Voids in the Current CRM Literature: Academic Literature Review and ...

Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2007

Voids in the Current CRM Literature: Academic Literature Review and Classification (2000-2005)

Kristel Paulissen Hasselt University - Belgium [email protected]

Koen Milis European University College Brussels – Belgium [email protected]

Jerry Fjermestad New Jersey Institute of Technology [email protected]

Abstract The status of the CRM literature is investigated for the period of 2000 to 2005, in order to provide an overview of academic research on the subject and to identify gaps in the current literature. To provide as complete picture of CRM as possible, the Information Systems (IS) as well as the Marketing literature was systematically reviewed. From both disciplines the top journals and a number of international conferences were analyzed. Selected publications were reviewed in a structured way and categorized according to the different phases in the CRM lifecycle: adoption, acquisition, implementation, use & maintenance, evolution and retirement. It appears that less attention has been devoted to implementation issues and to the evolution and retirement phases. Furthermore, a difference in attention was found between the IS and Marketing literature: while researchers of the latter focused mainly on the adoption and use phases, IS researchers’ attention was more evenly distributed over the lifecycle.

1. Introduction Although Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is a recent concept, its tenets have been around for some time [15]. However, researchers seem to have a difficulty in defining CRM and in mapping out how to implement it. The main problem is that CRM means different things to different people [21, 19]. A number see it as a combination of business processes and technology that aims to understand a company’s customers from the perspective of who they are, what they do, and what they are like. To some, CRM integrates marketing, sales, and service functions through business process automation, technology

Malaika Brengman Vrije Universiteit Brussel Belgium [email protected]

Nicholas C. Romano, Jr., Oklahoma State University [email protected] solutions and information resources in order to optimize each customer contact. Others opt to take an information technology (IT) perspective and focus on the fact that IT is the ‘glue’ that holds together and enables the whole to be operationalized. The current paper adopts the following point of view: “CRM is a process that utilizes technology as an enabler to capture, analyze and disseminate current and prospective customer data to identify customer needs more precisely and develop insightful relationships” [4]. In today’s global and fiercely competitive market, maintaining good customer relationships is crucial for companies seeking growth and profit [20]. Worldwide IT-based CRM applications totalled $11.2 billion in 2002 and is expected to reach $20.6 billion by 2007 (Forrester.com). However, implementing a CRM system is a major task, and reaping the benefits of it does not appear to be easy. The performance impacts of CRM applications to date have been mixed [4, 2]. Only about 35% of all CRM applications have been estimated to be a success [5]. Even though the situation is improving, 55% of all CRM applications fail according to Gartner Inc. [22]. Because of the high investments involved and the high failure rate, research on CRM systems is called for. Romano and Fjermestad [16] have investigated the status and maturity of Electronic Commerce Customer Relationship Management (ECCRM) by means of an exhaustive literature review of 369 articles, from the first published article in 1984 up to conference papers presented in 2001 and 2002. They found that more conference proceedings articles had been published with regard to the subject than journal articles, which in their opinion could be considered a sign of relative immaturity. They also revealed a lack of CRM theory and conceptual model development. More recently, however, they were able to identify several papers addressing more theoretical IS-CRM issues and found

Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07) 0-7695-2755-8/07 $20.00 © 2007 1530-1605/07 $20.00 © 2007 IEEE

1


the number of CRM publications in top ranked IS and related journals to be on the rise, indicating that ISCRM research is gradually growing and maturing as a subfield of MIS [18]. In 2001, Romano and Fjermestad [16] also argued that since new topics like CRM, Internet and trust do not fit into previously defined classification schemes, there is a need to develop new frameworks in order to analyze the topics addressed by this new stream of research. They could reveal only one article attempting to classify IS research (i.e. Vessey et al, 2002), emphasizing that there is still work to be done to create new classification schemes that include the emerging IS research areas of e-commerce and CRM [18]. Recently, Ngai [13] provided such an academic literature review and classification on CRM for the period 1992-2002. He allocated 205 CRM articles to five broad CRM categories (General, Marketing, Sales, Service and Support, and IT and IS) and 34 subcategories. The most popular areas according to this classification lay in the sub-categories of General: “Management, planning and strategy” and “General, concept and study” followed by papers in the subcategories of IT and IS: “Software, tools and systems”, “Data mining”, “Knowledge management” and “Ecommerce”. The current paper provides another new classification scheme for CRM research. It reviews IS and Marketing journals and conferences from 2000 to 2005, using a data collection and classification system, based on the one Esteves and Pastor [6, 7] have developed. They have researched Enterprise Resource Planning systems for the period of 1997 to 2000. In order to develop an overview of the current CRM literature, this paper systematically screened top journals and proceedings of international conferences. 510 publications were found relevant according to the adopted CRM definition. The publications were reviewed in a structured way and categorized according to the different phases in the CRM lifecycle: adoption, acquisition, implementation, usage and maintenance, evolution and retirement. Publications not concerning a specific stage in the lifecycle such as research issues and CRM development issues were categorized as “general”. The voids that emerged were identified and are discussed in this paper. This study illustrates that the interest of the IS academic community is more in alignment with the actual CRM adoption situation than the marketing community. The latter almost exclusively focuses on CRM adoption and use. Furthermore, this paper proposes that future opportunities for both research areas lay in the evolution and retirement phases and also the implementation phase should receive more academic attention in the future.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: first, the collection method is described; second, the classification framework is presented; third, the CRM publications are analyzed and the results of the classification are reported; and finally, the conclusion and limitations of the study are discussed.

2. Data collection The topic of CRM is scattered across various disciplines. In the current paper the disciplines of IS and Marketing are systematically screened. First, the selection of IS publications is discussed and then the selection of Marketing publications.

2.1. IS publications To develop an overview of academic publications on the subject of CRM in the area of Information Systems (IS), the top ten journals in this area covering the period January 2000 – December 2005 were screened. The selection was based on the journal ranking of the Association for Information Systems1. x MIS Quarterly x Communications of the ACM x Information Systems Research x Management Science x Journal of Management Information Systems x Decision Science x IEEE Transactions x ACM transactions x Journal of the ACM x Harvard Business Review Furthermore, the proceedings of the following international IS conferences (in alphabetical order) were screened for the period January 2000 – December 2005. Through the inclusion of these papers it is ensured that the most recent research is analyzed. This is because journal articles are usually not published until a few years after the research is completed [16]. x Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) x European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) x Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science (HICSS) x International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) A search engine was applied to retrieve the appropriate papers using the keywords “CRM”, 1

Source: http://63.151.43.10/csaunders/rankings.htm

Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07) 0-7695-2755-8/07 $20.00 © 2007

2


“Customer Relationship Management” and ”Customer For example, articles concerning only general Relation”. relationship marketing issues were excluded from the In a next step, the articles were reviewed. Each research. publication was examined in order to reveal whether Tables 1 and 2 list an overview of the number of IS the content was consistent with our definition of CRM. publications identified and found relevant. Table 1. CRM Publications in the Top Ten IS Journals 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Total

Percent

Communications of the ACM

2

2

3

6

3

0

16

30.19%

Harvard Business Review

1

3

3

1

2

4

14

26.42%

MIS Quarterly

1

0

1

2

2

4

10

18.87%

Management Science

0

0

1

2

1

1

5

9.43%

Journal of MIS

0

0

1

2

0

0

3

5.66%

Information Systems Research

0

0

2

0

0

0

2

3.77%

Decision Science

0

0

1

0

1

0

2

3.77%

IEEE Transactions

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1.89%

ACM transactions

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.00%

Journal of the ACM

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.00%

Total

4

5

12

13

9

10

53

7.55%

9.43%

Percent

22.64% 24.53% 16.98% 18.97%

Table 2. CRM publications from IS conferences 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

AMCIS HICSS ECIS ICIS

6 1 0 0

23 8 -* 2

27 8 4 3

17 8 3 0

20 9 5 0

14 7 2 2

107 41 14 7

Total

7

33

42

28

34

25

169

Percent *

2005 Total

Percent 63,69% 24,40% 8,33% 4,17%

4,17% 19,64% 24,40% 16,67% 20,24% 14,88%

not available

In accordance with the research of Romano and Fjermestad [16] the following IS journals (in alphabetical order) were added to our research in order to make a comparison possible between their findings and the current study. x Business Process Management Journal x Decision Support Systems x Electronic Markets x Information and Management x Information Systems Journal

x

International Journal of Electronic Commerce x International Journal of Information Management x Journal of Computer Information Systems x Journal of Enterprise Information Management x MIS Quarterly Executive The outcome of the same selection procedure as above is listed in table 3.

Table 3. CRM publications in other IS journals International Journal of Electronic Commerce Journal of Enterprise Information Management Journal of Computer Information Systems Business Process Management Journal Decision Support Systems Information and Management International Journal of Information Management

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Total

Percent

0

4

5

7

5

0

21

22.83%

0 0 0 0 0

0 7 0 7 0

3 1 1 1 2

4 0 8 2 2

5 1 0 0 2

0 2 1 0 1

12 11 10 10 7

13.04% 11.96% 10.87% 10.87% 7.61%

0

0

3

1

3

0

7

7.61%


3


Information Systems Journal Electronic Markets MIS Quarterly Executive Total Percent

1 0 3 0 0 0 4 18 4.35% 19.57%

2 0 2 20 21.74%

Comparing the number of publications from the top IS journals and the other IS journals resulted in Figure 1. Apparently, 2005 was the first year that Top

Number of Publications

30

2 1 0 27 29.35%

0 0 0 16 17.39%

1 0 2 7 7.61%

6.52% 4.35% 4.35%

6 4 4 92

CRM IS journal Publications were greater than that of conference publications.

27

25 20 20

18 16

15

12

Other IS Journals

10

9

10 5

Top IS Journals

13 7

4 4

5

0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Figure 1. CRM IS Journal Publications by year x Journal of Product Innovation Management x Journal of Retailing x Marketing Letters Conference proceedings: x Association for Consumer Research Conference (ACR) x American Marketing Association (AMA) x European Marketing Academy Conference (EMAC) The selection of relevant papers was performed in accordance with the procedure described earlier. Tables 4 and 5 list an overview of the number of marketing publications per journal/conference identified:

2.2. Marketing publications In the area of Marketing, the top ten journals and three international conferences (period January 2000 – December 2005), were systematically screened. The selection of the journals was based on the ISI Citation Index 2003 [11]: x International Journal of Research in Marketing x Journal of Consumer Research x Journal of Marketing x Journal of Marketing Research x Marketing Science x Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science x Journal of Consumer Psychology

Table 4. CRM publications in top ten Marketing journals Journal of Marketing Journal of Marketing Research Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Marketing Science International Journal of Research in Marketing Journal of Retailing Journal of Consumer Psychology Journal of Consumer Research Journal of Product Innovation Management

2000 3 0

2001 0 2

2002 4 2

2003 4 2

2004 3 4

2005 14 2

Total 28 12

49,12% 21,05%

2 0

0 0

0 1

2 1

1 1

1 2

6 5

10,53% 8,77%

0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

0 1 0 0

0 1 0 0

3 3 0 0

5,26% 5,26% 0,00% 0,00%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0,00%


Percent

4


Marketing Letters Total

0 5

Percent

0 3

8,77%

0 7

0 12

0 10

0 20

0 57

0,00%

5,26% 12,28% 21,05% 17,54% 35,09%

Table 5. CRM publications from Marketing conferences 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

1 5 0

1 4 6

9 6 26

2 5 5

1 9 23

4 10 22

18 39 82

11

41

12

33

36

139

ACR AMA EMAC Total

6

Percent

4,32%

7,91% 29,50%

Total Percent 12,95% 28,06% 58,99%

8,63% 23,74% 25,90%

2.3. Discussion Furthermore, IS Journal publications peaked in 2003 and have fallen off since then. Marketing CRM journal publications did not peak until 2005; while conference publications peaked in 2002, fell off in 2003 and then rose back in 2004. Comparing the total number of publication per year, it appears that 2005 is the first year that there were more marketing CRM publications than IS CRM publications.

Apparently academic attention to the subject of CRM has increased considerably from 2000 to 2002 for the IS literature (see Figure 2) and the Marketing literature (see Figure 3). This observation may provide an answer to Firth’s [8] question whether the year 2000 would present the apex of the CRM discourse curve or just a stepping-stone to greater heights. The latter appears to be the case. 80

74 68


70

59

56

60 50

42

40

33

30

28

IS Journals IS Conferences

34

23

25

25

Total

17

15

20 10

42

40

32

8 7

0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Figure 2. CRM IS Total Publications by year


60

56 48

50

43

41 40

36

33

30

MK Journals MK Conferences

24 20

20 11 10

5 6

11

14

12 12 7

Total

10

3

0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Figure 3. CRM Marketing Total Publications by year


5


Finally, for CRM publications in general (see Figure 4), until 2002 more conference proceedings appeared, than journal articles being published on the CRM topic. Making a similar observation, Romano & Fjermestad [16] argue that this can be considered as a sign of the relative immaturity of the subject. In 2003


140

there were more journal than conference publications. In 2004 there were once again more conference publications than journal publications but -looking at the situation in 2005- the difference between them is declining. This could reflect a maturing trend of the topic CRM.

122

120 102 83

80

70

60

44

40 20

98

92

100

26

Journals

67

61

52 40

39

Conferences Total

35

37

26

13 13

0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Figure 4. Total Number of publications by year and publication medium for both IS and Marketing In a last stage the relevant publications listed in tables 1 to 5 were classified within a lifecycle classification framework, which will be discussed in the following paragraph.

3. Classification framework One way to analyze qualitative data is to use a classification system that includes a quest for regularity and standards, as well as topics encompassed by the data. The classification must then be summarized by words or phrases [3]. We used this process to analyze and categorize the publications found. In a similar analysis with regard to ERP-systems, Esteves & Pastor [7] suggest the following lifecycle stages: adoption, acquisition, implementation, usage, evolution and retirement (see infra). They argue that within the hosting organization an enterprise wide system evolves through these phases during its lifetime. In our opinion the proposed lifecycle stages are appropriate for the categorization of the examined CRM publications as well. For this study, the content of the 510 selected articles was deeply analyzed to allow us to place every publication in a category of this predefined classification system, based on the lifecycle framework. The articles that did not fit into a specific stage of the lifecycle, were categorized in a more general section (e.g. [7]). The classification was made by the first author for straight forward publications in

case of uncertainty the opinion of the co-authors was asked. In the remaining part of this section, the different categories of the lifecycle are discussed. P1 Adoption Decision Phase: During the adoption phase of a (technology-based) innovation, such as a CRM system, decision-making and planning activities are conducted to address “whether, why and how” to implement the innovation [12]. Managers also need to consider the consequences of its implementation. In short, at this stage managers need to define the system’s requirements, goals and benefits, and analyze the impact of adoption at a business and organizational level. P2 Acquisition Phase: During this phase a system needs to be chosen that fits the requirements formulated in the previous stage. There are many factors to consider such as functionality, price, training and maintenance services. CRM is a very complex combination of technology, software, people, and business processes. In order to get the most out of an implementation it is recommended that the systems designers and implementation managers design for usability and know how to manage, reduce, and overcome resistance [10]. P3 Implementation Phase: This phase deals with the implementation of the CRM-system. The following issues should receive attention: implementation methodologies, know-how and training; with or without the help of consultants. The


6


launched, is this a better version, will the old version still be supported? P0 General: The publications, not concerning a CRM lifecycle phase, such as research issues and CRM development issues were categorized into this general topic.

implementation should be conducted in such a way that the system fulfils the requirements of the firm. P4 Use & Maintenance phase: This phase consists of the use of the system in a manner that ensures the realization of the expected benefits and minimizes possible negative effects. One also has to assess the value of the implemented system. Functionality, usability and adequacy to the organizational and business processes are keywords in the use and maintenance process. Once a system is implemented, it must be maintained because malfunctions have to be corrected, special optimization requests must be met and system improvements have to be implemented. P5 Evolution phase: In this phase additional capabilities are integrated into the CRM system in order to extend or optimize the capabilities of the system and thus to obtain additional benefits. Managers also have to think about further integration of the system with the other business systems. P6 Retirement phase: The CRM system can become inadequate to the company’s needs or new, more per formant technologies can appear. When this happens management has to decide whether they want to replace the current system with a more appropriate one. There are different reasons that can trigger this decision, as there are: bad implementation experiences, strategic changes or simply because another product seems more suitable to their needs. The topic of version control is also addressed in this phase. Is there a new version of the CRM system

4. The classification of the publications 4.1. General overview. Figure 5 shows the number and percentage of IS publications that fit into each classification. A great deal of attention has been devoted to the acquisition phase (30%), which is not unexpected. The adoption and the use phases also received much attention (respectively 21% and 18%). The implementation phase received a little less attention (14%). The retirement phase has not been investigated yet (0%) and the evolution phase has not received much attention either (5%). Nevertheless, the latter is according to our expectations, because CRM is a relatively new way of using today’s technology. Hence, most implementations have not reached these phases yet. Finally, in this study 13% of the selected CRM-articles were classified as dealing with more general issues, not related to a particular lifecycle stage. This was also the case for 20% of the classified ERP-articles in the Esteves and Pastor [7] study and so is consonant with their findings.

50% 40% 30%

30% 21%

18%

20%

14%

13%

10%

5% 0%

0% Adoption

Acquisition

Implementation

Use & maintenance

Evolution

Retirement

General

Figure 5. Lifecycle classification – IS publications Figure 6 shows the number and percentage of marketing publications in each classification. A great deal of attention has been paid to the adoption phase (28%), as might be expected. There are still many companies that have not addressed the questions of whether or not to invest in CRM and the amount of

resources needed for a proper implementation. Most of the academic attention in Marketing is focused on the usage phase (33%). Especially topics concerning the optimal use of CRM data were well covered in the examined period.


7


50% 40% 33% 28%

30%

22% 20% 9%

10%

6%

3%

0%

0% Adoption

Acquisition

Implementation

Use & Maintenance

Evolution

Retirement

General

Figure 6. Lifecycle classification – Marketing publications When we compare both classifications a clear difference in academic attention over the different lifecycle stages is revealed. The attention of marketing academics is strongly focused on the adoption and the use phases of a CRM implementation, which could be expected, whereas the IS community focuses more on the IT-side of the CRM story covering all phases of the CRM lifecycle.

The main conclusion that can be drawn from this comparative study is that the two research communities cover different parts of the CRM domain and can definitely be seen complementary to each other. Figure 7 shows the combined results for the two research areas and gives a more distributed lifecycle classification.

50% 40% 30%

24%

24%

22%

20%

16% 11%

10%

5% 0%

0% Adoption

Acquisition

Implementation

Use & maintenance

Evolution

Retirement

General

Figure 7. Lifecycle classification – IS and Marketing publications During the summer of 2000 a survey was conducted by Firth and Swanson [8] indicating that only 25% of the investigated companies were already using CRM technology and 25% were implementing this technology (see Figure 8). When we compare these figures with our current findings, we can conclude that the implementation phase has

been neglected in the literature in marketing as well as in IS. This conclusion is in accordance with the recommendation of the Marketing Science Institute (2004) that the implementation and evaluation of CRM systems should be put on the research agenda.

Percentage of Organizations Reporting (Total n = 55) 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Us ing

Im ple m e nting

De ciding

Watching and Waiting

Ignoring

Figure 8. The diffusion of CRM technology (from Firth and Swanson 2001)


8


Finally, we can conclude that the MIS literature is more in alignment with the actual CRM adoption situation.

4.2. Lifecycle overview A table with all publications listed per lifecycle phase and research discipline is available on request form the first author. Furthermore, the number of publications categorized per lifecycle is given and a list of keywords of the main topics researched per lifecycle and discipline.

5. Conclusion The lifecycle model, proposed by Esteves and Pastor [7] for the classification of innovative IS research, has not been previously applied to CRM research. Therefore, this paper provides a CRM research overview from a new perspective. In the IS literature, the first phases: adoption, acquisition, implementation and use appear to be more extensively covered than the last two phases: evolution and retirement. This is not surprising because CRM technology is a relatively new technology. CRM systems in the future will reach these latter lifecycle phases and we would encourage researchers to start to investigate these phases in the near future. In the marketing literature, the adoption and use phases are well covered, whereas the phases of acquisition, implementation and evolution received little attention. This is also not surprising because marketing input is mostly needed in the former phases. It could be of value to the academic community for marketing researchers to investigate the latter phases from their point of view as well. We contend that the retirement phase should receive not only IS, but also marketing attention in the future. The results of the comparison between the IS and the marketing CRM attention in the literature, we can conclude that the IS academic attention is more aligned with the actual CRM adoption situation, demonstrated by the comparison between academic interest per lifecycle phase and the percentage of companies within these lifecycle phases. The academic community should become more reactive to some extent to the business situation and even proactive if possible. Finally, we note that, while 25% of the companies, investigated by Firth and Swanson [8], were implementing CRM systems in 2001, only 6% of the marketing publications and 14% of the IS

publications covered this stage in the CRM lifecycle. Apparently, there are many companies in this lifecycle stage and more will reach this stage in the near future. Therefore, more research with regard to the implementation phase may be required.

6. Limitations and further research

suggestions

for

This study might have been affected by some limitations. First, the study was conducted for a limited period of time. Therefore, in cases where only a limited amount of research on a certain topic could be revealed, it might be possible that this topic has already been covered in the past. We tried to address this drawback by inspecting earlier CRM research overviews, such as Romano and Fjermestad [16] and Ngai [13]. Secondly, this study was also restricted by the number of journals and conferences that have been examined. Furthermore, it focused only on IS and marketing journals and conferences. Perhaps certain phases have been covered to a greater extent in other journals or conferences or even in trade publications. Finally, the lifecycle classification framework developed by Esteves and Pastor [6, 7] was chosen. There might be other, perhaps more appropriate frameworks for the classification of CRM literature. Further research regarding CRM lifecycle classification should take these limitations into account and investigate over a longer period of time or by including more journals, especially journals of other disciplines (management, organizational behaviour, consumer behaviour etc.). Finally, further attention should also be devoted to find other frameworks for CRM literature classification.

7. References [1] Alavi, M. and Carlson, P.A. (1992), Review of MIS research and disciplinary development, Journal of Management Information Systems 8, 4 (spring 1992) p.45-62. [2] Ali, M and Alshawi, S (2004) Potential impact of cultural differences on electronic customer relationship management (eCRM) systems, in Romano, N. C. Jr. (Ed.) Proceedings of the Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York, NY USA, Association for Information Systems p. 3870-3876.


9


[3] Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S. (1982) Qualitative

[16] Romano Jr., N. C. and Fjermestad, J. (2001)

research for education: an introduction to theory and methods, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA, USA. [4] Chen, J. and Ching, R (2004) An examination of the effects of information and communication technology on Customer Relationship Management and Customer Lock-in, in Romano, N. C. Jr. (Ed.) Proceedings of the Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York, NY, USA, Association for Information Systems p. 3902-3913. [5] Davids, M. (1999) How to avoid the 10 biggest mistakes in CRM, The Journal of Business Strategy, 20(6) Nov/Dec, p. 22-26. [6] Esteves, J. and Pastor, J. (1999), An ERP lifecyclebased research agenda, In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Enterprise Management Resource and Planning Systems (EMRPS), Venice, Italy, p. 359-371. [7] Esteves, J. and Pastor, J. (2001), Enterprise Resource Planning Systems Research: An annotated bibliography., Communications of the AIS, August, 8, Article 8, online at: http://cais.isworld.org/articles/78/default.asp?View=html&x=30&y=9 (Accessed 817-2006) [8] Firth, D.R., and Swanson, E.B. (2003) Customer Relationship Management: A Diffusion snapshot. International Journal of Customer Relationship Management, 5(4) 327-338. [9] Firth, D.R. (2001) The organizing vision for customer relationship management, in Strong, D., Straub, D., and DeGross, J. I. (Eds.) Proceedings of Seventh Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 3-5, Boston, MA, USA, p. 889-891. [10] Fjermestad, J. and Romano, N. C. Jr. (2003) Electronic customer relationship management: revisiting the general principles of usability and resistance – an integrative implementation framework, Business Process Management Journal, 9(5) p. 572-591. [11] Harzing Anne-Wil (2005) Journal quality list (13th ed.) http://www.harzing.com (Accessed 8-17-2006) [12] Markus, L.M. and Tanus, C. (2000) The enterprise system experience – from adoption to success, in R.W. Zmud. (Ed.) Framing the Domains of IT Research: Glimpsing the Future Through the Past, Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Educational Resources, Inc.: 173-207. [13] Ngai, E.W.T. (2005) Customer relationship management research (1992-2002): An academic literature review and classification, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 23 (6) p.582-605. [14] Paulissen, K., Brengman, M., Milis, K. and Goffin, I. (2005) Customer Relationship Management Research: Voids in the Current Literature, Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Relationship Management, St. John, Canada. [15] Peppard, J. (2000) Customer Relationship Management (CRM) in financial services, European Management Journal, 18(3) p. 312-327.

Electronic Commerce Customer Relationship Management: An assessment of Research., International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Winter 2001-2002, 6(2) p. 61-113. [17] Romano, N.C. Jr. and Fjermestad, J. (2003) Electronic Commerce Customer Relationship Management: A Research Agenda, Information Technology and Management, 4(2/3) p 233-258. [18] Romano Jr., N.C. and Fjermestad, J. (2006) Electronic Customer Relationship Management: An Introduction, In N. C. Romano Jr. and J. Fjermestad, (Eds.) Electronic Customer Relationship Management. Advances In Management Information Systems Vol 3 M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, USA, 3-26. [19] Ryals, L. and Knox, S. (2001) Cross-functional issues in the implementation of relationship marketing through customer relationship management, European Management Journal 9(5) P. 534-542. [20] Shah, J.R. and Murtaza, M.B. (2005) Effective customer relationship management through web services, Journal of Computer Information Systems 46(1) p.98-109. [21] Winer, R.S. (2001) A framework for customer relationship management, Californian Management Review 43(4) p. 89-105. [22] Yoon, J. W., Hwang, S and Kim, D and Yoon, J. S., (2003) A balanced view for customer segmentation in CRM, In Galletta, Dennis and Ross, Jeanne (Eds.) Proceedings of the Ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Tampa, FL, USA, Association for Information Systems p. 531-536.


10