuous alignment
with them.
Determinants and Consequences of CRM Adoption
As pointed out by Parvatiyar and Sheth (2002), managers are realizing the
need for in-depth and integrated customer knowledge in order to build close
cooperative and partnering relationships with their customers, as well as the
importance of the CRM strategy in the current business context. It infers that
profitable customer portfolio management leads to other benefits that
increase the value for the firm, provide competitive advantages, and enhance
its competitive market positioning (Ryals, 2005), which is translated in an
improvement of the companys performance (Boulding et al., 2005).
Stemming from the research of Reinartz et al. (2000, 2003), Reinartz,
Krafft, and Hoyer (2004), Ross (2005), and Sin, Tse, and Yim (2005), among
others, it is possible to establish a classification of the benefits that the firm
obtains from the use of CRM (see Table 3). One of these benefits is the
knowledge that the firm acquires from the customer, which enables the
segmentation and detection of the more profitable customers, the identifica-
tion of products and services that meet the individual customer demands
more appropriately, and the design of initiatives and communications in
order to make customers loyal. Another benefit is the high degree of inter-
functional coordination that CRM achieves, which favors the transmission of
useful information about the product, the previous customers contacts, the
purchase history, and so forth. and makes it possible that the customer
increases his or her trust and commitment with the organization (Sorensen
et al., 2001).
The perspective of this article contrasts with the skepticism that CRM has
sometimes evoked in the professional field. CRM approaches involve a large
number of people and organizations that establish a complex network of rela-
tionships (Gummesson, 2004). These relationships frequently involve different
mechanisms of governance, instruments of authority and control, levels of
integration (among partners), and purposes (Achrol et al., 1999; Rindfleisch
& Moorman, 2001). Such complexity is related, among others, to strategic
and technological aspects and constitutes one of the reasons why a high per-
centage of CRM projects fail (Gartner Group, 2002). Srinivasan & Moorman
(2005) assert that the expensive CRM investments have not fulfilled expecta-
tions. This divergence between the obtained results and the expected results
derives possibly from the existence of some internal and external factors that
determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the way that CRM solutions are
implemented and impose limits on the degree of success that CRM can
achieve.
TABLE 3 Benefits of the CRM Strategy
Character Description
Financial Increase sales Reduce financial risk
Increase benefits per division Increase market share
Reduce cost and development=
investment costs
Increase benefit margin
Customer Increase customer knowledge Increase customer
commitment
Increase consumer interaction Increase the degree of
customer loyalty
Increase consumers perceived
quality
Increase the percentage of
new customers
Increase customer acceptance Increase the percentage of
customer retention
Increase customer satisfaction Increase the degree of
customer implication
Increase customer confidence
Product=Service Increase product=service-
consumer fit
Increase product=service
superiority
Increase product=service-
consumer knowledge
consumer loyalty
consumer preference
Increase the new
product=service success
Processes Reduce process cost Increase the degree of
employee information
Increase process speed Increase availability of
technological, human,
and economic resources
Increase process efficiency Increase process- customer
fit
Increase process flexibility Increase consumer
codevelopment processes
Increase process quality
Strategic Develop market knowledge Develop differentiation
competences
Enhance firm market position Develop a strong brand
equity
Enhance firms capacity for
reaction of the competition
Marketing Increase marketing efficiency
and effectiveness
Increase communication
and distribution strategy
effectiveness
Increase execution quality of
marketing activities
Increase intermediary
support
Social Develop a strong company
reputation (social
responsibility, ecological
responsibility)
Develop strong relationship
with other social agents
(neighborhood)
Develop a strong business
image
The review of the literature makes it possible to detect the drivers of
CRM success (see Table 4). Some of these factors are strategic (Curry & Curry,
2000; Strauss & Frost, 2001), whereas others are tactical (Greenberg, 2001;
Kohli et al., 2001). Once the firm has identified these factors and can manage
most of them, the probability of success in the implementation of a CRM
program will increase (Croteau & Li, 2003; Gronroos, 2000; Handen, 2000;
Helfert & Vith, 1999; Kim et al., 2003; Payne et al., 2005).
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND CONTROL SYSTEMS
(PMCS): SCORECARD APPROACHES
Firms seek to develop CRM initiatives to increase the likelihood of long-
term customer relationships. In order to increase effectiveness and effi-
ciency, companies look for a performance and control system (PMCS) that
makes it possible to predict the degree of success of the implemented CRM,
in terms of strategic objectives achieved. PMCSs are developed as a means
TABLE 4 Decisive Factors for the Success of the CRM Strategy
Area Dimension Subfactor
Strategy Business orientation Market orientation
Learning orientation
Innovation culture
Quality approach
Business atmosphere Top manager support
Environment
Competitive business strategy Differentiation advantage
Marketing efficiency and
effectiveness
One-to-one marketing and
communication
Resources Financial Availability of financial
resources
Human Training and know-how of
the human resources
Technological Availability and use of
technological resources
Business Processes Integration Communication
Cooperation
Innovation proficiency Complexity
Flexibility
Products and Services Superiority Differentiation
advantage
Product=company synergy Product=company fit
Customers Current customers Satisfaction, loyalty, and
profitability
Prospects Customer acquisition
External Factors Competition Competitiveness
Market Market potential
Company=market fit
of monitoring and maintaining organizational control (Nanni, Dixon, &
Vollmann, 1990; Neely, 1998) in order to ensure that the proposed strate-
gies are adequate with respect to the proposed objectives (Cook, Vansat,
Stewart, & Adrian, 1995). Historically, the relevant literature recognizes
the impact of PMCS on business performance, since they allow firms to
evaluate the extent to which objectives have been achieved (Kaplan &
Norton, 2000; Woodcock, 2000). More recently, some works (e.g., Bean &
Radford, 2002; Frigo & Krumwiede, 2000; Ghalayni & Noble, 1996; Olve,
Roy, & Wetter, 1998; Pawar & Driva, 1999; Waggoner, Neely, & Kennerley,
1999) suggest that the utility of PMCS as a predictive and evaluative tool on
business performance is twofold since they
. provide high quality information to decision makers, so that they can
determine whether their efforts are on course;
. help managers to understand when their programs are succeeding or fail-
ing, by signaling potential managerial problems when the performance
indicators are not able to track in the desired function;
. encourage managers to take initiative and be accountable; and
. clarify the process for the expectations and requirements of policy makers.
In the field of marketing, PMCS are underdeveloped. Marketing has been
the target of criticism due to its short-term orientation (Dekimpe & Hanssens,
1995, 1999), its limited diagnostic power (Day & Wensley, 1988), the lack of
agreement in relation to the number and nature of measures for evaluation,
and the subsequent difficulty for making comparisons of alternative marketing
policies (Ambler & Kokkinaki, 1997; Clark, 1999). Bonoma and Clark (1988)
and Dekimpe et al. (1995) showthat existing PMCSs have difficulties in measur-
ing the implementation of different marketing strategies. Thus, there are diffi-
culties in isolating the effects of a particular marketing strategy from other
actions and in identifying the effects of a particular long-term strategy. These
issues generated barriers for the implementation of PMCS in the marketing field.
Traditionally there has been an interest in finding the link between the
marketing strategies and the financial returns in order to show how market-
ing investments add value to shareholders (Doyle, 2000; Rust, Ambler,
Carpenter, Kumar, Srivastava, 2004). Consequently, early PMCSs had an
evaluative profile, and focused exclusively on the achievement of a limited
number of key financial measures. Based on the information provided by
the accounting department, and derived from balance sheets and income
statements, those measurement systems took into account only hard mea-
sures such as sales, gross margins, and contributions from new products
and services (Crosby and Johnson, 2001; Neely et al., 2000).
Several studies have highlighted increasing dissatisfaction with these tra-
ditional forms of performance measurement (Brignall & Ballantyne, 1996;
Ghalayni & Noble, 1996). Much of the criticism stems from their failure to
measure and monitor multiple dimensions of performance, by concentrating
almost exclusively on financial measurements (Eccles, 1991). This focus
reflects the traditional emphasis on the accounting and financial aspects of
the firm, excluding other internal and external dimensions that are also impor-
tant for adapting the firm to the competitive environment. In the 1980s, mar-
ket share gained great popularity as a strong predictor of cash flow and
profitability (e.g., Buzzel & Gale, 1987). Through the 1990s, the view of suc-
cess evolved to be considered as a multidimensional concept, highly condi-
tioned by organizational and environmental factors and characteristics. The
marketing literature then began to consider customers as assets since they
represent the basis on which firms can constitute a strong commercial capital
(Blattberg & Deighton, 1996; Blattberg & Thomas, 2001; Keller, 2002). More-
over, this multidimensional configuration changes depending on the organi-
zation and the established objectives or the period of time (Brignall et al.,
1996). The concept of success has become less objective and increasingly sub-
jective and situational influenced. This evolution induces PMCS to include
nonfinancial, customer-orientated measures as a means to predict and evalu-
ate business and particularly marketing performance (Banker, Potter, &
Srinivasan, 2001).
This customer-centered viewpoint is reflected in the concepts and
metrics that drive marketing management, so that a measurement literature
has arisen (Berger & Nasr, 1998; Gupta, Lehmann, & Stuart, 2002; Jain &
Singh, 2002; Mulhern, 1999; Reinartz et al., 2000). Furthermore, the relation-
ship between profitability and a range of nonfinancial measures, such as cus-
tomer satisfaction (e.g., Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994; Ittner &
Larcker, 1998b; Szymaski & Henard, 2001), customer loyalty (Dick & Basu,
1994; Gurviez, 1997; Reichheld, 1996; Yim & Kannan, 1999), brand equity
(Keller, 2002), and employee equity (Amir & Lev, 1996; Srivastava et al.,
1999) was proven. Subsequently, these customer-related measures started
to have a greater deployment and gain importance.
Finally, it is important to mention that the complexity and dynamics of
organizations and their environments have induced some authors to propose
the incorporation of new nonfinancial measures in PMCS. Thus, along with
variables relating to customers, some researchers (Jaworski et al., 1993;
Kaplan & Norton, 1996a; Storey & Kelly, 2002; Tuominen & Moller, 1996) pro-
pose the inclusion of firm and market-based criteria into marketing PMCSs.
Several studies provide evidence of the wide use of all these PMCSs by
firms in the evaluation of new projects and products (Griffin & Page, 1993,
1996; Storey & Easingwood, 1998, 1999; Storey et al., 2002). Profit and finan-
cial indicators remain, by far, the most frequently quoted output measures of
performance, although customer-based measures are used more often. Spe-
cifically, measurements of customer satisfaction and the firms ability to
attract new customers and retain existing ones are used to predict and
measure the impact of marketing strategies on business performance (Kim
et al., 2003).
Scorecard Methods and Strategic Performance Measurement
As previously mentioned, the environment in which firms carry out their activ-
ities is complex, dynamic, and multidimensional, meaning that firm perfor-
mance depends on many variables, both internal and external. This
situation demands holistic measurement systems that mirror all relationships
both inside the firm and with external agents, as well as provide the firm with
a complete map of different aspects and factors determining and influencing
its performance. So, a marketing PMCS must be designed under a wide and
multidimensional view that integrates a variety of disciplines, including
accounting, economics, human resource management, marketing, operations
management, psychology, and sociology. For this reason, as pointed out by
Yeniyurt (2003), the development of integrative and balanced systems,
including both financial and nonfinancial metrics, is one of the most impor-
tant trends in the performance measurement field. Academic research has also
moved in this direction, yielding different methods to measure performance
based on scorecards. Some of the methods using an scorecard approach
are summarized in Table 5.
These methods reflect the interest in measuring and managing intangible
assets since the difference between market value and book value is frequently
attributed to these invisible issues (Capraro & Srivastava, 1997). All the meth-
odologies in Table 5 consider strategy as the main aspect to assess, whereas
human capital (e.g., experience, knowledge, competences, know-how), struc-
tural capital (e.g., processes, information systems, databases), and relationship
capital (e.g., customer relationships, brands, trademarks, etc.) are considered
subsidiary factors. Another point in common is that, although they combine
soft and hard measures, the emphasis is placed in the latter ones.
The most quoted method is the BSC, developed by Kaplan and Norton
in the early 1990s. BSC approach provides a clear description of what firms
should measure in order to balance the financial perspective. It is claimed
that this system enables organizations to clarify their vision and strategy
and translate them into action. By giving top managers a fast but comprehen-
sive view of the business, the BSC aims to provide feedback on both the
internal strategy process and external outcomes in order to improve strategic
performance and results (Kaplan & Norton 1992, 1996a, 1996b; Neely et al.,
2000). The BSC approach suggests that firms can be viewed from four impor-
tant perspectives: financial, customer, business processes, and learning and
growth (Kaplan et al., 1992, 1993, 1996a).
Practitioners and academics have long recognized the potential useful-
ness of BSC as a performance measurement and control tool (Bean et al.,
2002), since its ability to consider simultaneously four analytical perspectives
TABLE 5 Scorecard Methods
Method Authors Measurement Description
Balanced
Scorecard
Kaplan & Norton
(1992)
A companys performance is measured by
indicators covering four major focus
perspectives: (a) financial perspective; (b)
customer perspective; (c) internal process
perspective; and (d) learning perspective.
The indicators are based on the strategic
objectives of the firm.
Danish
guidelines
Mouritsen, Bukh,
& Johansen
(2003)
A recommendation by government-sponsored
research project for how Danish firms should
report their intangibles publicly. Intellectual
capital statements consist of (a) a knowledge
narrative; (b) a set of management
challenges; (c) a number of initiatives; and
(d) relevant indicators.
Human Capital
Intelligence
Fitz-Enz (1994) Sets of human capital indicators are collected
and bench-marked against a database.
Similar to HRCA.
IC Rating Edvinson (2002) An extension of the Skandia Navigator
framework incorporating ideas from the
Intangible Assets Monitor, rating efficiency,
renewal, and risk.
IC Index Roos et al. (1997) Consolidates all individual indicators
representing intellectual properties and
components into a single index. Changes in
the index are then related to changes in the
firms market valuation.
Intangible
Asset
Monitor
Sveiby (1997) Management selects indicators, based on the
strategic objectives of the firm, to measure
four aspects of creating value from
intangible assets. By: (a) growth; (b)
renewal; (c) utilization=
efficiency; and (d) risk reduction=stability.
Knowledge
audit. Cycle
Marr and Schiuma
(2003)
A method for assessing six knowledge
dimensions of an organizations capabilities
in four steps: define key knowledge assets,
identify key knowledge processes, plan
actions on knowledge processes, implement
and monitor improvement, then return to 1.
Meritum
Guidelines
Meritum
Guidelines
(2002)
An EU-sponsored research project, which has
yielded a framework for management and
disclosure on intangible assets: (a) define
strategic objectives, (b) identify the
intangible resources, (c) actions to develop
intangible resources. Three categories of
intangibles: human capital, structural capital,
and relationship capital.
Skandia
Navigator
Edvinsson &
Malone (1997)
Intellectual capital is measured through the
analysis of up to 164 metric measures (91
intellectually based and 73 traditional metrics)
that cover five components: (a) financial;
(b) customer; (c) processes; (d) renewal and
development; and (e) human.
(Continued)
and to identify the relationships among them facilitates the decision-making
process. Despite prestigious international companies using this system in their
strategic management, it is important to note that the use of BSC has certain
risks. Among these risks are (a) its limited adaptation ability and (b) the incor-
rect use that certain managers can make of BSC systems. Moreover, the diver-
sity of factors influencing the success in certain processes has made the model
proposed by Kaplan and Norton inadequate or incomplete. For this reason,
Storey and Kelly (2001) suggest the need of adapting the BSC system to every
application area incorporating, if required, new dimensions or metrics.
Applying BSC Methodology to Design an Evaluative
PMCS of CRM
The BSC approach has been applied in the development of marketing PMCS
(Bean et al., 2002; Storey et al., 2002) since it minimizes information overload
by limiting the number of measurements used, forcing managers to focus on
the handful of measurements that are most critical (Kaplan et al., 1992). This
balanced set of measurements reveals the trade-offs that managers have
already made among performance measures and encourages them to achieve
their goals in the future without making any trade-offs among key success
factors. Nevertheless, different market situations, product strategies, and
competitive environments require different scorecards. Thus, the adaptation
to each firm must be the focal point of the organizations efforts, and the
managers must articulate the business strategy, communicate it to every
person involved, and help to align individual, organizational, and cross-
departmental initiatives in order to achieve a common goal (Kaplan et al.,
1996a).
TABLE 5 Continued
Method Authors Measurement Description
Topplinjen=
Business IQ
Sandvik (2004) A combination of four indices: identity index,
human capital index, knowledge capital
index, reputation index. Developed in
Norway by consulting firm
Humankapitalgruppen.
Value Chain
Scoreboard
Lev (2002) A matrix of nonfinancial indicators arranged in
three categories according to the cycle of
development: Discovery=Learning,
Implementation, Commercialization.
Value Creation
Index
Ittner et al. (2000) Drivers of value are derived from an extensive
literature survey and advanced statistics.
Metrics are weighted and combined to give a
Value Creation Index. The index is
compared and combined with financial data.
Source: Adapted from Pike and Roos (2004) and Sveiby (1997).
The usefulness of BSC as a strategic measurement system has led to the
use of this approach in the creation of evaluative PMCS applicable to CRM
that is, systems that measure and evaluate to what extent CRM has achieved
the proposed objectives. The Balanced CRM Scorecard (Brewton, 2003) is an
adaptation of the BSC to identify the targets of CRM strategy and how well
the organization is achieving its CRM goals. Further, it avoids suboptimizing
strategic performance by aligning and concurrently measuring performance
for all core CRM processes and customer contact channels. This model sug-
gests that, in order to achieve the best CRM-measurement system, the classic
BSC model proposed by Kaplan and Norton has to be modified in three key
areas: (a) a scorecard should be established for each customer segment tar-
geted for CRM, (b) the process perspective should focus specifically on core
CRM functions and processes, and (c) the scorecard should monitor perfor-
mance for all customer contact channels. Kim et al. (2003) presented a model
for evaluating the effectiveness of CRM using the BSC. They substituted
the traditional four perspectives by others mirroring a customer-centric
philosophy in CRM evaluation such as customer knowledge, customer inter-
action, customer value, and customer satisfaction. An additional measure-
ment criterion focusing on CRM initiatives is the Loyalty Value Added
(LVA). LVA is the increase of net cash flow that is caused by structural
changes in customer interaction. The customer LVA is the difference between
actual and prospective customer revenues.
Finally, some evaluative measurement systems of CRM performance
based on the application of BSC methodology have focused only on one of
the dimensions proposed by the model. Among the methods analyzing the
level of performance obtained through the study of the customer, it is possible
to mention the models proposed by Berger et al. (1998); Kumar, Lemon, and
Parasuraman (2006); Mulhern (1999); Reinartz et al. (2000); Sin et al. (2005);
Yim, Anderson, and Swaminathan (2004). These authors point out four
dimensions (organizing around CRM, incorporating CRM-based technology,
focusing on key customers, and managing knowledge) when measuring
CRM performance. The work of Sin et al. (2005) also proposes a potential tool
for measuring CRM performance, defining CRM as a multidimensional
construct consisting of four broad behavioral components (key consumer
focus, CRM organization, knowledge management, and technology-based
CRM). Hence, according to this notion, successful CRM is predicated on
addressing four key areas: strategy, people, technology, and processes.
DESIGNING A PREDICTIVE PMCS TO
MAXIMIZE CRM STRATEGY
Implementation of CRM often demands a change at corporate, strategic,
and tactical levels. It means the adoption of a new strategic and marketing
orientation, the development of new structures, and processes more flexible
and efficient, with a high level of integration among all the agents involved
and for whom the knowledge is at the same time an input and an output
(Gronroos, 2000; Phua et al., 2004; Song, Montoya-Weiss, & Schmidt, 1997;
Vilaseca & Torrent, 2003; Vorhies, Harker, & Rao, 1999). CRM involves start-
ing a set of processes and technical functionalities, and consequently invest-
ment in technology, organizational change, human resources, and
acquisition and creation of knowledge (Tzokas et al., 1997).
In the CRM field, the implementation of a PMCS with a predictive focus
helps to reduce the risk in decision making, leading the strategy of the com-
panies, and improving the return on the investments associated with the
implementation of CRM programs (Argyres, 1999). To be of use in predicting
the future success of a CRM strategy, the measurement approach has to go
further than the definition of the objectives to be achieved, setting the differ-
ent dimensions shaping the success of a CRM strategy, in order to identify the
key success factors and successfully translate them into operating metrics.
The factors proposed by Kaplan et al. (1992, 1993, 1996a), Marr and
Schiuma (2003), and Sveiby (1997), among others (see Table 5) constitutes
a starting point in the design of a CRM predictive PMCS. The customers;
internal processes of the firm; financial and human resources; and learn-
ing, innovation, and improvement actions are factors that influence the
success of a specific strategy (Bean et al., 2002). Nevertheless, the use
of a BSC methodology in the development of an integrative PMCS in
the CRM field involves consideration of new dimensions and metrics that
allow an easy and quick analysis of the firm. These new dimensions are
related to the aforementioned factors driving the success of a CRM strategy
(see Table 4).
In order to advance toward an holistic measuring system in the CRM
field, finding some convergence and reducing the number of metrics, we
propose a strategic grid, stemming from previous works and including both
new financial and nonfinancial measures, over the following areas and
dimensions: strategic (business orientation, business atmosphere, and com-
petitive strategy), resources (financial, human, and technological), business
processes (integration, innovation, superiority, and product=company
synergy), customers (prospective and current), and external factors (competi-
tion and market). This framework involves a step forward including accoun-
table, leading, repeatable, and linked metrics on available data in order to
assess the current position of the firm regarding the customer as well as its
evolution as consequence of the implementation of a CRM strategy (see
Table 6).
These dimensions and their corresponding key performance issues are
translated into key and subsidiary measures representing the framework that
comprises the proposed PMCS. The traditional BSC formulated by Kaplan et
al. (1992) considered four perspectives or layers (customer, financial, internal
T
A
B
L
E
6
A
r
e
a
s
,
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
,
K
e
y
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
I
s
s
u
e
s
,
a
n
d
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
o
f
C
R
M
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
S
y
s
t
e
m
A
r
e
a
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
K
e
y
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
I
s
s
u
e
s
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
(
K
P
I
C
)
K
e
y
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
(
e
.
g
.
)
S
u
b
s
i
d
i
a
r
y
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
(
e
.
g
.
)
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
d
e
g
r
e
e
o
f
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
(
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
)
E
x
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
o
f
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
i
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
o
t
a
l
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
(
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
k
n
o
w
t
h
e
i
r
n
e
e
d
s
a
n
d
l
e
a
r
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
e
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
a
n
d
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
T
r
o
u
b
l
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
a
n
d
r
e
s
o
l
v
e
d
o
v
e
r
t
i
m
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
v
e
r
t
i
m
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
t
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
e
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
m
o
n
g
e
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
o
f
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
a
m
o
n
g
e
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
o
f
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
o
o
l
s
f
o
r
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
e
.
g
.
,
i
n
t
r
a
n
e
t
,
n
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
,
e
-
m
a
i
l
,
e
t
c
.
)
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
v
e
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
m
a
k
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
v
e
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
p
e
r
t
o
t
a
l
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
(
%
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
o
o
l
s
f
o
r
e
n
h
a
n
c
i
n
g
f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
(
e
.
g
.
,
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
k
e
n
i
n
t
o
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
)
E
m
p
o
w
e
r
i
n
g
w
o
r
k
f
o
r
c
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
a
n
d
t
y
p
e
o
f
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
o
f
f
e
r
e
d
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
a
n
d
p
e
r
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
i
m
a
g
e
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
o
f
t
h
e
b
r
a
n
d
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
=
b
r
a
n
d
=
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
p
e
r
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
m
a
p
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
c
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
s
v
i
e
w
s
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
i
m
e
t
o
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
R
e
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
o
w
t
h
r
a
t
e
o
f
s
a
l
e
s
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
b
r
a
n
d
w
a
s
a
k
e
y
d
r
i
v
e
r
(
%
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
a
n
d
t
y
p
e
o
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
f
a
c
e
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
20
C
u
s
t
o
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
r
e
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
d
e
x
N
o
t
o
r
i
e
t
y
l
e
v
e
l
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
s
b
r
a
n
d
i
n
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
b
r
a
n
d
r
a
n
k
(
e
.
g
.
,
G
l
o
b
a
l
B
e
s
t
b
r
a
n
d
s
)
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
S
a
l
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
l
a
s
t
y
e
a
r
S
a
l
e
s
v
o
l
u
m
e
p
e
r
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
:
T
o
t
a
l
s
a
l
e
s
p
e
r
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
i
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
o
t
a
l
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
(
%
)
I
n
c
o
m
e
b
y
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
S
h
a
r
e
o
f
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
w
a
l
l
e
t
M
a
r
k
e
t
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
i
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
o
t
a
l
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
(
%
)
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
s
h
a
r
e
o
f
m
a
r
k
e
t
N
e
t
p
r
o
f
i
t
=
t
o
t
a
l
s
a
l
e
s
M
a
r
g
i
n
o
f
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
W
i
n
r
a
t
e
o
n
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
b
i
d
s
=
q
u
o
t
e
s
R
O
I
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
i
n
m
a
r
k
e
t
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
p
r
o
f
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
H
u
m
a
n
M
o
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
s
h
o
w
n
b
y
t
h
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
t
h
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
(
b
y
t
h
e
i
r
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
s
)
h
i
g
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
a
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
m
a
r
k
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
o
n
-
t
h
e
-
j
o
b
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
b
e
h
a
l
f
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
D
e
g
r
e
e
o
f
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
s
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
,
o
n
b
e
h
a
l
f
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
,
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
r
o
n
t
-
o
f
f
i
c
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
P
e
r
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
21
T
A
B
L
E
6
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
A
r
e
a
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
K
e
y
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
I
s
s
u
e
s
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
(
K
P
I
C
)
K
e
y
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
(
e
.
g
.
)
S
u
b
s
i
d
i
a
r
y
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
(
e
.
g
.
)
s
h
o
w
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
r
a
t
e
a
n
d
t
y
p
e
o
f
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
l
a
s
t
y
e
a
r
K
e
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
t
u
r
n
o
v
e
r
(
%
)
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
r
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
(
%
)
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
u
s
e
o
f
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
u
s
e
o
f
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
t
o
o
l
s
(
d
a
t
a
w
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
,
w
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
I
n
t
e
r
n
e
t
,
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
R
F
I
D
n
e
t
s
,
e
t
c
.
)
V
a
l
u
e
-
a
d
d
e
d
i
n
h
i
g
h
-
t
e
c
h
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
s
a
s
a
s
h
a
r
e
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
g
r
o
s
s
v
a
l
u
e
-
a
d
d
e
d
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
u
s
e
o
f
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
o
u
t
o
f
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
C
l
i
c
k
-
t
h
r
u
-
r
a
t
e
(
%
)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
r
a
t
e
o
f
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
s
p
e
n
t
a
t
t
h
e
W
e
b
s
i
t
e
(
%
)
R
e
p
e
a
t
v
i
s
i
t
s
(
%
)
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
:
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
i
n
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
i
n
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
r
a
t
e
o
f
c
o
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
r
s
(
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
)
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
b
r
a
n
d
a
n
d
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
i
m
a
g
e
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
r
a
t
e
o
f
c
o
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
r
s
(
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
)
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
22
I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
b
r
e
a
k
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
T
y
p
e
s
o
f
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
o
u
t
s
o
u
r
c
i
n
g
=
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
-
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
:
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
,
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
s
u
p
p
l
y
c
h
a
i
n
c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
)
T
y
p
e
s
o
f
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
a
n
d
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
)
T
y
p
e
s
o
f
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
o
w
n
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
,
e
x
p
e
r
t
i
s
e
,
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
,
e
t
c
.
a
n
d
n
u
m
b
e
r
=
t
y
p
e
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
i
n
e
a
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
)
D
e
g
r
e
e
o
f
c
o
m
p
l
e
x
i
t
y
a
n
d
f
l
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
(
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
h
a
s
e
s
,
t
i
m
e
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
,
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
e
t
c
.
)
R
&
D
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
u
p
e
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
s
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
s
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
a
n
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
f
l
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
i
n
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
c
l
i
e
n
t
n
e
e
d
s
D
e
g
r
e
e
o
f
n
o
v
e
l
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
B
r
a
n
d
e
q
u
i
t
y
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
a
n
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
w
i
t
h
s
u
p
e
r
b
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
S
p
e
e
d
t
o
l
a
u
n
c
h
n
e
w
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
t
i
m
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
M
a
r
k
e
t
s
h
a
r
e
p
e
r
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
=
c
l
i
e
n
t
=
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
=
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
=
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
=
b
r
a
n
d
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
23
T
A
B
L
E
6
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
A
r
e
a
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
K
e
y
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
I
s
s
u
e
s
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
(
K
P
I
C
)
K
e
y
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
(
e
.
g
.
)
S
u
b
s
i
d
i
a
r
y
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
(
e
.
g
.
)
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
=
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
s
y
n
e
r
g
y
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
c
o
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
b
r
a
n
d
a
n
d
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
i
m
a
g
e
a
n
d
b
r
a
n
d
i
m
a
g
e
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
e
s
o
f
s
c
a
l
e
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
(
%
)
B
r
a
n
d
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
r
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
(
%
)
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
w
i
n
-
b
a
c
k
s
(
%
)
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
r
e
f
e
r
r
a
l
s
(
%
)
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
w
h
o
s
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
d
e
x
i
s
h
i
g
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
a
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
v
a
l
u
e
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
c
o
m
p
l
i
m
e
n
t
i
n
d
e
x
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
l
o
y
a
l
t
y
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
r
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
(
%
)
i
n
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
(
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
1
a
n
d
2
y
e
a
r
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
;
3
a
n
d
4
y
e
a
r
s
,
e
t
c
.
;
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
h
a
v
i
n
g
a
n
d
a
c
t
i
v
e
r
o
l
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
)
C
u
s
t
o
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
c
u
s
t
o
m
i
z
e
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
24
P
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
s
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
%
)
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
n
e
w
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
a
t
u
r
n
o
v
e
r
h
i
g
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
a
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
a
m
o
u
n
t
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
o
w
t
h
r
a
t
e
o
f
t
u
r
n
o
v
e
r
f
r
o
m
n
e
w
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
(
%
)
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
l
i
k
e
l
i
n
e
s
s
t
o
s
w
i
t
c
h
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
o
w
t
h
r
a
t
e
o
f
c
h
u
r
n
s
(
%
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
e
t
s
h
a
r
e
o
f
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
s
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
b
r
a
n
d
r
a
n
k
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
s
i
z
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
b
r
e
a
k
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
b
y
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s
M
a
r
k
e
t
M
a
r
k
e
t
s
i
z
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
s
M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
G
r
o
w
t
h
r
a
t
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
s
a
l
e
s
g
r
o
w
t
h
(
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
i
n
b
o
t
h
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
m
o
n
e
t
a
r
y
u
n
i
t
s
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
O
w
n
e
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
25
processes, and learning and growth), but the proposed model goes further,
setting a framework including both leading and lagging indicators with a
focus on the customer. The model includes a set of grids connecting perspec-
tives or areas, making it possible to have a portrait of the company, to get
to know the areas that need attention, the impact of CRM strategy on every
considered issue, and the contribution of each level of the organization to the
CRM strategy success.
The proposed model includes strategic measures regarding business
orientation, business atmosphere, and competitive strategy. Prasad, Rama-
murthy, and Naidu (2000) and Tuominen et al. (1996) point out the impor-
tance of defining to what extent the firm carries out processes and actions
in order to transmit and spread the key information among different levels
in the organization. So, it is also necessary to include indicators regarding
these dimensions, which will be able to specify the climate of change, strong
leadership, the strength of the competitive strategy, and aspects related to the
market orientation in response to Croteau et al. (2003), Gronroos (2000), and
Sin et al. (2005), among others, who point out the importance of the market
orientation on the developed strategys success.
The area named as Resources includes financial traditional measures but
also human and technological ones. Human factor is one of the key aspects
when assessing the results of a CRM strategy. Relationship marketing goes
further than creating strong, close, and long-lasting relationships with custo-
mers widening its domain to consider also referrals, suppliers, potential
employees, and internal market or current employees (Christopher, Payne,
& Ballantyne, 1991). Employees play a decisive role in managing relation-
ships with customers, since they become partners and coproducers in the
customer experience. CRM philosophy can be viewed from a broad perspec-
tive including not only external customers but also internal ones (employ-
ees), embracing the position adopted by academics like Berry (1983),
Gronroos (1990), Morgan and Hunt (1994), and Bendapudi and Leone
(2002), who consider empowerment as one of the key issues related to cus-
tomer satisfaction and, hence, to performance. So, the PMCS includes vari-
ables related to both customers and employees. In fact, much has been
written about the importance of customer satisfaction, customer retention,
and other parameters related to the customer, whereas the role of the
employees, their satisfaction, loyalty, and the link between these variables
and profitability is not often included in marketing measurement systems.
In this vein, the service profit chain concept (Heskett, 1994) examines the
relationship between motivated employees, productivity, customer satisfac-
tion, and financial performance. Some researchers (e.g., Ostroff, 1992) have
also studied the link between job satisfaction and firm performance.
In addition to financial and human resources, the proposed PMCS also
considers the technological dimension, trying to capture the technological
orientation of the firm, which is, nowadays, cornerstone since organizations
depend on intelligent use of information and knowledge using ICTs to
increase their competitiveness in becoming knowledge-based organizations.
In the Digital Era, information and knowledge are strategic resources catalyz-
ing the change in the business context. It means that the availability and
degree of use of technologies at different levels are critical components for
the end results of the CRM strategy and, therefore, the system must integrate
metrics capturing these issues.
Business processes, in terms of the degree of integration, efficiency, and
innovation of some processes developed by the firm, are one of the decisive
factors in the success of the adoption of a CRM strategy. So, the inclusion of
some indicators regarding the degree of internal and external cooperation,
such as those proposed by Kahn (2001), can be used to indicate the degree
of interfunctional coordination or as measures of the degree of integration
shown by external agents.
At the same time, the model is also focused on the level of superiority of
the organizations product, as well as the fit between the products and the
firm, so several metrics related to this topic like customized offer, quality,
coherence, and innovation are part of the system. Competitiveness and suc-
cess of the firms are intimately related to the customized and dynamic char-
acter of their portfolio. Launching new products and services meeting the
requirements of the market constitutes one of the drivers of competitiveness
and growth in the business scene (de Brentani, 1995; Froehle, Roth, Chase,
Voss, 2000; Gallouj & Weinstein, 1997; Hultink & Robben, 1995; Oldenboom
& Abratt, 2000; Schilling & Hill, 1998), which merits a protagonist role in the
PMCS.
Traditionally, the main indicators used in CRM are related to the cus-
tomer, such as customer satisfaction (e.g., Andre et al., 2000), customer
knowledge (e.g., Kim et al., 2003), customer interaction (e.g., Stone,
Woodcock, & Wilson, 1996), customer retention (e.g., Morgan & Hunt,
1994), customer defection (e.g., Reichheld & Sasser, 1990), trust (e.g.,
Goodwin, 1991; Hoffman, Novak, & Perlta, 1999), and customer lifetime
value (e.g., Blattberg et al., 1996). In addition, it should be interesting
to consider that there are linkages not only between variables and
performance but also among variables, placing this network of relation-
ships in a dynamic environment with evolving customer preferences,
new competitors, changing markets, and cutting-edge technologies (John-
son & Gustafsson, 2000). Empirical research shows interconnections
between variables, for example, the positive correlation between customer
satisfaction and customer retention (Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Dawkins &
Reichheld, 1990; Horstmann, 1998; la Barbera & Mazursky, 1983; McDougall,
Wyner, & Vazdauskas, 1997; Taylor & Baker, 1994), the linkage between
satisfaction and profitability (Anderson et al., 1994; Fornell, 2001; Johnson
et al., 2000; Kamakura, Vikas Mittal, & Mazzon, 2002), or the association
between customer acquisition and customer retention (Thomas, 2001). These
results break the traditional assumption, which views that financial and non-
financial are opposed, confirming Jutla, Craig, and Bodoriks (2001) statement
that some metrics are a function of other metrics. The results of some studies
about the lead=lag relationship between financial and nonfinancial metrics
show that there is a strong association between nonfinancial performance
measures such as customer and employee satisfaction, customer and
employee retention, and quality measures and financial indicators such as
profitability (Banker & Mashruwala, 2000; Banker et al., 2001; Ittner et al.
1998a, 1998b; Nagar & Rajan, 2001). Nevertheless, all these studies are based
on dyadic relationships considering only two variables, but a network
economy needs multidimensional analyses like the one proposed in this
model. Finally, taking into account the business environment in which
companies carry out their activity we also consider some moderating
variables since they can either enhance or weaken the focal link examined
(Bharadwaj, Varadarajan, & Fahy, 1993; Holmstron, 1979). Easingwood et al.
(1990) and Storey et al. (1999) maintain that some external factors are
also important to the success of the corporate strategies, so a CRM predictive
PMCS also needs to integrate some indicators regarding the degree of
adequacy of the resources and capabilities of the firm to the market require-
ments, the characteristics of the market, and several aspects related to the
competitors.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Given the importance of CRM, in this article we have reviewed CRM mea-
surement issues with a twofold purpose: (a) to encourage both theoretical
and empirical research on this field; and (b) to provide a predictive
measurement system about the CRM performance that is reliable, easy
to use, and useful for managers. With these objectives in mind we have
first assessed the causes behind the emergence of CRM. This strategy
has been viewed under different perspectives and orientations, which
not only has hindered the definition of this strategy but also has been
one of the main barriers to the implementation of CRM programs, and
consequently, assessment of its impact on the performance. In spite of
the confusion in CRM conceptualization, the many definitions have some
points in common. From these common points we define CRM as a com-
bination of a customer-centric strategic orientation and Information and
Communication Technologies (ICTs) applications that is aimed to support
business processes in order to increase customer knowledge, by meeting
customer demands in a customized way, achieving strong, close, dynamic
and interactive customer relationships through time and a continuous
alignment with them.
The adoption of a CRM approach involves a great challenge for the firm,
since it means a different way of understanding the marketing strategy, the
market, and the approach to the customer; and communicating and aligning
the organization around this strategy. It also requires an important invest-
ment in ICTs and an intensive use of these ICTs to improve the efficiency
of the internal processes and the management of relationships with custo-
mers. Finally, CRM strategy also needs a change in the corporate culture,
requiring a high degree of integration among processes, people, operations,
and corporate capabilities related to the customer.
In general terms, it is considered that the main objective of the CRM
approach is to encourage long-term relationships between the firm and the
customer. Nevertheless, some works have evidenced other underlying objec-
tives with different origin, nature, and term. The achievement of these aims
depends on several issues regarding the firm and the CRM approach, but also
depends on the market, competitors, and so forth. For this reason, it is not
only needed to implement systems able to assess CRM performance, but also
a framework able to predict the degree of success of a CRM strategy. So, pre-
dictive PMCSs arise as an answer to the high degree of risk and investment
involving a CRM approach.
Until recently, companies have been using PMCS as a means of monitor-
ing and maintaining, in real time, organizational control of the performance
yielded by a specific strategy. Nowadays, some researchers find a twofold
utility for PMCS, not only as an assessment tool but also as a predictive
instrument.
In the marketing field in general, and particularly in the CRM field, the
use of these systems is a source of controversy. The interest in proving the
contribution of marketing strategies to financial return and to show how mar-
keting investments add value to shareholders has been translated into an
increasing interest by the firms in these systems. So, the first PMCSs imple-
mented have been focused exclusively on the achievement of a limited num-
ber of key financial measures. Nevertheless, the increasing dissatisfaction
with these traditional forms of performance measurement has fostered the
development of new frameworks understanding the organizational success
as a multidimensional concept, which is linked to specific factors regarding
both the firm and the milieu.
The evolution of marketing and CRM metrics has run parallel to the
advancement of this discipline. During the 1980s and 1990s, approaches
based on financial and one-dimensional measures providing a simplistic
view of the reality evolved toward more complex and multidimensional sys-
tems able to map many of the relationships connecting marketing activities
and performance. In this way, in order to predict and assess the business per-
formance, the marketing PMCSs start to include nonfinancial measures
regarding the market, the customer, and internal organizational processes.
BSC is one of these multidimensional systems that claims to provide
managers with a complete perspective of the firm. This balanced set of mea-
surements both reveals the trade-offs that managers have already made
among performance measures and encourages them to achieve their goals
in the future without making any trade-offs among key success factors.
BSC success has fostered its use in order to gauge the effectiveness of
CRM strategy. Several research works (e.g., Brewton, 2003; Kim et al.,
2003; or Sin et al., 2005) have adapted this methodology to determine the
extent that CRM strategy has achieved its objectives, contributing to the
improvement of the business performance.
The first step in the design of CRM predictive PMCS is to identify the
dimensions influencing the future success of a CRM strategy, by analyzing
the strategic objectives of the firm and then building a set of key performance
indicators regarding each dimension. After that, a set of metrics able to mea-
sure each of those factors must be defined since that measurement provides
the feedback to evaluate if the CRM is contributing to meet the strategic
objectives of the firm.
The use of measures related to customers, internal processes, financial
resources, learning, and innovation activities is helpful to identify the cap-
ability of the firm to carry out a successful CRM strategy. Jointly with these
indicators, the definition of CRM predictive PMCS requires taking into
account additional dimensions. So, with the objective of having a holistic
view, CRM predictive PMCSs require including other indicators regarding
the strategy of the firm (business orientation, company climate, and compe-
titive strategy), resources (apart from traditional dimensions like financial and
human, the scope needs to widen to include the technological perspective),
business processes (integration regarding cooperation and communication
processes, with special emphasis on innovation issues), products and ser-
vices (assessment of the level of superiority of the firm and the existing syner-
gies between products=services and the company), customers (kind of
relationship between current and potential customers and the firm), and
external factors (moderating variables like competitors and characteristics
of the market influencing the success of CRM strategies). This combination
of leading indicators, driving financial outcomes within the organization,
and lagging ones, showing the final results, provides the firm with a
holistic map of the current state and the evolution of the main issues driving
a companys success and assessing the impact of a CRM program on strategic
objectives in a dynamic way.
The increasing interest for CRM Predictive PMCS opens a new and pro-
mising research line. It offers many benefits to the firm since it provides com-
plete, accurate, and quality information about the state of the firm in a
moment before the implementation of the CRM strategy as well as dynamic
evaluations once the CRM strategy has been implemented, so the firms are
able to know the returns of this strategy. An efficient CRM is imperative for
long-term success of firms in an era of intense competition.
AUTHORS NOTE
Mar a Rosa Llamas-Alonso is affiliated with the Departamento de
Direcci oon y Econom a de la Empresa, University of Le oon, Spain. Ana Isabel
Jimenez-Zarco is affiliated with the Estudis dEconomia i Empresa Open, Uni-
versity of Catalonia, Spain. Mar a Pilar Mart nez-Ruiz is affiliated with the A
rea
de Comercializaci oon e Investigaci oon de Mercados, University of Castilla-La
Mancha, Spain. John Dawson is affiliated with the Management School,
University of Edinburgh and University of Stirling, United Kingdom and
ESADE, Spain.
REFERENCES
Achrol, R. S. & Kotler, P. (1999). Marketing in the network economy [Special issue].
Journal of Marketing, 63, 146163.
Ambler, T. & Kokkinaki, F. (1997). Measures of marketing success. Journal of
Marketing Management, 13 (7), 665.
Amir, E. & Lev, B. (1996). Value-relevance of non-financial information: The wireless
communication industry. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 22 (1=3), 330.
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994, July). Customer satisfaction,
market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing,
58, 5366.
Andre, M. & Saraiva, P. (2000). Approaches of Portuguese companies for relating
customer satisfaction with business results. Total Quality Management Journal,
11 (7), 929.
Ang, L. & Buttle, F. A. (2002). ROI on CRM, a customer-journey approach.
Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference IMP Conference held in Perth,
Australia. Bath, UK: Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Group.
Appleyard, M. M. (2003). The influence of knowledge accumulation on buyer-
supplier codevelopment projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
20 (5), 356.
Argyres, N. S. (1999). The impact of information technology on coordination:
Evidence from the b-stealth bomber. Organization Science, 10 (2), 162.
Assessing marketers worth. (2001, February 1). Marketing Week, 4243.
Banker, R. D., Potter, G., & Srinivasan, D. (2001). An empirical investigation of an
incentive plan that includes non-financial performance measures. Accounting
Review, 75 (1), 6593.
Banker, R. D. & Mashruwala, R. (2000). A contextual study of links between employee
satisfaction, employee turnover, customer satisfaction, and financial perfor-
mance, Working paper. Dallas, TX: University of Texas.
Bean, R. & Radford, R. (2002). The business of innovation: Managing corporate ima-
gination for maximum results. New York: Amacom.
Bendapudi, N. & Leone, R. (2002, April). Managing business-to-business customer
relationships following key contact employee turnover in a vendor firm. Journal
of Marketing, 66, 83101.
Berger, P. & Nasr, N. I. (1998). Customer lifetime value: Marketing models and appli-
cations. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 12 (1), 1730.
Berry, L. L. (1983). Relationship marketing. In L. L. Berry, G. L. Shostack, and G. D.
Dpah (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on service marketing (pp. 2838). Chicago:
American Marketing Association.
Berry, L., Carbone, L. P., & Haeckel, S. H. (2002, Spring). Managing the total
customer experience. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43, 8590.
Berry, L. L. (1995). Relationship marketing of servicesGrowing interest, emerging
perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (4), 236245.
Berry, L. L. & Parasuraman, A. (1991). Marketing services, competing through quality.
New York: Free Press.
Berry, L. L. & Parasuraman, A. (1993, September). Building a new academic field:
The case of service marketing. Journal of Retailing, 69, 1360.
Bharadwaj, S. G., Varadarajan, P. R., & Fahy, J. (1993, October). Sustainable
competitive advantage in service industries: A conceptual model and research
propositions. Journal of Marketing, 57, 8399.
Bitner, M. J. (1995). Building service relationships: Its all about promises. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (4), 246251.
Blattberg, R. C. & Deighton, J. (1996, JulyAugust). Manage marketing by the
customer equity test. Harvard Business Review, 74, 136144.
Blattberg, R. C. & Thomas, J. S. (2001). Valuing, analyzing, and managing the
marketing function using customer equity principles. In D. Iacobucci (Ed.),
Kellogg on marketing (pp. 302319). New York: Wiley and Sons.
Bonoma, T. V. & Clark, B. C. (1988). Marketing performance assessment. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Boulding, W., Staelin, R., Ehret, M., & Johnston, W. J. (2005, October). A customer
relationship management roadmap: What is known, potential pitfalls, and
where to go. Journal of Marketing, 69, 155166.
Brewton, J. (2003). Maximizing CRM success through performance measure-
ment. Retrieved October 14, 2006, from http://www.destinationcrm.com/
articles/default.asp?ArticleID=3584
Brignall, S. & Ballantyne, J. (1996). Performance measurement in service business
revisited. International Journal of Service Industrial Management, 7 (1), 631.
Buckler, S. A. & Zien, K. A. (1996). The spirituality of innovation: Learning from stor-
ies. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13 (5), 391405.
Buzzell, R. D. & Gale, B. T. (1987). The PIMS principles: Linking strategy to
performance. New York: Free Press.
Capraro, A. J. & Srivastava, R. K. (1997). Has the influence of financial performance
on reputation measures been overstated? Corporate Reputation Review, 1 (1=2),
8692.
Christopher, M., Payne, A., & Ballantyne, D. (1991). Relationship marketing. Oxford,
UK: Butterworth-Heinneman.
Clark, B. H. (1999). Marketing performance measures: History and interrelationships.
Journal of Marketing Management, 5 (15), 711.
Cook, T. J., Vansat, J., Stewart, L., & Adrian, J. (1995). Performance measurement:
Lessons learned for development management. World Development, 23 (8),
1202.
Cronin, J. J. & Taylor, S. A. (1992, July). Measuring service quality: A
re-examination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 5568.
Crosby, L. A. & Johnson, S. L. (2001). High performance marketing in the CRM era.
Marketing Management, 10 (3), 10.
Croteau, A. M. & Li, P. (2003). Critical success of factors of CRM technological initia-
tives. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20 (1), 2134.
Curry, J. & Curry, A. (2000). The customer marketing method. New York: Free Press.
Czepiel, J. A. (1990). Service encounters and service relationships: Implications for
research. Journal of Business Research, 20 (1), 1321.
Davenport, T. & Beck, J. (2002). The attention economy: Understanding the new
currency of business. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Dawkins, P. M. & Reichheld, F. F. (1990, Summer). Customer retention as a
competitive weapon. Directors and Boards, 4247.
Day, G. S. (2004, January). Invited commentaries on evolving to a new dominant
logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1827.
Day, G. S. & Wensley, R. R. (1988, April). Assessing advantage: A framework for
diagnosing competitive superiority. Journal of Marketing, 52, 120.
Day, G. S. & Montgomery, D. B. (1999). Charting new directions for marketing [Spe-
cial issue]. Journal of Marketing, 63, 313.
De Brentani, U. (1995). New industrial service development: Scenarios for success
and failure. Journal of Business Research, 32, 93103.
Dekimpe, M. G. & Hanssens, D. M. (1995). The persistence of marketing effects on
sales. Marketing Science, 14 (1), 121.
Dekimpe, M. G. & Hanssens, D. M. (1999, November). Sustained spending and
persistent response: A new look at long-term marketing profitability. Journal
of Marketing Research, 36, 397412.
Dick, A. S. & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Towards an integrated conceptual
framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (5), 516.
Doyle, P. (2000). Value-based marketing. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Easingwood, C. J. & Percival, J. (1990). Evaluation of new financial services.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 8, 38.
Eccles, R. (1991, JanuaryFebruary). The performance measurement manifesto. Har-
vard Business Review, 69, 131137.
Edvinsson, L. (2002). IC-Rating. Retrieved October 14, 2006, from http://www.intel-
lectualcapital.se/rating_more.htm
Edvinsson, L. & Malone, M. (1997). Intellectual capital: Realizing your companys
true value by finding its hidden brainpower. New York: Harper Business.
Fitz-Enz, J. (1994). How to measure human resource management. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Fjermestad, J. & Romano, N. C. (2003). Electronic customer relationship manage-
ment. Revisiting the general principles of usability and resistanceAn integra-
tive implementation framework. Business Process Management Journal, 9 (5),
572591.
Fornell, C. (2001, March). The science of satisfaction. Harvard Business Review,
79, 118.
Frigo, M. L. & Krumwiede, K. R. (2000). The balanced scorecard: A winning
performance measurement system. Strategic Finance, 81 (7), 5054.
Froehle, C. M., Roth, A. V., Chase, R. B., & Voss, C. H. (2000). Strategic determinants
of new service development effectiveness: An exploratory examination of stra-
tegic operations choices. Journal of Service Research, 3 (1), 317.
Gallouj, F. & Weinstein, O. (1997). Innovation in services. Research Policy, 26,
537556.
Gartner Group. (2002). Use the Balanced Scorecard to executive CRM strategy.
Stamford, CT: Author.
Gartner Group. (2001). CRM economics: Figuring out the ROI on customer
initiatives. Stamford, CT: Author.
Ghalayni, A. M. & Noble, J. S. (1996). The changing basis of performance measure-
ment. International Journal of Operations and Product Management, 16 (8),
6380.
Goodwin, C. (1991, Spring). Privacy: Recognition of a consumer right. Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing, 10, 149166.
Greenberg, P. (2001). CRM at the speed of light: Capturing and keeping customers in
Internet real time. New York: McGraw-Hill Osborne Media.
Griffin, A. & Page, A. L. (1993). An interim report on measuring products
development success and failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
10 (4), 281308.
Griffin, A. & Page, A. L. (1996). PDMA success measurement project: Recommended
measures for product development success and failure. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 13 (6), 478.
Gronroos, C. (1990, January). Relationship approach to marketing in service con-
texts: The marketing and organizational behaviour interface. Journal of Business
Research, 20, 311.
Gronroos, C. (1994). Quo vadis, marketing? Toward a relationship marketing
paradigm. Journal of Marketing Management, 10 (5), 347360.
Gronroos, C. (1996). Relationship marketing: Strategic and tactical implications.
Management Decisions, 34 (3), 514.
Gronroos, C. (2000). Relationship marketing: Interaction, dialogue and value. Revista
Europea de Direcci oon y Economa de la Empresa, 9 (3), 1324.
Gronroos, C. & Gummesson, E. (1985). The Nordic school of service marketing.
In C. Gronroos and E. Gummesson (Eds.), Service marketingNordic school
perspectives (pp. 611). Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University.
Gummesson, E. (1998). Implementation requires a relationship marketing paradigm.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26 (3), 242249.
Gummesson, E. (1996). Relationship marketing and imaginary organizations:
A synthesis. European Journal of Marketing, 30 (2), 3144.
Gummesson, E. (2004). From one-to-one to many-to-many marketing. Plenary
Session Presentation at QUIS 9. Karlstad, Sweden: Karlstad Univeristy.
Gupta, S., Lehmann, D. R., & Stuart, J. A. (2002). Valuing customers. Working paper.
New York: Columbia Business School.
Gurviez, P. (1997). Trust: A new approach to understanding the brand-consumer
relationship in new and evolving paradigms. In The emerging future of market-
ing, American Marketing Associations Special Conference in Relationship Mar-
keting, Dublin, Ireland (pp. 504518). Chicago, IL: American Marketing
Association.
Hakansson, H. (1989). Corporate technological behaviour. Co-operation and net-
works. London: Routledge.
Hakansson, H. & Johanson, J. (1992). A model of industrial networks. In B. Axelsson
and G. Easton (Eds.), Industrial networks: A new view of reality (pp. 2834).
London: Routledge.
Handen, L. (2000). The three Ws of technology. In S. A. Brown (Ed.), Customer rela-
tionship managementA strategic imperative in the world of e-business
(pp. 219225). Toronto: John Wiley & Sons.
Helfert, G. & Vith, K. (1999). Relationship marketing teamsImproving the
utilization of customer relationship potentials through a high team design qual-
ity. Industrial Marketing Management, 28 (5), 553564.
Heskett, J. L. (1994, MarchApril). Putting the service profit chain to work. Harvard
Business Review, 72, 164174.
Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T. P., & Perlta, M. (1999). Building consumer trust in online.
Communications of the ACM, 42 (4), 5056.
Holmstrom, B. (1979). Moral hazard and observability. Bell Journal of Economics,
10 (1), 74.
Horstmann, R. (1998). Fuhrt Kundenzufriedenheit automatisch zu Kundenbindung?
Io management, 10, 2023.
Hultink, E. J. & Robben, H. S. J. (1995). Measuring new product success: The difference
that time perspective makes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12 (5),
392405.
Ittner, C. D. & Larcker, D. F. (1998a). Innovations in performance measurement:
Trends and research implications. Journal of Management Accounting
Research, 6 (10), 205238.
Ittner, C. D. & Larcker, D. F. (1998b). Are non-financial measures leading indicators
of financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction [Special issue].
Journal of Accounting Research, 36, 135.
Ittner, C. D., Kalafut, P., Larcker, D. F., Love, S., Low, J., & Park, J., et al (2000). Mea-
suring the future: Value creation index. Retrieved October 11, 2006, from
http://www.ca.cgey.com/news/invisible_advantage_mediakit/vci.pdf
Jain, C. S. (2005). CRM shifts the paradigm. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 13 (4),
275291.
Jain, D. & Singh, S. (2002). Customer lifetime value research in marketing: A review
and future directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16 (2), 3446.
Jaworski, B. J. & Kohli, A. K. (1993, July). Market orientation: Antecedents and con-
sequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 5370.
Johanson, J. & Mattsson, L. G. (1985). Marketing investment and market investment in
industrial networks. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2, 185195.
Johne, A. & Storey, C. (1998). New service development: A review of the literature
and annotated bibliography. European Journal of Marketing, 32 (3=4), 184251.
Johnson, M. D. & Gustafsson, A. (2000). Improving customer satisfaction, loyalty,
and profit: An integrated measurement and management system. University
of Michigan, Business School Management Series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass, Inc.
Jutla, D., Craig, J., & Bodorik, P. (2001). Enabling and measuring electronic customer
relationship management readiness. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Organizational Systems and
Technologies Track (pp. 110). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Kahn, K. B. (2001). Market orientation, interdepartmental integration, and
product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-
ment, 18 (5), 314323.
Kamakura, W. A., Vikas Mittal, F. R., & Mazzon, J. A. (2002). Assessing the service
profit chain. Marketing Science, 21 (3), 294317.
Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard measures that drive
performance. Harvard Business Review, 70 (1), 7179.
Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. P. (1993). Putting the balanced scorecard to work. Harvard
Business Review, 71 (3), 134142.
Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. P. (1996a). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic man-
agement system. Harvard Business Review, 74 (1), 7582.
Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. P. (1996b). Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy. Cali-
fornia Management Review, 39 (1), 5379.
Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. P. (2000). The strategy focused organization: How balanced
scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Keller, K. L. (2002). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and mana-
ging brand equity. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Kim, J., Suh, E., & Hwang, H. (2003). A model for evaluating the effectiveness of
CRM using the Balanced Scorecard. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17 (2),
519.
Kohli, R., Piontek, F., Ellington, T., Van Osdol, T., Shepard, M., & Brazel, G. (2001).
Managing customer relationships through E-business decision support applica-
tions: A case of hospital-physician collaboration. Decision Support Systems,
32 (2), 171187.
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (2004). Principles of marketing. Englewood Cliff,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kumar, V., Lemon, K. N., & Parasuraman, A. (2006). Managing customers for value.
Journal of Service Research, 9 (2), 8794.
La Barbera, P. A. & Mazursky, D. (1983, November). A longitudinal assessment of
consumer satisfaction=dissatisfaction: The dynamic aspect of the cognitive
process. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 393404.
Lawson-Body, A. & Limayem, M. (2004). The impact of customer relationship
management on customer loyalty: The moderating role of Web site characteris-
tics. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9 (4). Retrieved October
22, 2006, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol9/issue4/lawson_body.html
Lev, B. (2002). Intangibles: Management, measurement, and reports. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution.
Marketing Science Institute. (2004). 20042006 research priorities: A guide to MSI
research programs and procedures. Cambridge, MA: Author.
Marr, B. & Schiuma, G. (2003). Business performance measurementPast, present
and future. Management Decision, 41 (8), 680687.
Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M., & Holcom, K. (2001). Reengineering the customer
relationships: Leveraging knowledge assets at IBM. Decision Support Systems,
32 (2), 155170.
McDougall, D., Wyner, G. & Vazdauskas, D. (1997). Customer valuation as a
foundation for growth. Managing Service Quality, 7 (1), 511.
McKenna, R. (1993). Relationship marketing: Successful strategies for the age of the
consumer. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Meritum Guidelines. (2002). Guidelines for managing and reporting on intangibles,
Final report. Retrieved October 11, 2006, from http://www.fek.su.se/home/bic/
meritum
Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58 (July), 2038.
Moorman, C. & Rust, R. T. (1999). The role of marketing [Special issue]. Journal of
Marketing, 63, 180197.
Mouritsen, J. B., Bukh, P. N., & Johansen, M. R. (2003). Intellectual capital
statementsThe new guideline. Copenhagen, Denmark: Ministry of Science
and Education.
Mulhern, F. J. (1999). Customer profitability analysis: Measurement, concentration,
and research directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13 (1), 2540.
Nagar, V. & Rajan, M. V. (2001). The revenue implications of financial and opera-
tional measures of product quality. The Accounting Review, 76 (4), 495513.
Nanni, A. J. Jr., Dixon, J. R., & Vollmann, T. E. (1990). Strategic control and
performance measurement. Journal of Cost Management, 4 (1), 3342.
Neely, A. (1998). Measuring business performance: Why, what and how. London:
Economist Books.
Neely, A., Mills, J., Platts, K., Richards, H., Bourne, M., & Kennerley, M. (2000). Per-
formance measurement system design: Developing and testing a process-based
approach. International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
20 (10), 11191145.
Oldenboom, N. & Abratt, R. (2000). Success and failure factors in developing new
banking and insurance services in South Africa. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 18 (5), 233245.
Olve, N. G., Roy, J., & Wetter, M. (1998). Performance drivers. A practical guide to
using the balanced scorecard. Chischester: John Wiley and Sons.
OMalley, L. & Tynan, C. (1997). A reappraisal of the relationship marketing
constructs of commitment and trust. In New and evolving paradigms: The emer-
ging future of marketing, American Marketing Associations Special Conference
in Relationship Marketing, Dublin, Ireland, (pp. 486503). Chicago: American
Marketing Association.
Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and perfor-
mance: An organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
77 (6), 963974.
Parvatiyar, A. & Sheth, J. S. (2002). Customer relationship management: Emerging
practice, process and discipline. Journal of Economic and Social Research,
3 (2), 134.
Pawar, K. S. & Driva, H. (1999). Performance measurement for product design and
development in manufacturing environment. International Journal of Product
Economics, 60, 6168.
Payne, A. & Frow, P. (2005, October). A strategic framework for customer relation-
ship management. Journal of Marketing, 69, 167176.
Phua, F. T. T. & Rowlinson, S. (2004). How important is cooperation to construction
project success? A grounded empirical quantification. Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, 11 (1), 4554.
Pike, S. & Roos, G. (2004). Mathematics and modern business management. Journal
of Intellectual Capital, 5 (2), 243256.
Plakoyiannaki, E. & Tzokas, N. (2001). Customer relationship management: A cap-
ability portfolio perspective. Conference Proceedings of the European Marketing
Academy Conference (EMAC). Bergen, Norway: Norwegian School of Econom-
ics and Business Administration.
Prasad, V. K., Ramamurthy, K., & Naidu, G. M. (2000). The influence of Internet-mar-
keting integration on marketing competencies and export performance. Journal
of International Marketing, 9 (4), 82110.
Ramsey, S. (2003). Introduction: Strategy first, then CRM. In J. Freeland (Ed.), The
ultimate CRM handbook: Strategies and concepts for building enduring custo-
mer loyalty and profitability (p. 13). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ravald, A. & Gronross, C. (1996). The value concept and relationship marketing.
European Journal of Marketing, 30 (1), 1930.
Reichheld, F. (1996). The loyalty effect: The hidden forces behind growth, profits, and
lasting value. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Reichheld, F. F. & Sasser, W. E. (1990, SeptemberOctober). Zero defections: Quality
comes to services. Harvard Business Review, 68, 105111.
Reinartz, W. J. & Kumar, V. (2003, January). The impact of customer relationship char-
acteristics on profitable lifetime duration. Journal of Marketing, 67, 7799.
Reinartz, W. J. & Kumar, V. (2000, October). On the profitability of long-life custo-
mers in a non contractual setting: An empirical investigation and implications
for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 64, 1735.
Reinartz, W. J., Krafft, M., & Hoyer, W. D. (2004, August). The CRM process: Its
measurement and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 41,
293305.
Rigby, D. K., Reichheld, F. F., & Schefter, P. (2002). Avoid the four perils of CRM.
Harvard Business Review, 80 (2), 101109.
Rindfleisch, A. & Moorman, C. (2001, April). The acquisition and utilization of infor-
mation in new product alliances: A strength-of-Ties perspective. Journal of
Marketing, 65, 118.
Roberts, K. (2004). Lovemarks: The future beyond brands. New York: Powerhouse
Books.
Roos, J., Roos, G., Dragonetti, N., & Edvinsson, L. (1997). Intellectual capital:
Navigating in the new business landscape. New York: New York University
Press.
Ross, D. F. (2005, Winter). E-CRM from a supply chain management perspective.
Information Systems Management, 22, 3744.
Rust, R. T., Ambler, T., Carpenter, G. S., Kumar, V., & Srivastava, R. K. (2004, Octo-
ber). Measuring marketing productivity: Current knowledge and future
directions. Journal of Marketing, 68, 7679.
Ryals, L. (2005, October). Making customer relationship management work: The
measurement and profitable management of customer relationships. Journal
of Marketing, 69, 252261.
Sandvik, E. (2004). TopplinjenSanseapparatet som gjor bedriften smartere. http://
www.humankaptialgruppen.
Schilling, M. A. & Hill, C. W. L. (1998). Managing the new product development
process: Strategic imperatives. Academy of Management Executive, 12 (3),
6781.
Schultz, D. E. (2000, Spring). Understanding and measuring brand equity. Marketing
Management, 14 (4), 89.
Selnes, F. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer-
seller relationship. European Journal of Marketing, 32 (3=4), 305322.
Shani, D. & Chalasani, S. (1992, Fall). Exploiting niches using relationship marketing.
Journal of Service Marketing, 6, 4352.
Shaw, R. & Mazur, L. (1997). The measurement and determinants of brand equity: A
financial approach. Marketing Science, 12 (1), 2851.
Sin, L. M., Tse, A. C. B., & Yim, F. H. K. (2005). CRM: Conceptualization and scale
development. European Journal of Marketing, 39 (11=12), 12641290.
Sinkula, J. (1994, January). Market information processing and organizational learn-
ing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 3545.
Song, X. M., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Schmidt, J. B. (1997). Antecedents and
consequences of cross-functional cooperation: A comparison of R&D, manufac-
turing, and marketing perspectives. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-
ment, 14 (1), 3547.
Sorensen, C. & Lundh-Snis, U. (2001). Innovation through knowledge codification.
Journal of Information Technology, 16 (2), 8397.
Srinivasan, R. & Moorman, C. (2005, October). Strategic firm commitments and
rewards for customer relationship management in online retailing. Journal of
Marketing, 69, 193200.
Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1999). Marketing, business processes
and shareholder value: An organizationally embedded view of marketing activ-
ities and the discipline of marketing [Special issue]. Journal of Marketing, 63,
168179.
Stone, M., Woodcock, N., & Wilson, M. (1996). Managing the change from marketing
planning to relationship management. Long Range Planning, 29 (5), 675683.
Storey, C. & Easingwood, C. (1999). Type of new product performance: Evidence
from the consumer financial service sector. Journal of Business Research, 4
(2), 193203.
Storey, C. & Easingwood, C. (1998). The augmentation service offering: A concep-
tualization and study of its impacts on new service success. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 15 (4), 335351.
Storey, C. & Kelly, D. (2001). Measuring the performance of new service develop-
ment activities. Service Industries Journal, 21 (2), 7190.
Sveiby, K. (1997). The new organizational wealth: Managing and measuring knowl-
edge based assets. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.
Szymanski, D. M. & Henard, D. H. (2001). Customer satisfaction: A meta-analysis of
the empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (1),
1635.
Tatikonda, M. V. & Stock, G. N. (2003). Product technology transfer in the upstream
supply chain. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20 (6), 444467.
Taylor, S. & Baker, T. (1994). An assessment of the relationship between service
quality and customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers purchase
intentions. Journal of Retailing, 70 (2), 163178.
Thakur, R. & Summey, J. H. (2005). Filtering profitable from not-so profitable
customers using customer relationship management. Marketing Management
Journal, 15 (2), 4354.
Thakur, R., Summey, J. H. & Balasubramanian, S. K. (2006). CRM as
strategy: Avoiding the pitfall of tactics. Marketing Management Journal, 16
(2), 147154.
Thomas, J. (2001, May). A methodology for linking customer acquisition to customer
retention. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 262268.
Tuominen, M. & Moller, K. (1996). Market orientation: A state of the art review. Pro-
ceedings of the 25th annual EMAC conference, (pp. 11611181). Brussels,
Belgium: European Marketing Academy.
Tzokas, N. & Saren, M. (1997). Building relationship platforms in consumer markets:
A value chain approach. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 5 (2), 105120.
Vavra, T. G. (1997). Improving your measurement of customer satisfaction: A guide
to creating, conducting, analysing and reporting customer satisfaction mea-
surement programs. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.
Vilaseca, J. & Torrent, J. (2003). ICT and Transformations in Catalan Business
Research Report II. Universitat Oberta de Catalunya. Retrieved October 11,
2006, from http://www.uoc.edu/in3/pic/eng/pdf/PIC_empresa_abs_eng.pdf
Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead user: A source of novel product concept. Management
Science, 32 (7), 791805.
Von Hippel, E. (1988). Lead user analysis for the development of new industrial
products. Management Science, 34 (5), 569582.
Von Hippel, E. (2001). Innovation by user communities: Learning form open-source
software. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42 (4), 8286.
Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vorhies, D. W., Harker, M., & Rao, C. P. (1999). The capabilities and performance
advantages of market-driven firms. European Journal of Marketing, 33
(11=12), 11711202.
Waggoner, D. B., Neely, A. D., & Kennerley, M. P. (1999). The forces that shape
organisational performance measurement systems: An interdisciplinary review.
International Journal of Production Economics, 60 (1), 5360.
Wayland, R. E. & Cole, P. M. (1997). Customer connections: New strategies for
growth. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Webster, F. E. (1994). Executing the new marketing concept. Marketing Manage-
ment, 3 (1), 918.
Weerawardena, J. (2003). The role of marketing capability in innovation-based
competitive strategy. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11 (1), 1535.
Wells, J. D. & Fuerst, W. L. (1999). Managing information technology (IT) for
one-to-one customer interaction. Information and Management, 35 (1),
5362.
Winer, R. S. (2001). Customer relationship management: A framework, research
directions, and the future. Working paper. Berkeley, CA: Haas School of
Business, University of California at Berkeley.
Woodcock, N. (2000). Does how customers are managed impact on business
performance? Interactive Marketing, 1 (4), 375389.
Yeniyurt, S. (2003). A literature review and integrative performance measurement
framework for multinational companies. Marketing Intelligence and Planning,
21 (3), 134142.
Yim, C. K. & Kannan, P. K. (1999). Consumer behavioural loyalty: A segmentation
model and analysis. Journal of Business Research, 44 (2), 7592.
Yim, F. H., Anderson, R. E., & Swaminathan, S. (2004, Fall). Customer relationship
management: Its dimensions and effect on customer outcomes. Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management, 24, 263278.
Zablah, A. R., Danny, N. B., & Johnston, W. J. (2004). An evaluation of divergent per-
spectives on CRM: Towards a common understanding of an emerging phenom-
enon. Industrial Marketing Management, 33 (6), 475489.
Copyright of Journal of Marketing Channels is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

21 - Designing A Predictive Performance Measurement and Control System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

21 - Designing A Predictive Performance Measurement and Control System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Designing a Predictive Performance

Measurement and Control System to

rea de Comercializaci oon e

You might also like