A group decision support system for selecting a ...

A group decision support system for selecting a SocialCRM Arpan Kumar Kar1 and Gaurav Khatwani2 Abstract As more firms adopt SocialCRM as their marketing strategy it becomes important to evaluate various SocialCRMs on the basis of certain factors. Previous SocialCRMs studies have been limited to post-deployment performance evaluation using various quantitative techniques. In this paper, we propose a method to evaluate a SocialCRM which can assist organizations in selecting appropriate SocialCRM based on their need and functionalities that they would like to perform. Firstly we evaluate criteria and finally we evaluate each CRM based on each criteria using the fuzzy extension of the Analytical Hierarchy Process for group decision making.

1. Introduction SocialCRM is defined as tool which can be used by organizations to enable two way communications and for peer to peer management with customers. The first and foremost task for selecting social customer relationship management (CRM) for purpose of managing customer relationship activities is determining the important criteria for their evaluation keeping conscience of customers. These criteria are a part of customer management system which enables us to select CRM according to strength of each CRM. CRM consists of four dimensions namely a) Customer Identification, b) Customer Attraction, c) Customer Retention and d) Customer Development.1 In this research paper theory of group decision making has been utilized to address the gap of weighing different social CRMs on different dimensions. The consensual preferences of group with the help of fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) can be estimated for prioritization and aggregation.

1

Arpan Kumar Kar IIM Rohtak, MDU Campus, Haryana, India, Pin 124001. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Gaurav Khatwani IIM Rohtak, MDU Campus, Haryana, India, Pin 124001. E-mail: [email protected]

2

2. Literature review The review of literature has been organized into four sub-sections, focusing on the impact of social media on business, how AHP has been used for evaluating CRM solutions, AHP as a tool for group decision making and the review of decision support literature on the domain of SocialCRM.

2.1 Overview of Social media platforms impact on business It was found that real time search engines are specialized in providing information and insight related to how data is being is shared on different social media platforms and classified them based on the approaches used by them to harvest information [40]. In fact there is strong correlation between holiday planning and social media influence and holiday planners believe more on user-generated information than from travel management authorities [21]. Abrahams et. al. [1] developed vehicle defect and discovery from social media by studying conversations of various consumers of brands on social media platforms. They developed a framework which mines the data from social media platforms and classifies and prioritize keyword related to vehicle defect. Further it was revealed that selective attractive gamification features in websites contribute more than 50% of the attractiveness of websites, which further contribute to their success [26]. Further attempts were made for measuring information quality by adapting AHP methodology to evaluate and prioritize selected criteria in these weblogs [29]. Further models for assessing the security risks of Social Networking Sites were developed at the enterprise by identifying criteria like confidentiality, integrity and availability [30]. Further it was investigated how social media can have an influence on companies' activities in regard to their value chain [8]. Further combining features of Web 2.0 and social networking with current CRM system a social CRM system as a web service was developed [33].

2.2 Overview of decision support literature in SocialCRM There has been an investigation to study the effects of variable selection and class distribution on the performance of specific logit regression and artificial neural network implementations in a CRM setting [31]. Further studies discussed CRM practice and expectations, the motives for implementing it, evaluated postimplementation experiences and investigated the CRM tools functionality in the strategic, process, communication, and business-to-customer organizational context [28]. In addition there was an examination of how sales representatives can

3

enhance their performance through their acceptance of information technology tools [4]. Further a model was developed based upon the premise that business value is enhanced through the alignment of complementary factors occurring along three dimensions, intellectual, social, and technological to assess firm’s readiness for CRM [35]. A new approach in CRM based on Web 2.0 which will help the healthcare providers improving their customer support activities and assist patients with the customized personal service was introduced [5]. Further the factors were identified that may influence businesses relationships and customers’ adoption of social CRM and an enhancement to Technology Acceptance Model was proposed [6]. In fact the problem of the automatic customer segmentation was addressed by processing data collected in Social Customer Relationship Management systems using Kohonen networks [14]. Further some valuable information on using a multi-agent approach for designing social CRM systems was proposed [36]. Further a model of CRM in e-government system that includes process specification, metrics for evaluation of the system performance and recommendations for implementation was proposed [45]. The exploration related to the role of analytical SCRM and examination available tools with the required functional and technological components was accomplished [41]. A novel technical framework (GCRM) based on methods such as group detecting, group evolution tracking and group life-cycle modeling in telecom applications to manage the social groups by analyzing relationships between social groups and finding potential customers in these groups in massive telecom call graphs was proposed [47]. Further of exploration of the Web-based platforms that provide social CRM solution in software as a service model as well as the applications and tools that complement traditional CRM systems and possible challenges that businesses could face in adopting social media technologies in customer management processes and systems was examined [7]. Further how brands work to maintain relationships with people in social media by analyzing Social CRM and strategies that encourage participation and involvement was examined and the brands that correspond to the different levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs was investigated [23].

2.3 Overview of using AHP in evaluating CRM The literature available on social media and fuzzy AHP is enormous but it is mainly focused on optimizing resources, decision making, identifying important features, evaluating different components in marketing and developing a model for integrated marketing activities. The use of SocialCRM by organizations is one of the major marketing activities in modern times. The literature available on CRM and fuzzy AHP is for evaluating performance of CRM post deployment but there is hardly any study on selecting SocialCRM using group decision making that emphasizes on functionalities of an organization in marketing. This can be justified as there was an attempt to design first-rank evaluation indicators of CRM and sub-

4

stantiate the applicability of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation in the CRM [49]. In fact AHP has been used to prioritize the customer's satisfaction, loyalty and credit [39]. The fuzzy evaluation model of CRM performance using correlation theories of AHP by creating the index system that effects CRM performance and gives the four key dimensions that influence CRM performance was established [27]. Further studies were conducted to review and rate effective factors in customer classification that aids management in understanding customers smoothly and to have prioritized indications [43]. Further there was an attempt to classify and explain the most important aspects and factors which affect CRM readiness for businessto-business markets by suggesting the hierarchical model for CRM readiness in organizations [22]. Further a framework was proposed which helped to evaluate CRM by combining evaluation criteria for CRM on-demand systems at a functional and general level [37].

2.4 Using AHP for group decision making In our study we have used fuzzy AHP for group decision making to estimate the collective preference of group decision makers. The solution to hierarchic problems can be achieved by solving hierarchy of sub-problems iteratively for which AHP theory of measurement can be used. The priorities can be derived from continuous and discrete paired comparisons obtained from relative strength of judgments of reflecting scale. The AHP theory has many advantages in group decision making. Firstly, to estimate the consistencies of priorities of decision makers appropriate theories are available [42, 3, 2, 17, 34]. Secondly, there are theories to improve the consistency of priorities [19, 48, 12]. Thirdly, there are robust approaches to aggregate group preferences [16, 25, 20, 10, 13, 9, 18]. Additionally there are robust theories building consensus within groups [11, 24, 17, 34, 15, 46]. However there is a lot of scope for these group decision making theories in SocialCRM selection. However none of these approaches have been explored for application in the selecting SocialCRM, which is the focus in this study.

3. The research gap and the contribution As from literature review we firstly found that how different firms utilize data available on social media platforms to manage their services and operations. Secondly, we found that how AHP theories can be used for estimating and improving consistencies of priorities. Thirdly, there is hardly any contribution towards evaluating SocialCRM. There has been extensive contribution in evaluation of traditional CRMs and day-to-day marketing. Finally we saw some quantitative techniques being used by various firms to evaluate SocialCRM based on various activites. The use of AHP in evaluating SocialCRM helps an organization to select

5

SocialCRM based on their goals and functionalities that they would like to perform. This pre-evaluation model also helps SocialCRM vendors to develop SocialCRMs as per market demand. This model can also assist in saving cost and time related to post evaluation of SocialCRM. The fuzzy extension of the AHP for group decision making helps us in evaluating five different social CRMs on four different dimensions.

4.

Computational method

The prioritization of above mentioned dimensions is achieved through an integrated approach. This process involves capturing users’ linguistic judgments and correspondingly mapping to quantifiable fuzzy judgments. Further crisp priorities are derived using fuzzy linguistic judgments and AHP theory. To estimate the tradeoffs for different dimensions combination of these crisp priorities and aggregated geometric mean method for prioritization is used. Let V= (v1,…….vn) be set of n users having a relative importance of i such that = (1,…..n) is the weight vector of the individual users who prioritize one dimension over other. Comparative fuzzy judgments N= (nij)mm would be coded as illustrated in Table 1. Definition Equal importance Moderate importance Strong importance Very strong importance Extreme high importance

Fuzzy sets for the fuzzy AHP 1̃

{(1,0.25),(1,0.50),(3,0.25)}

3̃ 5̃

{(1,0.25),(3,0.50),(5,0.25)}

7̃ 9̃

{(5,0.25),(7,0.50),(9,0.25)}

{(3,0.25),(5,0.50),(7,0.25)} {(7,0.25),(9,0.50),(9,0.25)}

Table 1. Scale for conversion of linguistic preferences

The simple pair wise comparison approach for fuzzy set operations has been used for fuzzy sets ñi= (ni1,ni2,ni3) and ñj= (nj1,nj2,nj3) as illustrated: ñi  ñj = ((ni1  nj1),(ni2  nj2),(ni3  nj3))

(1)

ñi  ñj = ((ni1  nj1),(ni2  nj2),(ni3  nj3))

(2)

ñi  ñj = ((ni1  nj1),(ni2  nj2),(ni3  nj3))

(3)

ñi  ñj = ((ni1  nj1),(ni2  nj2),(ni3  nj3))

(4)

6

ñim = (ñi1m , ñi2m , ñi3m) for (m  P)

(5)

ñi1/m = (ñi11/m , ñi21/m , ñi31/m) for (m  R)

(6)

The individual priorities are obtained be solving the following system: min ∑

𝑚 𝑚 ∑ (ln ñij – (ln 𝑟̃𝑖  ln 𝑟̃𝑗 )2) s.t. ñij 0; ñij  ñji  1; 𝑟̃𝑖  0,  𝑟̃𝑖 = 1 (7) 𝑖=1 𝑗>𝑖 1/𝑚

The individual priority vector [11] is obtained by 𝑟̃𝑖 =

𝑚

√∏𝑗=1 𝑛̃𝑖𝑗

∑

𝑚 1/𝑚 𝑚 √∏𝑗=1 𝑛̃𝑖𝑗 𝑖=1

(8)

Where 𝑟̃𝑖 is the priority of decision criteria i such that 𝑅̃𝑖 = {𝑟̃1 , 𝑟̃2 … … 𝑟̃5 } for user i. In further steps before computing aggregation rules consistencies of these priorities needs to be evaluated. The Geometry Consistency Index (GCI) is used to estimate consistency of individual priorities [2]. 𝐺𝐶𝐼(𝐴𝑑𝑖 ) =

2 (𝑚−1)(𝑚−2)

𝑚 × ∑ 𝑗 > 𝑖 (log|𝑛̃𝑖𝑗 | − (log|𝑟̃𝑖 | − log |𝑟̃𝑗 |)2 )

(9)

𝐺𝐶𝐼(𝐴𝑑𝑖 ) ≤ ̅̅̅̅̅ 𝐺𝐶𝐼 is the criteria for consistency. For m ≥ 4, ̅̅̅̅̅ 𝐺𝐶𝐼 is 0.35. Collective preferences of the group for deriving the decision vector can be estimated subsequently by the aggregation of individual priorities such that the aggregate priorities (i.e. the collective priority vector) are defined as 𝑅̃(𝑐) = (𝑐) (𝑐) (𝑐) (𝑐) {𝑟̃1 , 𝑟̃2 … … 𝑟̃𝑝 } where 𝑟̃𝑖 is obtained by the aggregation of priorities. (𝑐)

𝑟̃𝑖

=

(𝑚)

∏𝑛 )𝑖 1 (𝑟𝑖 (𝑚) 𝑟 ∑ 1 ∏𝑛 )𝑖 1 (𝑟𝑖

(10)

These aggregated priorities have been used for evaluating the relative importance of the evaluation criteria and the criteria specific performance of the five solutions being evaluated.

5. Case study A case study was conducted for identifying important criteria for selection of SocialCRM and identifying which CRM users prefer based on four different criteria discussed in beginning. As per existing literature [32, 44, 38], CRM solutions are evaluated often on four major dimensions: Customer Identification, Customer At-

7

traction, Customer Retention and Customer Development. In this study, these dimensions have been used for evaluating the solutions for their suitability of usage. Out of the listed 9 SocialCRM solutions available in the public domain (Wikipedia), a Delphi study was conducted to identify the more relevant solutions for the specific context, based on the features of these solutions. Based on the Delphi study, five SocialCRM tools were selected for the next stage of the evaluation process: Social Gateway, Kony Mobile CRM, Radian6, SocialText and Nimble. Subsequently, the four dimensions for evaluating CRM solutions were prioritized using the fuzzy extension of the AHP for group decision making. The following table highlights the individual priorities of three decision makers, as well as the aggregate priorities, for the four dimensions for evaluating CRM solutions. Customer

Customer

Customer

Customer

Identification

Attraction

Retention

Development

User 1

0.0961

0.1045

0.7164

0.0830

User 2

0.1250

0.1250

0.3750

0.3750

User 3

0.1215

0.1215

0.4799

0.2771

Aggregated Score

0.1206

0.1241

0.5372

0.2181

Table 2. Individual and aggregated priorities for the four evaluating criteria

For the subsequent stage, the context specific and evaluation criteria specific prioritization of these five solutions were done by the group of decision makers. The following table indicates individual priorities of three different users for five different SocialCRM tools based on dimension customer identification. Social Gateway Kony Mobile

Radian6

Social Text

Nimble

User 1

0.3644

0.1591

0.1415

0.2925

0.0425

User 2

0.2893

0.2323

0.2323

0.1497

0.0964

User 3

0.2468

0.1981

0.1590

0.1981

0.1981

Aggregated Score

0.3078

0.2017

0.1802

0.2134

0.0969

Table 3. Individual and aggregated priorities based on the criteria - customer identification

The following table indicates individual priorities of three different users for five different SocialCRM tools based on dimension customer attraction. Social Gateway

Kony Mobile

Radian6

Social Text Nimble

User 1

0.2522

0.0798

0.0759

0.1800

0.4122

User 2

0.1111

0.1111

0.1111

0.3333

0.3333

User 3

0.1439

0.1156

0.1156

0.2783

0.3467

Aggregated Score

0.1629

0.1032

0.1015

0.2615

0.3709

8 Table 4. Individual and aggregated priorities based on the criteria - customer attraction

The following table indicates individual priorities of three different users for five different SocialCRM tools based on dimension customer retention. Social Gateway

Kony Mobile

Radian6

Social Text

Nimble

User 1

0.2084

0.0660

0.0973

0.3407

0.2876

User 2

0.4256

0.1419

0.1419

0.1139

0.1767

User 3

0.1111

0.3333

0.1111

0.1111

0.3333

Aggregated Score

0.2394

0.1632

0.1288

0.1818

0.2868

Table 5. Individual and aggregated priorities based on the criteria - customer retention

The following table indicates individual priorities of three different users for five different SocialCRM tools based on dimension customer development. Social Gateway Kony Mobile

Radian6

Social Text

Nimble

User 1

0.3249

0.2126

0.1890

0.1517

0.1218

User 2

0.3602

0.3252

0.0979

0.1084

0.1084

User 3

0.0979

0.2097

0.1351

0.1084

0.4489

Aggregated Score

0.2485

0.2688

0.1496

0.1337

0.1995

Table 6. Individual and aggregated priorities based on the criteria - customer development

The following table indicates aggregated priorities of 3 users and the overall performance score of all the 5 solutions that are being evaluated. Criteria weights

Social Gateway

Kony Mobile

Radian6

Social Text

Nimble

Customer Identification

0.1206

0.3078

0.2017

0.1802

0.2134

0.0969

Customer Attraction

0.1241

0.1629

0.1032

0.1015

0.2615

0.3709

Customer Retention

0.5372

0.2394

0.1632

0.1288

0.1818

0.2868

Customer Development

0.2181

0.2485

0.2688

0.1496

0.1337

0.1995

0.2402

0.1834

0.1362

0.1850

0.2553

Criteria vs tools

Aggregate score of tools

Table 7. Aggregate priorities and overall tool score

6. Results Based on the analysis, it was found that Nimble had the highest suitability score (0.2553) for the specific context, based on the aggregated priorities of the 3 decision makers. This was followed subsequently by Social Gateway, with a score of

9

0.2402, based on the aggregated priorities of the three decision makers. The other three solutions had a much lower score, i.e. Kony Mobile, Social Text and Radian 6 had a score of 0.1834, 0.1850 and 0.1362 respectively. Thus Nimble was selected as the most suitable tool for the specific usage context.

7. Conclusion This paper proposes an approach to select SocialCRM tool based on aggregated priorities from multi-user perspective, for the same decision making context. Such an approach can be useful for the firms who are in initial phase of SocialCRM tool deployment for their marketing activities. Further this can also help firms in operating with these tools smoothly as informed decision making helps them to choose appropriate tool. One of the limitation of the study is its context specificity and hence the generalizability of the results. However, this can be addressed in future research whereby the judgments of a much larger sample can be evaluated to bring out an aggregated performance score for these solutions. Further, the implications of consensus achievement can also be explored in such studies.

8. References: 1. Abrahams AS et al (2012) Vehicle defect discovery from social media. Decision Support Systems 54:87-97. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.04.005 2. Aguarón J, Moreno-Jiménez JM (2003) The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds. European Journal of Operational Research 147:137– 145. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00255-2 3. Aguaron J et al (2003) Consistency stability intervals for a judgment in AHP decision support systems. European Journal of Operational Research 145:382393. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00544-1 4. Ahearne M et al (2007) Why sales reps should welcome information technology: Measuring the impact of CRM-based IT on sales effectiveness. International Journal of Research in Marketing 24:336-349. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.09.003 5. Anshari M, Almunawar MN (2011) Evaluating CRM implementation in healthcare organization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1204.3689. 6. Askool S, Nakata K (2011) A conceptual model for acceptance of social CRM systems based on a scoping study. Ai & Society 26:205-220. doi: 10.1007/s00146-010-0311-5

10

7. Ayanso A (2012) Social CRM: Platforms, Applications, and Tools. Software Reuse in the Emerging Cloud Computing Era, Yang, H. and X. Liu (Eds.). IGI Global, Pennsylvania 20. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-2625-6.ch065 8. Bork M, Behn N (2012) Utilization of social media in an organizational context. Dissertation, Luleå University of Technology. 9. Beynon M J (2005) A method of aggregation in DS/AHP for group decisionmaking with the non-equivalent importance of individuals in the group. Computers & Operations Research 32:1881-1896. doi: 10.1016/j.cor.2003.12.004 10.Bolloju N (2001) Aggregation of analytic hierarchy process models based on similarities in decision makers’ preferences. European Journal of Operational Research 128:499-508. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00369-0 11.Bryson N (1996) Group decision-making and the analytic hierarchy process: Exploring the consensus-relevant information content. Computers & Operations Research 23:27-35. doi: 10.1016/0305-0548(96)00002-H 12.Cao D et al (2008) Modifying inconsistent comparison matrix in analytical hierarchy process: A heuristic approach. Decision Support Systems 44:944-953. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2007.11.002 13.Condon E et al (2003) Visualizing group decisions in the analytic hierarchy process. Computers & Operations Research 30:1435-1445. doi: 10.1016/S0305-0548(02)00185-5 14.Czyszczoń A, Zgrzywa A (2013) Automatic Customer Segmentation for Social CRM Systems. Communications in Computer and Information Science 370:552-561. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38865-1_55 15.Dong Y et al (2010) Consensus models for AHP group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method. Decision Support Systems 49:281– 289. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2010.03.003 16.Dyer RF, Forman EH (1992) Group decision support with the analytic hierarchy process. Decision Support Systems 8:99–124. doi:10.1016/01679236(92)90003-8 17.Escobar MT et al (2004) A note on AHP group consistency for the row geometric mean prioritization procedure. European Journal of Operational Research 153:318-322. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00154-1 18.Escobar MT, Moreno-Jiménez JM (2007) Aggregation of individual preference structures in AHP-group decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation 16:287-301. doi:10.1007/s10726-006-9050-x 19.Finan JS, Hurley WJ (1997) The analytic hierarchy process: does adjusting a pairwise comparison matrix to improve the consistency ratio help?. Computers and Operations Research 24:749-755. doi:10.1016/S0305-0548(96)00091-3 20.Forman E, Peniwati K (1998) Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 108:165–169. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00244-0 21.Fotis J et al (2011) Social media impact on holiday travel planning: The case of the Russian and the FSU markets. International Journal of Online Marketing 1:1-19. doi:10.4018/ijom.2011100101

11

22.Fotouhiyehpour P (2008) Assessing the Readiness for implementing e-CRM in B2B Markets Using AHP Method. Dissertation, Luleå University of Technology. 23.Ginman C (2011) How are Brands Engaging and Building Relationships with Fans and Customers in Social Media?. Dissertation, Uppsala University. 24.Honert RCV (1998). Stochastic group preference modelling in the multiplicative AHP: a model of group consensus. European Journal of Operational Research 110:99–111. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00243-9. 25.Honert RCV, Lootsma FA (1997) Group preference aggregation in the multiplicative AHP: The model of the group decision process and Pareto optimality. European Journal of Operational Research 96:363-370. doi:10.1016/03772217(95)00345-2 26.Hsu SH et al (2013) Designing Attractive Gamification Features for Collaborative Storytelling Websites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 16. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0492. 27.HUA Y et al (2011) Research on CRM Performance Evaluation Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of Changchun University 11:006. doi: CNKI:SUN:CDXB.0.2011-11-006 28.Karakostas B et al (2005) The state of CRM adoption by the financial services in the UK: an empirical investigation. Information & Management 42:853-863. doi:10.1016/j.im.2004.08.006 29.Kargar MJ (2011) Prioritization of information quality criteria in the Blog context. International Conference on Uncertainty Reasoning and Knowledge Engineering 1:205-208. doi:10.1109/URKE.2011.6007798 30.Kim HJ (2012) Online Social Media Networking and Assessing Its Security Risks. International Journal of Security and Its Applications 6:11-18. 31.Kim Y (2006) Toward a successful CRM: variable selection, sampling, and ensemble. Decision Support Systems 41:542-553. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2004.09.008 32.Kracklauer AH et al (2004) Customer management as the origin of collaborative customer relationship management. Collaborative Customer Relationship Management - taking CRM to the next level 3–6 33.Mohan S et al (2008) Conceptual modeling of enterprise application system using social networking and web 2.0 “social CRM system”. International Conference on Convergence and Hybrid Information Technology 237-244. doi:10.1109/ICHIT.2008.263. 34.Moreno-Jiménez JM et al (2008) The core of consistency in AHP group decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation 17:249-265. doi: 10.1007/s10726-007-9072-z 35.Ocker RJ, Mudambi S (2003) Assessing the readiness of firms for CRM: a literature review and research model. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2003.1174390

12

36.Olszak C, Bartuś T (2013) Multi-Agent Framework for Social Customer Relationship Management Systems. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology 10. 37.Özcanli, C (2012) A proposed Framework for CRM On-Demand System Evaluation: Evaluation Salesforce.com CRM and Microsoft Dynamics Online. Dissertation, Royal Institute of Technology. 38.Parvatiyar A, Sheth JN (2001) Customer relationship management: Emerging practice, process, and discipline. Journal of Economic & Social Research 3:1– 34 39.QIAN Y, ZHANG Z (2005) Application of AHP in CRM. Microcomputer Development 11:014. doi: cnki:ISSN:1005-3751.0.2005-11-014 40.Rappaport, Stephen D (2010) Listening Solutions A Marketer's Guide to Software and Services. Journal of Advertising Research 50:197-213. 41.Reinhold O, Alt R (2011) Analytical social CRM: concept and tool support. BLED Proceedings 226-241. 42.Saaty TL (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw Hill International, New York. 43.Seraj S, Khayatmoghadam S (2013) Identifying and Prioritizing Effective Factors on Classifying A Private Bank Customers by Delphi Technique and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Journal of Soft Computing and Applications 2013:1-12. doi:10.5899/2013/jsca-00013. 44.Swift RS (2001) Accelarating customer relationships: Using CRM and relationship technologies. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper saddle river, NJ 45.Vulić M et al CRM E-GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN THE CLOUD. http://www.fos.unm.si/media/pdf/CRM_e_government_services_in_the_cloud_ maj.pdf. Accessed on 10th November 2013. 46.Wu Z, Xu J (2012) A consistency and consensus based decision support model for group decision making with multiplicative preference relations. Decision Support Systems 52:757-767. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2011.11.022 47.Wu B et al (2009) Group CRM: a new telecom CRM framework from social network perspective. Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on Complex networks meet information & knowledge management. doi: 10.1145/1651274.1651277 48.Xu ZS, Wei CP (1999) A consistency improving method in analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 116:443–449. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00109-X 49.Zeng-wu L I U (2009) Design & Research of CRM Evaluation Index System of the Third Party Logistics Enterprises [J]. Journal of Guangxi University of Finance and Economics 3:027.