See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257435878

A novel methodology for evaluating the risk of CRM projects in fuzzy

environment

Article  in  Neural Computing and Applications · December 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s00521-012-1216-7

CITATIONS READS

23 1,967

5 authors, including:

Abbas Keramati Salman Nazari-Shirkouhi

University of Tehran University of Tehran
119 PUBLICATIONS   1,335 CITATIONS    44 PUBLICATIONS   1,106 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hanieh Moshki Masoud Afshari-Mofrad

HEC Montréal - École des Hautes Études commerciales Institute For Trade Studies and Research, Iran
8 PUBLICATIONS   46 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   236 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The effect of service recovery on customers' satisfaction in e-banking: an empirical investigation View project

Decision-Driven and Ethical Machine Learning View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Masoud Afshari-Mofrad on 24 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53
DOI 10.1007/s00521-012-1216-7
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A novel methodology for evaluating the risk of CRM projects
in fuzzy environment
A. Keramati • S. Nazari-Shirkouhi • H. Moshki •
M. Afshari-Mofrad • E. Maleki-Berneti
Received: 25 April 2012 / Accepted: 28 September 2012 / Published online: 15 November 2012
 Springer-Verlag London 2012
Abstract According to obtained reports, most of cus-
tomer relationship management (CRM) projects fail. Thus,
a structured approach is needed to identify, prioritize and
evaluate risks in CRM projects. This helps project man-
agers of CRM implementation to find out how to treat such
risks. The nature of CRM is multi-dimensional, and it is
one of the most complicated innovations in organizations.
In this paper, because of multi-dimensional nature of CRM
projects, fuzzy analytic hierarchy process is used to eval-
uate CRM risk factors based on active project managers’
judgments as experts in organizations which sale CRM
software or provide service and consult in Iran. The anal-
yses are performed by the judgments of CRM experts using
a questionnaire including 49 pair-wise comparisons. In
Iranian organizations, based on experts’ judgments, in the
first life cycle phases of CRM, ‘‘changes in the stake-
holders and top management’’ has the highest importance
among risk factors in CRM projects. According to our
experts’ beliefs, management permanence is one of the
most important factors for IS projects failure in Iran which
is resulted from Iranian organizations’ culture. In the next
A. Keramati  H. Moshki
Department of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering,
University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
S. Nazari-Shirkouhi (&)
Young Researchers Club, Roudbar Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Roudbar, Iran
e-mail: snnazari@ut.ac.ir
M. Afshari-Mofrad
Information Technology Management Department,
Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
E. Maleki-Berneti
Department of Management,
Payame Noor University (PNU), Tehran, Iran
life cycle phases of CRM, the risk factors such as general
factors of classification ‘‘dynamic assessment and moni-
toring’’ have the lowest priority.
Keywords Customer relationship management 
Risk evaluation  Customer relationship management
project implementation  Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
1 Introduction
In today’s competitive business environment, significant
investment in information technology (IT) is becoming an
important source of competitive advantage. Companies are
investing tens of millions of dollars at a time in enterprise
resource planning (ERP) implementation or customer rela-
tionship management (CRM) technologies in order to
achieve remarkable improvements in organization’s effi-
ciency [31]. After Reichheld and Sasser [57] stated that a
small increase in customer retention could significantly
affect the profitability of the organization, CRM has gained
more attention. CRM as an information system tool has
various capabilities to help organizations in marketing fields
such as better customer profiles and product information,
rapid response, predicting customer needs, retaining cus-
tomers, conducting market research, promoting sale, and
reducing cost [73, 74]. Zablah et al. [82] defined CRM as ‘an
ongoing process that involves the development of market
intelligence for the purpose of building and maintaining a
profit-maximizing portfolio of customer relationships’.
In this research, the term CRM refers to this definition.
Despite tremendous advantages of CRM, the implemen-
tation process involves significant risks, and unfortunately,
implementation difficulties still affect projects of customer
relationship management introduction. Figure 1 shows the
123
S30 Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53

failure rate of CRM implementation during the period of
2001–2009. According to Forrester research in Fig. 1, in
2009, the failure rate was about 47 % [33].
Since CRM projects are associated with a high failure
rate, it is essential to examine the criticality of their risk
factors [51]. Based on the proposed steps of risk manage-
ment process, firstly, potential risks must be identified. One
of the available common methodologies to identify risks is
to use list of risk factors [68]. Having a comprehensive list
of possible risks enables project managers to decide which
factors have potential to become a major threat to the
success of the project and therefore plan measurement to
treat them. In fact, collecting a complete set of risk factors
of IS projects helps managers to improve stability of
decision-making process [79].
The oldest literature on the risk management of IT
project is McFarlan [40], in which three dimensions of
software development risks, namely the size of project, the
structure of the project, and the experience of using tech-
nology, were identified. Since then, several studies have
been done in the field of information technology project
risks and barriers. For instance, Roh et al. [60] proposed the
CRM system success model that consists of CRM initia-
tives: process fit, customer information quality, and system
support; intrinsic success: efficiency and customer satis-
faction; and extrinsic success: profitability. Also Özgener
and Iraz [50] studied the factors influencing the imple-
mentation of CRM at small- and medium-sized tourism
enterprises in Cappadocia. Torkzadeh et al. [73, 74] uti-
lized exploratory factor analysis and structural equation
modeling, to suggest a seven-factor 21-item CRM success
model, describing barriers to the success of customer
relationship management at a US pharmaceutical company.
Although the literature of IT includes risk factor lists of
various IT projects, paucity in the literature of CRM pro-
ject risks is intensively observed. This is rooted in the fact
that the concept of CRM was introduced in the early 1990s,
and so the projects of CRM are quite young in comparison
with other IT projects. Meanwhile, several analyses in the
2001 2002 2002 2005 2006 2007 2007 2009
field of information systems risk appear in the literature,
but most of these studies simply list factors while lacking
in systematic efforts and appropriate technical background
to classify and evaluate factors [23, 66]. Therefore, the
need for a study to collect a comprehensive set of risk
factors of CRM projects, as well as a hierarchical structure
for categorizing and prioritizing risks, is quite needed. On
the other hand, based on the results of Keramati et al. [30]
about adoption of CRM systems in Iranian organization,
many of the studied organizations stated that their need to
implement CRM systems and reliance on it would increase
in coming years. Considering these facts, along with the
increasing trend of need of organizations to implement
CRM, elaborates the importance of the research on the risk
management of CRM projects. Furthermore, CRM is rel-
atively a new approach in Iran, and many organizations are
in decision-making phase of implementing CRM. Because
of cultural differences between Iranian organizations’
environment and western environment, conducting a
research in order to find the most important risk factors of
CRM implementation in Iran is imperative. To the best of
our knowledge, this is the first study which collects a
comprehensive set of CRM risk factors and prioritizes
them using a hierarchical structure in Iran’s environment.
The main goals of this research can be summarized as
follows:
1. Identification of risk factors of CRM projects
2. Categorizing identified factors and creating a novel
hierarchical structure for evaluation of CRM risks. (To
achieve these goals, available papers in CRM literature
have been reviewed.)
3. Prioritizing and finally evaluating risk factors of CRM
project in companies which provide the service,
consult, and sale CRM software in Iran by using the
opinions of managers
The remaining parts of this paper are structured as fol-
lows: In Sect. 2, proposed methodology to extract risk factors
of CRM project is presented. In Sect. 3, we completely
explain a checklist including 27 risk factors which have been
extracted from the literature of CRM. In Sects. 4 and 5,

F
Forrrestter Rese
R earcch
selection of the appropriate classification and the proposed
Eccono
omisst In
ntellligeencee Un
nit
hierarchal structure are introduced in order to use Fuzzy AHP
AMR R
AM Reseearcch to evaluate CRM projects. In Sect. 6, Fuzzy AHP method-
AMR R
AM Reseearcch
ology is thoroughly explained. Section 7 applies Fuzzy AHP
to evaluate CRM projects in Iran. Finally Sect. 8 devotes to
A
AMMR Rese
R earcch conclusion and future research directions.
Seellin
ng P
Poweer, C
CSO
O Foorum

Butleer G
Grou
up
2 Identifying risk factors of CRM project
Garrtneer Grou
G up

To extract risk factors of CRM project, the methodology

Fig. 1 The failure rate of CRM Source: Krigsman [33] proposed by [3] is used. They reviewed and analyzed 75 key

123
Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53
articles about ERP implementation and extracted risk fac-
tors. In this research, we have reviewed 30 key papers pub-
lished in 2001–2011 about CRM to extract CRM risk factors.
At first, we found 57 papers published in renowned databases
of CRM, IT, Marketing, in databases such as Science Direct
(Elsevier), Emerald, and Google Scholar. After compre-
hensively reviewing these databases, we selected papers
focusing on success/failure factors of CRM implementation
and divided them based on methodology proposed by Aloini
et al. [3] into the following five dimensions.
1. Research type: including empirical, conceptual/theo-
retical or conceptual and empirical works.
2. Research aim and sector: including system selection,
system implementation and risk management.
3. Research content: describes briefly the process and the
research results.
4. Proposed risk factors: describes the extracted risk
factors of each work in general.
5. Research tool: describes the research tool used in each
study.
By considering the proposed dimensions, the key papers
about CRM projects published in 2001–2011 are summa-
rized in Table 1.
3 Risk factors of CRM projects
In this section, the related risks to CRM projects based on
the literature are identified and described. There are totally
27 identified risks.
3.1 Insufficient perception of the organization
and environment
The first step in CRM projects is analysis of the company’s
objective and its culture [12]. Before starting a project, it is
necessary to understand the strategy of the organization
and find where the organization is, where it is going, and
where it will go. Although many researchers in CRM
believe that it is unnecessary to pay attention to the current
process of the organization in business process reengi-
neering (BPR) for implementing CRM, the experience
obtained by the IRIS group demonstrates that analysis of
current situations of the organization (current process,
human and technological resources, and the organizational
culture) strongly affects choosing the appropriate solution
in CRM implementation [12].
3.2 Immaturity of organization in IT and IS
In implementing CRM project, mature organizations in IT
are those which have enough experiences in IS project
S31
implementation such as ERP system and supply chain
management [48]. Mendoza et al. [41] have implied the
integration of IS in the organization as the prerequisite of
accurate information about customers and presented this
factor as one of the critical success factors (CSFs). Also,
King and Burgess [32] have known the organization
capability in the integration of IS, as one of the most
conventional CSFs of CRM.
3.3 Weakness in communication infrastructures
and unfavorable quality of internal
communications
The quality of organizational communication is one of the
effective factors in all changes in organizations. If an
organization cannot give its employees information with
favorable quality in CRM strategy, purposes, and vision of
organization in CRM implementation, it will not certainly
succeed in enjoying their commitment and collaboration
[32, 53].
3.4 Lack of customer and change-orientated culture
Culture is the most important component in success of CRM
implementation, and employees should change their attitude
in business [69]. The first step of the CRM project is the
requirement of changing-oriented culture [77]. The cus-
tomer-oriented culture is the prerequisite to gain information
with high quality from the customer, create and distribute
the resulted knowledge from customers, and it is also the
origin of change ideas and improvement in the organiza-
tional process [56]. Undoubtedly, the lack of the customer-
oriented culture in organizations will result in dissatisfaction
of customers, and it is impossible to implement CRM system
without changing the organizational culture from product-
based or service-based culture into customer-oriented
culture [35, 78]. Ryals and knox [61] considered the adap-
tive, acceptable, responsive, and change expeditor organi-
zational culture as one of the CSFs in CRM projects.
3.5 Weakness in customer strategy
If a firm does not have a specific strategy about its cus-
tomers before CRM implementation, it is likely that the
CRM project faces failure. The prerequisite of CRM is
determining the profitable customers and also dividing the
customers by considering their values and then based on in
which classification each customer is; specific needs and the
best manner of organizational interaction with him/her are
determined [2]. Roberts et al. [59] implied the development
of the customer strategy as the first step in the CRM
implementation process and prerequisite in determining the
objectives for each classification of customers. Rigby et al.
123
S32 Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53

Table 1 Extracted risks of CRM project from papers published in 2001–2011 using Aloini et al.’s [3] methodology
No Reference Research Aim/sector Research content Proposed risk factors Research tools
type

1. Al-Hudhaif [2] Conceptual System Identifying the critical success Inadequate top management Quantitative research
and implementation/ factors for implementation support of CRM, CRM vision
empirical local Saudi banks of customer relationship and strategy, selecting CRM
sector management in the banking software package
2. Mao-qin et al. Theoretical System Identifying the critical success Organizational factor,
[39] implementation factors for the Banks operating system factor, staff
implementing e-CRM factor, customer
3. Beldi et al. [7] Empirical System Studying the impact of project Selecting software Qualitative research based on
implementation/ management during different package ? business process interview, analysis of
size-specific LC: a phases of implementation re-engineering ? extending documents and observations
case study in a the organizational
French structure ? technological
telecommunication management ? selecting the
company) project team
4. Shang and Lin Empirical Implementation (four Identifying factors influencing Customer needs, customer Qualitative research based on
[69] case studies) the people-driven CRM involvement, employee in-depth interviews with
processes based on multiple capabilities, and managers from four case
case studies organizational culture companies
5. Peelen et al. Conceptual System Formulate propositions and CRM metrics, CRM Quantitative and quantitative
[54] and implementation/ test them in a quantitative technology, CRM research
empirical multiple sector analysis to determine the information and valued
role and influence of the key customer experience, CRM
components of CRM on each processes, organizational
other and on CRM success collaboration, and CRM
vision and strategy
6. Bouma [9] Conceptual System Analyzing the impact of Involving users via developing Qualitative research
and implementation employees’ participation on sense of belonging, trust and undertaken with
empirical CRM implementation satisfaction among them, questionnaire and
matching the organizational interviewing 732 employees
structure to CRM in 16 financial organizations
project ? amount of work
needed for implementing
CRM system ? conflicts
7. Wu [78] Empirical A case study of CRM Finding success factors of Human factor ? technological –
implementation in a CRM implementation factor ? business processes
large producer of
computer hardware
8. Cooper et al. Conceptual System Examining the effects of Changes in the stakeholders A five-point questionnaire to
[19] and implementation/ functional groups and top management, inter- evaluate individual and team
empirical size-specific (S-LC) membership as well as team functional conflict, lack of performance, internal
and individual performance strategic coordination volatility, inter-functional
evaluations on project between human resource conflict, and inter-functional
members’ perceptions of management (HRM) and cooperation in CRM
disruption and cooperation CRM implementation
during CRM project
implementations
9. Yim et al. [81] Conceptual System Introduction of four success Lack of customer and change- A six point questionnaire
and implementation/ factors of CRM, and orientated culture, lack of consisting of 20 items to
empirical multiple sector investigation of their effects organizational structure and measure success factors of
on 3 performance criteria of customer-centric CRM in organizations
CRM organizations, weakness in
knowledge management
capability, immaturity of
organization in IT and
Information Systems (IS)
10. Raman et al. Conceptual System selection and Development and testing an Lack of customer and change- A qualitative questionnaire
[56] and implementation/ empirical model to introduce orientated culture, weakness with open-ended questions
empirical multiple sector the needed organizational in selecting the most suitable assessing (dis) satisfaction
capabilities for successful technology with CRM implementation
implementation of CRM
11. Plouffe et al. Conceptual/ System Development of a process- Lack of incentive systems for
[55] theoretical implementation/… oriented framework for encouraging customers to
implementing CRM taking interact actively with the
stakeholder’s differences and organization
the elusive notion of ‘‘shared
understanding’’ into account

123
Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53 S33

Table 1 continued
No Reference Research Aim/sector Research content Proposed risk factors Research tools
type

12. Boulding et al. Conceptual/ System Investigating different Neglecting the customers trust
[8] theoretical Implementation/… definitions of CRM success, and privacy, not employing
existing obstacles on the process-oriented criteria of
CRM implementation performance
process
13. Roh et al. [60] Conceptual System Development of a system Inadequate support of CRM A questionnaire consisting of
and implementation/… success model that consists 24 items to measure three
empirical of CRM initiatives (process key success factors of CRM,
fit, customer information efficiency, customer
quality, and system support); satisfaction, and
intrinsic success (efficiency profitability.
and customer satisfaction);
and extrinsic success
(profitability)
14. Lindgreen Empirical System Selection and Development of a tool to Weakness in customer strategy, A structured interview
et al. [35] Implementation/ determine and prioritize key customer-interaction strategy,
Size Specific (S- CRM areas brand strategy, and value-
LC: a case study in creation strategy, lack of
a vehicle producer customer and change-
company) orientated culture, lack of
strategic coordination
between HRM and CRM,
lack of organizational
structure and customer-
centric organizations,
immaturity of organization in
IT and IS, not employing
process-oriented criteria of
performance, weakness in
knowledge management
capability
15. Strauss and Empirical System Collecting some points about Ambiguity in aims of CRM
Frost [71] implementation/ e-commerce marketing implementation, lack of
multiple sector customer and change-
orientated culture, managers’
incorrect cognition of CRM
and its operational and
strategic benefits, not
involving final users in
designing the CRM solution
16. Chalmeta [12] Conceptual/ System selection and Development of IRIS Weakness in implementation
theoretical implementation/ methodology in CRM methodology and project
multiple sector implementation management, insufficient
perception of organization
and the environment,
weakness in customer
strategy, lack of
benchmarking from similar
organizations to define
criteria of performance
measurement and comparing
outcomes, weakness in
communication
infrastructures and
unfavorable quality of
internal communications
17. Croteau and Li Conceptual System Development and empirical Managers’ incorrect cognition A five-point questionnaire
[20] and implementation/ testing of key success factors of CRM and its operational consisting of 32 questions to
empirical size-specific (S-LC) of CRM implementation in and strategic benefits, measure the perception rate
Canada immaturity of organization in of operational and strategic
IT and IS, weakness in benefits of CRM, support of
knowledge management top management,
capability organization’s knowledge
management capability,
internal and external effects
of CRM

123
S34 Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53

Table 1 continued
No Reference Research Aim/sector Research content Proposed risk factors Research tools
type

18. Wilson et al. Empirical System Extracting key success factors Inadequate top management A structured interview
[77] implementation/ of CRM implementation by support of CRM, immaturity
multiple sector qualitative review of five of organization in IT and IS,
case studies lack of organizational
structure and customer-
centric organizations, not
involving final users in
designing the CRM solution,
weakness in implementation
methodology and project
management, inter-functional
conflict, lack of customer and
change-orientated culture
19. Mendoza et al. Empirical System Proposition, justification, and Absence of the CRM project in
[41] implementation/ validation of a model based the company’s strategic plan,
multiple sector on critical success factors inter-functional conflict,
covering the three key ambiguity in aims of CRM
aspects of every CRM implementation, lack of
strategy (human factor, strategic coordination
processes, and technology), between HRM and CRM,
including 13 factors and 55 weakness in customer-
corresponding metrics interaction strategy,
immaturity of organization in
IT and IS, weakness in
communication
infrastructures and
unfavorable quality of
internal communications,
insufficient funding for CRM
project
20. Mack et al. Conceptual/ System Development of a diamond Ambiguity in aims of CRM
[38] theoretical implementation/ shape framework to implementation, inadequate
multiple sector introduce a strategic plan for top management support of
CRM based on a three-phase CRM
approach
21. Roberts et al. Empirical System Proposition a process model Weakness in customer strategy,
[59] implementation/ for successful implementing immaturity of organization in
multiple sector CRM including steps in IT and IS, ambiguity in aims
development of customer of CRM implementation, not
strategy, determination of employing process-oriented
goals, evaluation of criteria of performance
organization readiness,
integration of organization in
order to reach goals,
implementation and
evaluation of system
effectiveness
22. Chen and Chen Empirical System Extracting key success factors Inadequate top management A structured interview
[16] implementation/ of electronic CRM by case support of CRM, weakness in
multiple sector study knowledge management
capability, lack of customer
and change-orientated culture
23. Ryals and Empirical System Mentioning three key success/ Lack of customer and change-
Knox [61] implementation/ failure factors in CRM orientated culture, weakness
multiple sector in communication
infrastructures and
unfavorable quality of
internal communications,
lack of strategic coordination
between HRM and CRM,
inter-functional conflict

123
Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53 S35

Table 1 continued
No Reference Research Aim/sector Research content Proposed risk factors Research tools
type

24. King and Conceptual Risk management/ Development of conceptual Inadequate top management
Burgess [32] and multiple sector dynamic model from CRM, support of CRM, weakness in
empirical and representation of knowledge management
changes in result of benefits capability, weakness in
in CRM, and supporting communication
manager by time pass infrastructures and
unfavorable quality of
internal communications,
immaturity of organization in
IT and IS, lack of customer
and change-orientated
culture, weakness of
feedback system in correction
of strategies and processes
25. Rigby et al. Empirical Risk management/ Presentation of four serious Weakness in customer strategy,
[58] multiple sector risks in CRM project lack of organizational
structure and customer-
centric organizations,
weakness in customer-
interaction strategy,
weakness in selecting the
most suitable technology
26. O’Malley and Empirical Risk management/ Reviewing some risks in CRM Immaturity of organization in
Mitussis [48] multiple sector projects based on IT and IS, lack of customer
organization culture and change-orientated culture
27. Kale [26] Empirical Risk management/ Reviewing reasons of not Managers’ incorrect cognition
multiple sector achieving goals of CRM of CRM and its operational
projects and strategic benefits
28. Payne and Conceptual System Presenting and empirical Weakness in customer strategy,
Frow [53] and implementation/ testing of a model for CRM customer-interaction strategy,
empirical multiple sector implementation focused on value-creation strategy,
necessity for inter functional weakness in selecting the
of model components most suitable technology,
lack of benchmarking of
similar organizations to
define criteria of performance
measurement and comparing
outcomes, weakness in
implementation methodology
and project management,
lack of strategic coordination
between HRM and CRM,
insufficient perception of
organization and the
environment, weakness in
communication
infrastructures and
unfavorable quality of
internal communications,
inter-functional conflict,
ambiguity in aims of CRM
implementation, not
employing inter-functional
criteria of performance
29. BT (2001), Empirical Risk management/ Studying adoption of CRM in Managers’ incorrect cognition
Unpublished multiple sector various industries of CRM and its operational
internal and strategic benefits
CRM study
30. Ryals and Conceptual System Studying adoption and use of Lack of strategic coordination A structured interview
Payne [62] and implementation/ CRM in the financial between HRM and CRM,
empirical multiple sector in services sector, proposing insufficient funding for CRM
finance industries conceptual framework for project, managers’ incorrect
CRM adoption in cognition of CRM and its
organizations operational and strategic
benefits, inter-functional
conflict, ambiguity in aims of
CRM implementation

123
S36
[58] believed that a CRM system can succeed only when the
organization uses traditional strategies of customer reten-
tion and acquisition.
3.6 Weakness in customer-interaction strategy
After identifying the customers with whom the organization
wants to have long-time relationships, it is time to know how
to interact with them [58]. The customer-interaction strategy
includes getting to know the interaction processes with cus-
tomers, touch points, employees, and distribution channels
[35]. The purpose is to get to know how and when customers
want to interact with the organization. All interactions during
the customer lifecycle must be well coordinated and cus-
tomized. The organization must devise contact points which
can be managed with low costs and by which customers can
easily contact with the organization. Mendoza et al. [41] have
mentioned the development of customer-related communi-
cation channels as a key factor in CRM success.
3.7 Weakness in brand strategy
Brand is one of the major determining elements in the
repeat purchase of an organization. The more successful a
brand is, the higher levels of customer loyalty it achieves
[35]. A successful and effective brand can make its goods
and services attractive for customers and build a trust-
based relationship between the organization and internal
and external beneficiary (like customers) and improve the
competitive position of the organization in the market.
3.8 Weakness in value-creation strategy
Value creation is the main purpose in CRM and must be
seen as a precondition for defining marketing strategies. It
should provide answers to questions such as: how to create
values for customers and deliver values to customers and
maximize customer lifetime values for increasing customer
profitability. In the process proposed by Payne and Frow
[53] for CRM implementation, the input of value-creation
strategy is the output of the previous step which is cus-
tomer strategy. The overall value-creation process can be
categorized in the three key components: the value the
customer receives from organization; the value the orga-
nization receives from customers; and, by managing this
value exchange, maximizing the lifetime value of desirable
customers and customer segments [52].
3.9 Lack of organizational structure
and customer-centric organizations
Applying the technological aspect of CRM before creating
a customer-centric organization is one of the most
123
Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53
important factors in CRM project failure [58]. It is nec-
essary for an organization, which wants to implement
CRM project, to be organized in a way that allows it to
focus on its key customers [81]. The structure of organi-
zation must be flexible, and if needed, it must be reorga-
nized to create customer-centric values [7]. An appropriate
organizational structure for CRM implementation is a
structure which facilitates customer-centric collaboration
among various employees’ sectors by providing inter-
functional relationships. For example, in an organization
which sale and marketing departments are under supervi-
sion of one manger, CRM implementation is easier than it
is in an organization which each of these mentioned
departments is under supervision of two different man-
agers [77].
3.10 Change in the stakeholders and top management
In CRM project, internal volatility of the organization is
effective in project success especially change related to
stakeholders and top management which can strongly
influence goals, visions, and strategies [19]. Cooper et al.
[19] also believed that reduction in the project advance rate
is one of the negative effects in this volatility.
3.11 Managers’ incorrect cognition of CRM
and its operational and strategic benefits
One of the reasons for inadequate support of top manage-
ment in a CRM project is managers’ unawareness of ben-
efits and opportunities of CRM for the organization [71].
Incorrect definition of CRM nature is one of the most
important reasons for failure in the CRM projects [26].
Perceived advantages imply a degree of managers’ under-
standing of usages and benefits of a certain technology
which is used before its implementation. Croteau and Li
[20] have divided perceived advantages of CRM imple-
mentation into two advantages including perceived opera-
tional advantages (savings and decrees in operating
expenses of the organization which are resulted from
improvement in internal efficiency of the organization) and
perceived strategic advantages (these are competitive and
tactical advantages resulted from CRM effects on business
processes of the organization).
3.12 Absence of the CRM project in the company’s
strategy plan
Managers’ awareness of CRM operational and strategic
advantages is not enough by itself. Managers should
achieve this cognition and awareness by considering CRM
in the strategic plan of the organization. Mendoza et al.
[41] believe that regarding the CRM project in the
Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53 S37

implementation

ment support
company’s strategy plan is one of the evaluation criteria of

top manage-
aims of CRM
Ambiguity in

Inadequate
top management’s support and commitment rate for CRM.

of CRM
27
3.13 Insufficient funding for CRM
14

in knowledge
management
for CRM
Insufficient

One of the evaluation criteria of top management’s support

capability
funding

Weakness
and commitment rate for CRM project is the allocation of
13

sufficient funding to project implementation [41]. If CRM

26
project is regarded in the strategic plan of the organization
company’s

and comparing
project in
the CRM
Absence of

organizations
Lack of bench-

measurement
strategy

performance
without allocating enough funding and financial recourses

criteria of
of similar
plan

to define

outcome
marking
for its implementation, CRM will fail [62]. CRM project
the
12

implementation is costly and needs about $ 60–130 million

25

to be implemented [58].
operational
cognition
incorrect
Managers’

strategic
of CRM

benefits

of strategies
and its

of feedback

correction
system in

processes
and

Weakness

3.14 Ambiguity in aims of CRM implementation

11

and
24
management
stakeholders

Lack of measurable business purposes in a CRM project is

Change in the

performance

the reason for failure in many CRM projects [53, 71]. In the
ing process-
and top

Not employ-

criteria of
oriented

research about the reason for CRM failure in European

10

organizations, Chalmeta [12] has mentioned ambiguous

23

aims or lack of aims in CRM implementation as the most

organizational

organizations
structure and

inter-functional

important and conventional reason for failures in such

customer-

Not employing

performance
centric

projects. Lack or ambiguity of aims will result in incapa-

Lack of

evaluation
criteria of

bility of organization in definition of evaluation criteria in

9

project advance rate. Mendoza et al. [41] believe that ‘‘the

22
in value-
creation
Weakness

strategy

definition of objectives which the organization is going to

CRM solution
designing the
final users in

achieve by CRM implementation’’ is one of the key suc-

Not involving
8

cess factors in CRM project.

in brand
Weakness

strategy

21

3.15 Inter-functional conflict

7

the customers

People’s cooperation with different organizational func-

Weakness in

interaction
customer-

trust and
Neglecting

privacy
strategy

tions (for example sale/marketing personnel with IT per-

sonnel) is one of the key success factors in CRM projects
20
6

[19]. Researchers in sale/marketing field have always

customers to

organization
encouraging
systems for
customer

emphasized on the necessity of inter-functional integration

Weakness

strategy

incentive

with the
actively
interact

in the organizations for the CRM project success [53, 61,

Lack of
in

62, 77]. According to Mendoza et al. [41], CRM imple-

5

19
Table 2 Codes allocated to each extracted risk factor

mentation by the members of a team in different organi-

orientated
customer

HRM and
change-

strategic
culture

between

zational sectors is a key success factor.

coordi-
Lack of

nation
Lack of

CRM
and
4

18

3.16 Weakness in selecting the most suitable

communications
and unfavorable

tation method-

technology
infrastructures

in implemen-

management
in commu-

ology and
quality of

Weakness
nication
Weakness

internal

project

The organization must determine and prioritize its analytical

requirements before CRM implementation and develop or
17
3

select IT system based on these requirements. Payne and

technology
Immaturity

zation in

in select-
organi-

Frow [53] have expressed IT as the driving engine in the

IT and

Weakness

suitable
ing the
most

CRM and mentioned that making decisions about purchas-

IS
of
2

16

ing or implementing internal CRM system, software, and

zation and
perception
of organi-

hardware plays an important role during project exe-

Insufficient

Inter-func-
environ-

conflict
tional
ment

cution [7, 29]. CRM technology and the amount of its

the

advance depend on customer strategy and the organizational

15
1

123
S38 Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53

Table 3 Risk factors studied between 2001 and 2011

Code of risk
factor

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
1

9
Authors
Lopes (2011)

Beldi et al.
(2010)
Shang and Lin
(2010)
Peelen et al.
(2009)

Bouma (2009)

Wu (2008)

Cooper et al.
(2008)

Yim et al. (2004)

Raman et al.
(2006)
Plouffe et al.
(2004)
Boulding et al.
(2005)

Roh et al. (2005)

Lindgreen et al.
(2006)
Strauss and
Frost (20020

Code of risk
factor
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
1

Authors
Chalmeta (2006)

Croteau and li
(2003)
Wilson et al.
(2002)
Mendoza et al.
(2007)
Mack et al.
(2005)
Roberts et al.
(2005)
Chen and Chen
(2004)
Ryals and Knox
(2001)
King and
Burgess (2008)
Rigby et al.
(2002)
O'Malley and
Mitussis (2002)

Kale (2004)

Payne and Frow

(2006)
BT (2001),
Unpublished internal
CRM study
Ryals and Payne
(2001)

Our research

vision of CRM implementation [78]. On the other hand,
CRM technology should be in harmony with personnel
tasks. This harmony implies that how much a specific
technology has been able to help an individual to do his/her
task [56].
3.17 Weakness in implementation methodology
and project management
Lack of a comprehensive and an integrated methodology to
implement CRM project is one of the obstacles of

123
Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53
Table 4 The comparison of
Model dimensions
reviewed the general
classification Strategy
Technology
Human
Process
Organizational structure
Knowledge management
Focus on key customers
Organization and its context
Supporters and top manager
Project organization
Dynamic monitoring and review
achieving success in such projects [12]. A comprehensive
and integrated methodology is one that starts with defini-
tion or review of the organizational strategy and includes
cases such as planning, analysis of success and weakness in
customer-oriented processes, IT, and financial control
systems. There is no specific framework for CRM imple-
mentation in 61 % of the organizations which implement a
CRM project [53]. In addition to the existence of suitable
methodology for CRM implementation, all mentioned
methodological activities should be managed and reviewed
like an engineering project [7, 12].
3.18 Lack of strategic coordination between HRM
and CRM
The personnel of the organization have a relationship
between customers and the organization [35]. Before CRM
implementation, personnel’s all doubts, worries, and
questions about CRM and its importance should be
answered, and they should be trained about this subject
[12]. Before the project starts, without investigating cases
related to HRM such as selection, performance evaluation,
and job description delegation of authority, it is not effi-
cient to implement CRM project [19]. Payne and Frow [53]
have indicated that the necessary coordination between
employee and HRM is one of four CRM implementation
processes, and this process plays a significant role in suc-
cessful implementation in both change management and
project management processes.
3.19 Lack of incentive systems for encouraging
customers to interact actively
with the organization
Although this point has not been considered as much as it
should, customers in interaction process, presenting infor-
mation, and comments with the organization need an
incentive higher than expectancy for quality improvement
S39
[22] [17] [81] [32]
4
4 4 4
4 4 4
4 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
or better responses to their requirements by the organiza-
tion [55]. Customers should feel they will get values for the
time they spend on interaction and relationship with the
organization [69]. For example, this value might be special
discounts or welfare facilities.
3.20 Neglecting the customers trust and privacy
Before gathering customer data, organizations should
assure that their data and comments will be kept and will
only be used to improve product quality, services, and
finally customer’s satisfaction. If customers lose trust in the
organization and believe that their data are used by orga-
nization for other purposes, they will attempt to keep their
data private or to distort the data [8]. This problem will
prevent achieving the final purpose of the CRM.
3.21 Not involving final users in designing the CRM
solution
Not involving the final users in designing the CRM solu-
tion will result in dissatisfaction with the functionalities of
the system, and users are prone not to use the final system
[9, 71]. It is vital that users or their agents should partici-
pate in some steps like determining system requirement.
3.22 Not employing inter-functional criteria
of performance evaluation
There is usually a kind of functional focus in determining
metrics of performance evaluation. This means for instance
the financial sector evaluates outcomes with profit rate, the
sale sector evaluates them based on sale volume, and the
marketing sector evaluates them based on a number of
acquainted customers. Payne and Frow [53] have empha-
sized on the necessity for inter-functional metrics in eval-
uating performance of CRM system.
123
S40
Fig. 2 The proposed hierarchal
structure for evaluating risk
factors of CRM projects
3.23 Not employing process-oriented criteria
of performance
Criteria which are used in the processes of evaluating the
efficiency and effectiveness of CRM system are mostly
criteria that evaluate the results (i.e., customer retention and
acquisition, customer satisfaction, customer value, etc.)
instead of evaluating the efficiency of process components
(i.e., customer’s trust, customer fairness, customer expec-
tations on future generation product, future services of the
organization, the effect of each CRM project sub-plan on
the total results of plan) [8, 59], and this might lead to long-
term failure in CRM system and end of innovation life.
3.24 Weakness of feedback system in correction
of strategies and processes
The main aim of defining and applying criteria for per-
formance evaluation is to gain an image of CRM current
123
Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53
situation and compare it with organizational vision and
objectives. Hence, the organization can correct the strate-
gies and adjust its processes [7, 78]. Thus, the feedback
system is considered as one of the most important com-
ponents of CRM in each organization and weakness in its
performance will result in CRM failure [32].
3.25 Lack of benchmarking of similar organizations
to define criteria of performance measurement
and comparing outcomes
Defining appropriate criteria, considering quality and value
in customer’s view, and comparing CRM system with
similar system of competitors are really important in
designing a system for CRM evaluation [12]. Bench-
marking of other organizations’ criteria and using CRM
standards might be rather helpful [53]. Table 2 gives codes
to each extracted risk factor. Using the codes allocated to
each risk factor, Table 3 demonstrates which risks are
Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53
mentioned in which papers and in how many of the
reviewed papers it has been mentioned totally.
3.26 Weakness in knowledge management capability
One of the key success factors on which most of CRM
literature is unanimous is knowledge management capa-
bility [32]. The success of CRM depends on the efficient
change of obtained information from the customers into
organization knowledge [81]. The reason is that the devel-
oping strategies, suitable goods and services as well as
choosing the right distribution and communication channels
with customers depend on organization knowledge about
the customers and marketing space [35]. The knowledge
management capability, that according to Chen and Chen
[16], is one of the two CSFs in CRM projects, equips the
organization to a strong decision tool about its customers
[20]. Necessary organizational abilities and capabilities to
implement knowledge management in the organization
based on Alavi and Leidner [1] are divided into three cat-
egories including: information-based capability, technol-
ogy-based capability and culture-based capability.
Since some of the existing literature mention to the
weaknesses in knowledge management capability of the
organization as a risk factor and some other literature
introduce the weaknesses in components of knowledge
management of the organization as a factor risk, in this
paper ‘‘Weakness in knowledge management capability
factor’’ is noted as a risk factor which is extracted from the
literature, but in the proposed hierarchal structure, it is
avoided using this factor and only the factors related to
components of ‘‘Weakness in knowledge management
capability factor’’ are used.
3.27 Inadequate top management support of CRM
In projects which need business process re-design and main
change creation such as CRM project, top management
support plays a key role in the project success, and it can be
one of the factors that remove staff resistance against
changes [20]. Because of inadequate management support
U ~f ( x )
x−l u− x
U ~ (x) = U ~f ( x ) =
f
m −l u−m
α comprehensive model for summarizing the extracted risk
0 x
fα (l) = (m−l)α+l fα (u) = u −(u − m)α
Fig. 3 Left and right representation of TFN
S41
of the organization, most CRM projects fail [32, 38]. Like
what was explained in knowledge management capability
of the organization, some literature has mentioned inade-
quate top management support as a risk factor. Some other
literature has introduced the sub-factors and factors creat-
ing them as the risk factor extracted from the literature, but
in the proposed structure, this factor is not used and factors
related to its components are the only used.
4 Selecting the appropriate classification
and introducing the proposed framework
Since the number of extracted risk factors is considerable,
it would be difficult to prioritize these factors without
putting them into general classifications. By reviewing the
CRM literature, we found four methods of classifying key
success/failure factors of CRM [17, 22, 32, 70]. Table 4
briefly shows these 4 methods. It can be observed in
Table 4 that the common point of Fox and Stead [22],
Chen and Popovich [17], and Yim et al.’s [81] classifica-
tions is in technological dimension and the common point
of Fox and Stead [22], Chen and Popovich [17], and King
and Burgess’ [32] classifications is in human dimension.
There is not any dimension which is common in all four
general classifications. General classification with the
minimum number of dimensions (three dimensions) was
introduced by Chen and Popovich [17], and general clas-
sification with the maximum number of dimensions (five
dimensions) was introduced by King and Burgess [32].
To choose the most suitable model for classifying the
extracted list of risk factors, we analyzed the comprehen-
siveness of the four reviewed classifications. The proposed
classification by King and Burgess includes the high-level
category ‘‘organization and its context’’ which can cover
numerous lower-level categories of other models including
strategy, technology, processes, organizational structure,
organizational knowledge management and the amount of
focus that organization devotes to its customers. In addition
to the category ‘‘organization and its context’’ and the
‘‘Human’’ category, which is common among three out of
four studied classifications, King and Burgess have intro-
duced three unique categories which are not mentioned in
other classifications. Considering the fact that the classifi-
cation of King and Burgess not only covers all lower-level
classifications of other models but also introduces three
unique categories, we concluded that this model is the most
factors in higher-level classifications. Moreover, we inter-
viewed fifteen Iranian CRM experts to choose the most
comprehensive model from the four models based on their
experience (we avoid revealing the name of the models to
the experts and just introduced them the title of categories
123
S42 Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53

in each of four models). Twelve out of fifteen experts Table 6 Random index used to compute consistency ratio (C.R.)
acknowledged that the classification proposed by King and N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Burgess is the most comprehensive one. Therefore, we
used the higher-level categories of this model for proposing R.I. 0 0 0.52 0.89 1.11 1.25 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.49
the hierarchical framework of this paper.
King and Burgess [32] believed that existing body of
knowledge about CRM CSFs is static. Thus, they tried to factor and just the sub-factors of this factor have been
propose a dynamic CSF model with causal relationships applied. Figure 2 shows the proposed hierarchal structure
between CRM CSFs and outcomes. They also used an for evaluating risk factors of CRM projects. As it can be
innovation model to group the factors together. In this seen in Fig. 2, the first level of hierarchal structure contains
research, we tried to provide CRM project managers a the upper-level goal of presenting the hierarchal structure
comprehensive list of potential risk factors in CRM pro- which is evaluating risk factors of CRM projects. The
jects, categorize these factors according to King and Bur- second level of hierarchal structure includes organization
gess’ model and enable managers to efficiently plan for and its context, owners and top management, project
avoiding or confronting these risks. Moreover, we tried to organization, final users, and dynamic monitoring and
use fuzzy AHP for evaluating CRM risk factors and help review which are all dimensions introduced in King and
managers to understand the importance of each factor. It is Burgess’ classification. Each criterion of the second level is
essential to note that we have changed some details of King divided into several sub-criteria. The second level’s criteria
and Burgess’ model in order to present a more compre- and their sub-criteria are explained below.
hensive model for our study.
5.1 Organization and its context

5 The proposed hierarchal structure for evaluating risk In King and Burgess’ classification, there is a dimension
factors of CRM projects entitled organizational context. This dimension emphasizes
that the organization must have some capabilities and
This section describes how to categorize 22 risk factors of infrastructures before implementing CRM. In other words,
CRM projects using general classifications introduced by this dimension consists of key success factors which are
King and Burgess [32] and explains our proposed hierar- prerequisites for successful CRM project implementation
chal structure. It is essential to note that we extracted 27 in the organization. King and Burgess [32] have considered
CRM risk factors from the literature but since we wanted to key success factors of knowledge management capability,
use King and Burgess’ classification, we had to avoid using willingness to share data, willingness to change processes
some factors (which are explained in the following sec- and technological readiness in this dimension of their
tions) and instead, we used their sub-criteria. In fact, some general classification. In King and Burgess’ model,
of extracted factors are integrated and finally, we catego- knowledge management capability of organization is one
rized 22 main risk factors. For instance, although in this of the key success factors which falls into the ‘‘organiza-
research, ‘‘inadequate top management support’’ has been tion and its context’’ category. Although in this research,
mentioned as the extracted risk factor from the literature, in weakness in knowledge management of the organization is
the proposed structure, it has been avoided applying this mentioned as an extracted risk factor, as we explained in
Sect. 3.26, in our proposed structure, we avoid using this
factor in the hierarchal structure and its sub-factors have
Table 5 The linguistic scale and corresponding triangular fuzzy been applied instead.
numbers
These sub-factors are:
Fuzzy number Linguistic scales Scale of fuzzy number
• insufficient perception of organization and the
~1 Equally important (1, 1, 1) environment
~3 Weakly important (3 - h, 3, 3 ? h) • immaturity of organization in IT and information
~5 Essentially important (5 - h, 5, 5 ? h) systems
~7 Very strongly important (7 - h, 7, 7 ? h) • weakness of communication infrastructures and unfa-
~9
vorable quality of internal communications
Absolutely important (8, 9, 9)
• lack of customer and change-orientated culture
~2; ~4; ~6; ~8 Intermediate values (x - h, x, x ? h)
• In addition to sub-factors of knowledge management
1=~x Between two adjacent (1/(x ? h), x - h 1/ which were explained above, there are two other factors
judgments (x - h))
in this general classification. These two factors are:

123
Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53 S43

• Weakness in customer strategy, customer-interaction Table 8 Aggregate comparison matrix for level 2
strategy, brand strategy, and value-creation strategy C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
• Lack of customer-centric organizational structure
C1 1.0000 1.3582 2.4424 2.4225 3.1182
We considered two recent factors in the general classi-
C2 0.7363 1.0000 3.3587 3.1461 4.8024
fication of the organization because they should be noted
C3 0.4094 0.2977 1.0000 1.9156 2.1226
before CRM implementation and both of them are pre-
C4 0.4128 0.3179 0.5220 1.0000 2.6303
requisites of successful CRM implementation. Since
C5 0.3207 0.2082 0.4711 0.3802 1.0000
Lindgreen et al. [35] have considered the four sub-factors
including defining customer strategy, customer-interaction
strategy, brand strategy, and value-creation strategy as four
classification, the key success factors are: communication
links of a chain from one hand and to decrease considerable
of CRM strategy, capability to change culture, capability to
number of the risk factors in our structure which simplifies change process and systems integration capability.
their prioritizing on the other hand, we have merged the
In the proposed structure of this research, all risk factors
four risk factors and considered the result as a single risk
extracted from the literature, which are really related to the
factor. implementation phase of CRM project, have been consid-
ered. These factors are:
5.2 Stakeholders and top management
• Ambiguity in aims of CRM implementation
In the model used by King and Burgess [32], this dimen- • Inter-functional conflict
sion has been called supporters and includes only top • Weakness in selecting the most suitable technology
management support key success factor. As it was • Weakness in implementation methodology and project
explained in Sect. 3.27, some of the existing literature has management
implied ‘‘inadequate top management support’’ of CRM,
and some other literature has introduced the sub-factors 5.4 Final users
causing this factor to happen. Although in this research,
‘‘inadequate top management support’’ has been mentioned The users of CRM system are another general classification
as the extracted risk factor from the literature, in the pro- in King and Burgess’ conceptual model. Although King
posed structure, it has been avoided applying this factor and Burgess [32] have merely emphasized on internal users
and just the sub-factors of this factor have been applied. of CRM, customers have also been considered among
Sub-factors of ‘‘inadequate top management support’’ of CRM system users and if they neglect to interact with the
CRM project are: organization, the strongest and most properly designed
• Changes in the stakeholders and top management CRM systems will fail [8]. In the proposed structure, the
• managers’ incorrect cognition of CRM and its opera- following factors have been considered as ‘‘final users’’
tional and strategic benefits risk sub-factors of CRM project:
• Absence of the CRM project in the company’s strategic • Lack of strategic coordination between HRM and CRM
plan • Lack of incentive systems for encouraging customers to
• insufficient funding for CRM project interact actively with the organization
• Neglecting the customers trust and privacy
5.3 Project organization • Not involving final users in designing the CRM solution

Project organization is another general classification in 5.5 Dynamic monitoring and review
King and Burgess’ model. This classification includes all
key success factors in CRM implementation phase. In this Outcomes are other elements of King and Burgess’ con-
ceptual model which are divided into outcomes of system
Table 7 Aggregate fuzzy pair-wise comparison of criteria (level 2)
development stage and outcomes of operational stage.
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 Outcomes of system development stage monitor CRM
C1 (1,1,1) (0.125,0.654,4) (0.167,1.801,6) (0.167,1.762,6) (0.167,2.653,7) implementation in planned time and cost framework,
C2 (1,1,1) (0.25, 3.092, 7) (1,2.792,6) (2,4.605,8) favorable quality in planning phase. Outcomes of opera-
C3 (1,1,1) (0.25,0.706,6) (0.333,1.578,5) tional stage monitor measurement of service improvement,
C4 (1,1,1) (0.333,2.094,6)
increase in customer satisfaction and sales, better targeting
C5 (1,1,1)
of customers, and better management of information and

123
S44 Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53

saving in costs [8]. Additionally, in King and Burgess’
model, existence of feedback is tangible.
In our proposed structure, we have changed ‘‘outcomes’’
into ‘‘Dynamic monitoring and review’’. This general
classification consists of the following risk factors:
• Not employing inter-functional criteria of performance
• Not employing process-oriented criteria of performance
• Weakness of feedback system in correction of strate-
gies and processes
• Lack of benchmarking of similar organizations to
define criteria of performance measurement and com-
paring outcomes
6 Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (fuzzy AHP)
Saaty [63–65] argued that AHP is a decision method which
can decompose a complex multi-criteria decision problem
into a hierarchy. Analytic hierarchy process has extensively
been used to solve different multi-criteria decision-making
(MCDM) problems. Despite the convenience of AHP in
handling both quantitative and qualitative criteria of
MCDM problems, the traditional AHP model has some
deficiencies [49]. Fuzziness and vagueness existing in
many decision-making problems may contribute to the
imprecise judgments of decision makers in conventional
AHP approaches [10]. Yang and Chen [80] indicate that the
AHP method is mainly used in nearly crisp-information
decision applications; the ranking of the AHP method is
rather imprecise; and the subjective judgment by percep-
tion, evaluation, improvement and selection based on
preference of decision makers have great influence on the
AHP results [72]. To overcome these problems, several
researchers integrate fuzzy theory with AHP. The fuzzy
AHP (FAHP) technique can be considered as an advanced
analytical method developed from the traditional AHP.
There are different types of fuzzy AHP methods in the
literature (e.g. see [11, 14, 42, 76]). Since the AHP does not
take into account the uncertainty associated with the
expert’s judgment to a number and also the subjective
judgment, selection and preference of decision makers
have large influence on the AHP result [18]; fuzzy theory
can cover these shortcomings of AHP.
Van Laarhoven and Pedrcyz [76] introduced the first
method of implementing FAHP in which triangular fuzzy
numbers (TFNs) were compared based on their member-
ship functions. Fuzzy AHP method has been used in vari-
ous research for making decision in different fields such as
selecting facility layout [4], partitioning of make-to-order,
make-to-stock and hybrid products [83], evaluating a
vendor in a supply chain [24], risk evaluation of IT projects
[25, 75], global supplier development based on risk factors
[13], behavior-based safety management [21], service
evaluation process [43], selection of optimum mining
method [44], assessment of eco-environmental vulnerabil-
ity for the Danjiangkou Reservoir Area [34] and so on.
Since TFNs help the decision maker make easier deci-
sions [27], it is used in this paper and is illustrated in
Fig. 3. Membership function of a TFN can be shown in (1)
and is usually expressed by the triplet (l, m, u).
8
>
> xl
>
> lxm
< ml
UðxÞ ¼ ux ð1Þ
> mxu
>
> u  m
>
:
0 x\l or x [ u
The AHP method proposed by Saaty [64] uses pair-wise
comparison which is shown in (2). The number aij shows
the relative importance of criterion i (Ci) in comparison
with criterion j (Cj) in the scale of Saaty [64]
(2)
where a~kij ¼ ð1; 1; 1Þ : 8i ¼ j; a~kij ¼ ~a1k : 8i 6¼ j.
ij
~ k is the fuzzy judgment matrix of kth expert, ~ak is a the
A
ij
fuzzy evaluation between criterion i and criterion j of kth
expert, ~aij ¼ ðlkij ; mkij ; ukij Þ.

Table 9 Aggregate fuzzy pair-

C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16
wise comparison of sub-factors
C1 C11 (1,1,1) (2,4.838,7) (1,2.361,6) (0.167,1.306,4) (0.167,0.478,1) (0.167,1.868,4)
C12 (1,1,1) (0.333,1.071,3) (0.125,0.857,4) (0.125,0.441,1) (0.125,0.429,4)
C13 (1,1,1) (0.1429,0.663,3) (0.167,0.388,1) (0.167,0.524,3)
C14 (1,1,1) (0.25,0.483,4) (0.25,1.0723,4)
C15 (1,1,1) (0.25,1.813,5)
C16 (1,1,1)
W 0.2730 0.1243 0.1067 0.1515 0.1515 0.1005

123
Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53 S45

Table 10 Aggregate fuzzy pair-wise comparison of sub-factors C2 Table 12 Aggregate fuzzy pair-wise comparison of sub-factors C4
C21 C22 C23 C24 C41 C42 C43 C44

C21 (1,1,1) (0.111,0.47, 6) (0.111,0.639,5) (0.125,0.833,4) C41 (1,1,1) (0.125,1.098,6) (0.125,1.049,6) (0.167, 1.576,8)
C22 (1,1,1) (0.333,1.769,6) (0.25,1.417, 8) C42 (1,1,1) (0.2, 1.42,6) (0.25,2.212,8)
C23 (1,1,1) (0.333,1.162,4) C43 (1,1,1) (0.25,1.325,6)
C24 (1,1,1) C44 (1,1,1)
W 0.3404 0.3295 0.1845 0.1456 W 0.4144 0.3007 0.1813 0.1036

Table 13 Aggregate fuzzy pair-wise comparison of sub-factors C5

Table 11 Aggregate fuzzy pair-wise comparison of sub-factors C3
C51 C52 C53 C54
C31 C32 C33 C34
C51 (1,1,1) (0.167,1.311,6) (0.167,0.433,5) (0.167,1.374,7)
C31 (1,1,1) (0.5,3.185,8) (0.167,3.429,7) (1,2.8801,7)
C52 (1,1,1) (0.167,0.639,5) (0.167,1.096,6)
C32 (1,1,1) (0.2,0.889,6) (0.167,0.525,6)
C53 (1,1,1) (0.333,1.733,8)
C33 (1,1,1) (0.25,0.601,3)
C54 (1,1,1)
C34 (1,1,1)
W 0.3870 0.2568 0.2410 0.1151
W 0.5442 0.2019 0.1286 0.1253

FAHP replaces crisp aij by TFNs. Proposed eigenvector
method by Buckley [11] is used here to analyze the data
and achieve experts’ consensus. As it is shown in (3–6) l,
m, and u show the minimum possible, most likely and the
maximum possible value of a fuzzy number, respectively.
The TFN A ~ k is constructed as follows:
~ ij ¼ ðlij ; mij ; uij Þ : lij  mij  uij ; lij ; mij ; uij 2 ½1=9; 9
A ð3Þ
lij ¼ minðBijk Þ
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!
Yn
mij ¼
n
Bijk
1
uij ¼ maxðBijk Þ
Bijk stands for the relative importance of criteria ci and cj
given by expert k.
The linguistic scale and underlying TFNs are illustrated
in Table 5 based on Azadeh et al. [5] and Nazari-Shirkouhi
et al. [45]. The parameter h is considered equal to 1 in this
paper.
For remaining steps of AHP, the fuzzy matrix A ~ (7) is
used. The number ~ aij is a TFN that represents the relative
importance of criteria ci and cj according to (3–6):
• The capability to convert a fuzzy number matrix with
any type of membership function (i.e., triangular,
trapezoidal, and so on) into a crisp number matrix.
• The capability to convert an abnormal fuzzy number
matrix into a crisp number matrix.
• The capability to apply and consider the amount of
expert’s optimism to his/her response in converting a
fuzzy number matrix into a crisp number matrix by
ð4Þ using factor a.
• The low amount of needed computations compared
ð5Þ with other methods.
The Liou and Wang’s [36] method to defuzzify fuzzy
ð6Þ ~ into crisp matrix ga;b is shown in (8, 9):
matrix A
ga;b ð~aij Þ ¼ ½b  fa ðlij Þ þ ð1  bÞ  fa ðuij Þ; 0  a; b  1 ð8Þ
ga;b ð~aij Þ ¼ 1=ga;b ð~aji Þ; 0  a; b  1 : i [ j ð9Þ
In which fa ðlij Þ ¼ ðmij  lij Þ  a þ lij represents the left-
end value a  cut for ~aij and fa ðuij Þ ¼ uij  ðuij  mij Þ  a
represents the right-end value a  cut for ~aij .
In which (a), (b) show preferences and risk tolerance of
the decision maker, respectively. Also, 0 B a, b B 1.
The single pair-wise comparison matrix is stated in (10).

(7)

There are several methods to defuzzify the fuzzy num-

bers. In this paper, the method proposed by [36] is used (10)
because:

123
S46 Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53

Table 14 Weight related to factors and sub-factors of the alternatives, and then, the decision can be made
Criteria of Weight Sub-criteria of Weight Final weights
based on the weight of alternatives. The weights are sorted
second level third level of risk factors decreasingly, and the first ranked alternative is selected
finally.
C1 0.3196 C11 0.2730 0.087251
C12 0.1243 0.039726
C13 0.1067 0.034101 7 Risk evaluation of CRM project factors
C14 0.1515 0.048419 by using fuzzy AHP
C15 0.2440 0.077982
C16 0.1005 0.03212 The evaluation of project risks is a complex subject that
C2 0.3447 C21 0.3404 0.11734 includes uncertainty [75]. Since project managers consider
C22 0.3295 0.11358 that the evaluation of risk factors in some linguistic terms is
C23 0.1845 0.0636 simpler and more applicable, there are usually ambiguity
C24 0.1456 0.05019 and uncertainty in such evaluations. In such cases which
C3 0.1464 C31 0.5442 0.07967 people’s judgments and ideas should be considered because
C32 0.2019 0.02956 of the complexity of the subject and lack of precise data,
C33 0.1286 0.01883 fuzzy set theory is a powerful tool which can represent
C34 0.1253 0.01834 project managers’ knowledge suitably and naturally. In the
C4 0.1200 C41 0.4144 0.04973 AHP method, uncertainty related to person’s judgments
C42 0.3007 0.03608 does not play a role in selection and decision making. But
C43 0.1813 0.02176 incorporating fuzzy theory with AHP is capable to com-
C44 0.1036 0.01243 pensate this defect [75] used FAHP to evaluate risk of
C5 0.0693 C51 0.3870 0.02682 information technology projects for the first time. Due to
C52 0.2568 0.0178 the advantages of the above-mentioned method and nature
C53 0.2410 0.0167 of hierarchal structure presented in this paper, FAHP
C54 0.1151 0.00798 method has been applied to evaluate risk factors of CRM
projects. In this section, FAHP is implemented for evalu-
ating the risk factors of CRM project.
Saaty [64] suggested consistency index (C.I.) and con- The AHP study does not depend on a statistical sample
sistency ratio (C.R.) to validate the consistency of the that attempts to be representative of any population. It is a
matrix. Random index (R.I.) represents the average con- group decision technique requiring qualified experts who
sistency index over numerous random entries of the same have deep understanding of the issues [47]. The selection
order reciprocal matrices. The value of R.I depends on the of qualified experts and making decision about optimal
value of n and should be selected from Table 6. If number of experts depend on the characteristics of the
C:R:\0:1, the estimate is accepted; otherwise, a new study [67]. Tüysüz and Kahraman [75] used the judgments
comparison matrix is solicited. of 11 IT project managers as their experts for FAHP. Also
To find the consistency index (C.I.), eigen value of the according to studies by Salmeron and Lopez [67], Salm-
~ should be found first. The number kMax is defined as
matrix A eron and Herrero [66] and Okoli and Pawlowski [47], we
~ calculated by (11, 12):
the eigen value of the matrix ga;b ðAÞ can say that the total number of 9–18 experts can be a good
size for such a research. Thus in this research, 20 CRM
~  W ¼ kmax  W
ga;b ðAÞ ð11Þ experts were chosen to take part in the research. The par-
~  kmax   W ¼ 0
½ga;b ðAÞ ð12Þ ticipant CRM experts in this study were managers or CRM
specialists who participated in at least one CRM imple-
In which W is the eigenvector of matrix ga;b ðAÞ ~ and also mentation in Iran. The main selection criterion considered
W indicates the weights of criteria C1 to Cn. After finding in this study was accepted knowledge in the CRM project
kmax , values of C.I. and C.R. can be calculated from (13– 14): risk assessment. In order to select our experts, we tried to
kmax  n find those organizations that are using a CRM, CRM
C:I: ¼ ð13Þ vendors and CRM consultants in Iran. Eventually, we could
n1
find 18 organizations which were appropriate for our pur-
C:I:
C:R: ¼ ð14Þ poses. After negotiating with experts in these organiza-
R:I: tions, finally 20 experts accepted to participate in our study.
After calculating the weights for all levels of the The experts checked and approved the hierarchy and
proposed hierarchical tree, we can achieve the final weight participated in establishing the pair-wise comparison

123
Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53 S47

Table 15 Prioritizing the risk factors based on their weights tables. In this study, all experts’ opinions were considered
Risk factor General Weight Ranking to be of the same importance. To collect experts’ judg-
classification ments, a questionnaire including 49 pair-wise comparisons
Changes in the stakeholders and top Stakeholders 0.11734 1
in 9 scales has been used. After reviewing the literature and
management and top recognizing research variables, an initial set of questions
management
was developed to measure each factor. In order to assess
Managers’ incorrect cognition of Stakeholders 0.11358 2
CRM and its operational and and top the validity of the questionnaire, 2 academic experts
strategic benefits stakeholders and management viewed each of the items on the questionnaire for its con-
top management
tent, scope and purpose. Content validity indicates meeting
Insufficient perception of Organization 0.087251 3
organization and the environment and its the specific range of contents that have been selected [46].
context It also shows that measurement instruments have elements
Ambiguity in aims of CRM Project 0.07967 4 that cover all aspects of variables under measurement.
implementation organization
Weakness in customer strategy, Organization 0.077982 5
Content validity cannot be numerically measured, but we
customer-interaction strategy, and its can measure it subjectively and judgmentally. Basically,
brand strategy, and value-creation context content validity depends on the appropriateness of the
strategy
Absence of the CRM project in the Stakeholders 0.0636 6
content and the method of rendering [46]. Since the
company’s strategic plan and top selection of research variables is based on an intensive
management
survey of literature and all the elements are supported by
Insufficient funding for CRM Stakeholders 0.05019 7
project and top authentic research, the instrument has content validity. An
management example of this questionnaire for level 2 is given in the
Lack of strategic coordination Final users 0.04973 8 appendix of the paper.
between HRM and CRM
According to (2–6), based on Table 7, the fuzzy deci-
Lack of customer and change- Organization 0.048419 9
orientated culture and its sion matrices for the criteria of the second level are
context attained from a verbal questionnaire filled by 20 different
Immaturity of organization in IT and Organization 0.039726 10 experts and then converted to fuzzy numbers based on
Information Systems and its
context Azadeh et al. [5, 6] and Nazari-Shirkouhi et al. [45] scale
Lack of incentive systems for Final users 0.03608 11 that is shown in Table 8. In this paper, a and b are con-
encouraging customers to interact
actively with the organization
sidered equal to 0.5. Selecting a ¼ 0:5 indicates that
Weakness of communication Organization 0.034101 12 environmental uncertainty is steady; additionally, b ¼ 0:5
infrastructures and unfavorable and its indicates that a future attitude would be fair.
quality of internal context
communications After the fuzzy matrix is made, the matrix should be
Lack of organizational structure and Organization 0.03212 13 defuzzified. The final defuzzified matrix is shown in
customer-centric organizations and its Table 8.
context
Inter-functional conflict Project 0.02956 14 f0:5 ðl12 Þ ¼ ð0:654  0:125Þ  0:5 þ 0:125 ¼ 0:3895
organization
Not employing inter-functional Dynamic 0.02682 15
f0:5 ðu12 Þ ¼ 4  ð4  0:654Þ  0:5 ¼ 2:327
criteria of performance monitoring
and review g0:5;0:5 ða12 Þ ¼ ½0:5  0:3895 þ ð1  0:5Þ  2:327
Neglecting the customers trust and Final users 0.02176 16 ¼ 1:3582
privacy
Weakness in selecting the most Project 0.01883 17 And finally:
suitable technology organization
Weakness in implementation Project 0.01834 18
g0:5;0:5 ða21 Þ ¼ 1=1:3582 ¼ 0:7363
methodology and project organization
management Using Eqs. (11, 12) kMax and final weights of the criteria
Not employing process-oriented Dynamic 0.0178 19 of the second level are calculated as follows:
criteria of performance monitoring 2 3
and review 1k 1:3582 2:4424 2:4225 3:1182
6 7
Weakness of feedback system in Dynamic 0.0167 20 6 0:7363 1k 3:3587 3:1461 4:8024 7
6 7
correction of strategies and monitoring detðA  kIÞ ¼ 0 ) 6
6 0:4094 0:2977 1k 1:9156 2:1226 7
7¼ 0
processes and review 6 7
4 0:4128 0:3179 0:5220 1k 2:6303 5
Not involving final users in Final users 0.01243 21
designing the CRM solution 0:3207 0:2082 0:4711 0:3802 1k
Lack of benchmarking of similar Dynamic 0.00798 22 ð19Þ
organizations to define criteria of monitoring
performance measurement and and review After solving (19) kmax will be 5.1691. So by using (12)
comparing outcomes
W will be:

123
S48
ðA  kIÞ  W ¼ 0
2 3
4:1691 1:3582 2:4424 2:4225 3:1182
6 7
6 0:7363 4:1691 3:3587 3:1461 4:8024 7
6 7
)6 4:1691 1:9156 2:1226 7
6 0:4094 0:2977 7¼ 0
6 7
4 0:4128 0:3179 0:5220 4:1691 2:6303 5
0:3207 0:2082 0:4711 0:3802 4:1691
ð20Þ
After solving (20), W will be:
W ¼ ½ 0:3196 0:3447 0:1464 0:1200 0:0693  ð21Þ
As a result of the above-mentioned calculations, the
weights of five criteria of the second level, that is
‘‘organization and its context’’, ‘‘stakeholders and top
management’’, ‘‘project organization’’, ‘‘final users’’, and
‘‘dynamic monitoring and review’’ are 0.3196, 0.3447,
0.1464, 0.12, and 0.0693, respectively.
Then C.I. is calculated as the following:
kmax  n 5:1691  5
C:I: ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:04227;
n1 51 ð22Þ
C:I: 0:04227
C:R: ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:038  0:1
R:I: 1:11
The results indicate that the decision matrix for the
second level of the proposed hierarchical structure is
consistent and valid.
Table 9 shows the fuzzy decision matrices for the sub-
criteria of ‘‘organization and its context’’ criteria. Weights
of sub-criteria of ‘‘organization and its context’’ criteria are
calculated as final weights were calculated for the second
level of the criteria.
Table 10 shows the fuzzy decision matrices for the sub-
criteria of ‘‘Stakeholders and top management’’ criteria.
Weights of sub-criteria of ‘‘stakeholders and top manage-
ment’’ criteria are calculated as final weights were calcu-
lated for the second level of the criteria.
Table 11 shows the fuzzy decision matrices for the sub-
criteria of ‘‘project organization’’ criteria. Weights of sub-
criteria of ‘‘project organization’’ criteria are calculated as
final weights were calculated for the second level of the
criteria.
Table 12 shows the fuzzy decision matrices for the sub-
criteria of ‘‘final users’’ criteria. Weights of sub-criteria of
‘‘final users’’ criteria are calculated as final weights were
calculated for the second level of the criteria.
Table 13 shows the fuzzy decision matrices for the sub-
criteria of ‘‘dynamic monitoring and review’’ criteria.
Weights of sub-criteria of ‘‘dynamic monitoring and
review’’ criteria are calculated as final weights were cal-
culated for the second level of the criteria.
After calculating the weights of criteria of the second
level and sub-criteria related to them, it is time to calculate
final weights of sub-criteria in hierarchal structure. To
calculate the final weight of sub-criteria, which indicate the
123
Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53
importance of risk sub-criteria according to experts’ opin-
ions, it is necessary to multiply weights of sub-criteria of
the third level by weights of the first-level criteria in the
proposed framework in this paper. Table 14 shows the
weights of the first-level criteria, the weights of the second-
level criteria and final weights of criteria.
After calculating the final weight of each risk sub-fac-
tors, we can sort factors from maximum to minimum
weight and also prioritize risk factors CRM implementa-
tion in Iran from the most important to the least important
risk factors according to experts’ opinions. Table 15 indi-
cates the results of this priority.
According to the priority of the risk factors in CRM
project, among ten risk factors which are the most impor-
tant risk factors of CRM implementation in Iran based on
experts’ opinions, there are four risk factors in general
classification ‘‘stakeholders and top management’’, four
risk factors in ‘‘organization and its context’’ and just one
risk factor in each of the ‘‘final users’’ and ‘‘project
organization’’.
It can clearly be inferred from the results of this research
that project managers of CRM often evaluate the risk
factors which exist in the first phases of life cycle of CRM
project management (such as changes in the stakeholders
and top management, managers’ incorrect cognition of
CRM and its operational and strategic benefits, insufficient
perception of organization and the environment, ambiguity
in aims of CRM implementation), more important than
other risk factors and this is why most Iranian organiza-
tions are in the adoption phases of CRM and the first
phases of life cycle in CRM have passed or are ongoing in
Iranian organizations.
This research provides CRM project managers a com-
prehensive list of potential risk factors in CRM projects
and enables them to efficiently plan for avoiding or con-
fronting these risks. Moreover, CRM project managers can
understand the importance of each factor in the regional
context of Iran.
8 Conclusion
The main objective of this paper was extracting CRM
project’s risk factors and categorizing them in order to
create a novel hierarchical structure for evaluating risk of
CRM projects. We also tried to use a FAHP method to
prioritize and evaluate extracted factors. To achieve these
objectives, 30 peer reviewed papers from the CRM litera-
ture, which have discussed success/failure in CRM projects,
were reviewed and analyzed. Then we introduced a
checklist of 27 risk factors using the extracted risk factors
from the literature. Using King and Burgess’ [32] classifi-
cation, we proposed a comprehensive hierarchical structure.
Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53
As mentioned earlier, identifying and evaluating risk
factors are the most important steps of risk management
process. Hence, this research focuses on two steps of this
process which are identifying risk factors and presenting
hierarchical structure to evaluate CRM risk factors. The
literature of risk management in many projects of business
processes is full of checklists in which common risks of
fields have been compiled. These checklists play an
important role in increasing project managers’ under-
standing and cognition of various risks of projects and their
nature. Lack of such a comprehensive checklist was highly
tangible in the literature of CRM risk projects. The present
research is a basic step in this area. The high number of risk
factors and inadequate resources in organizations to
encounter them decreases the applicability of the compre-
hensive list of CRM risk factors. Hence, it is necessary to
prioritize CRM risk factors to increase applicability of the
list of risk factors. This was carried out by presenting the
hierarchical structure.
Previous frameworks only have focused on considering
some proposed success/failure factors or measuring their
effects on the system performance in CRM. For instance,
Mendoza et al. [41] listed 13 CSFs for CRM implemen-
tation. Also, the previous researches have mainly used
statistical tools which needed many samples to analyze, for
example, Roh et al. [60] used structural equation analysis
to prove the impact of CRM initiatives on firm’s profit-
ability, but we can do this by using the proposed hierar-
chical structure according to some experts’ judgments.
Being simpler, more complete and more comprehensive are
some advantages of this structure.
Results of applying FAHP method revealed that ‘change
in the stakeholders and top management’ is the most
important risk factor in Iranian firm’s environment. This is
consistent with the findings of Papadopoulos et al. [51]
who argued that top management support is one of the most
important risk factors in CRM implementation. Our experts
believed that management permanence is one of the main
reasons for facing failure in Iranian long-time projects. The
results of FAHP prove this belief. Thus, it is important to
develop some regulations and procedures in Iranian long-
time projects which changing managers could not affect the
trend of the project. This is consistent with the results of
Keramati et al. [28] which argues that lack of management
permanence is one of the major problems in IT-based
projects in Iran.
Mendoza et al. [41] disclosed that little understanding
of CRM is the third main cause of failure in CRM pro-
ject. Also, results of FAHP in our study proved that
managers’ incorrect cognition of CRM and its operational
and strategic benefits is the second important risk factor
in CRM projects. This result is not too surprising because
CRM is a new technology and it is important to train
S49
managers and help them to understand the concept of
CRM and its advantages for their business. By training
managers, they will be able to make better strategic
decisions and the problem of ambiguity in aims of CRM
projects (which is the fourth important risk factor) will be
solved automatically. Finally, insufficient perception of
organization and the environment is the third important
risk factor. This result is consistent with the findings of
Keramati et al. [30] which proved that lack of awareness
of organizational environment is an important factor for
facing failure in Iranian CRM projects. Organizations
should improve their perception of their environment
(especially their customers) by applying applicable
methods in market researches such as: segmentation,
forecasting future demands, etc. Analysis of current situ-
ations of the organization and paying more attention to
BPR before implementing CRM is one of the most
important sub-factors of appropriate perception of orga-
nization. Chang [15] proved that BPR plays a critical role
in CRM implementation.
On the other hand, among five risk factors of CRM
which have the minimum importance (weakness in
implementation methodology and project management,
not employing process-oriented criteria of performance,
weakness of feedback system in correction of strategies
and processes, not involving final users in designing the
CRM solution, lack of benchmarking of similar organi-
zations to define criteria of performance measurement and
comparing outcomes), three risk sub-factors are in the
general classification ‘‘dynamic monitoring and review’’.
This means project managers of CRM have considered
‘‘dynamic monitoring and review’’ as the least important
classification in CRM success/failure. The fact that CRM
implementation has a young history in Iranian organiza-
tions may have influenced this perception of CRM
experts.
The resulted hierarchal structure and the risk factor
checklist in the present research are more comprehensive
than other existing structures and checklists we have found
in the CRM literature. To the best of our knowledge, this is
the first study which uses a hierarchical structure in order to
prioritize risk factors in CRM context. Also, this is the first
study which provides a comprehensive set of CRM risk
factors in Iranian organization’s environment. The results
of this framework can easily be used in every firm that is
willing to use and implement CRM.
8.1 Managerial implications
The outcomes of this research can help organizations that
plan to implement CRM to have a right cognition of the
types of obstacles they may face on their way toward
successful CRM implementation. By obtaining this
123
S50
cognition, organizations are able to get ready and optimally
allocate and plan resources to encounter such obstacles.
On the other hand, organizations which provide service,
consult, and sale CRM software can use the results of this
research to successfully implement and perform CRM in
organizations applying these services. It is obvious that
success of project for organizations which sale CRM ser-
vices is as important as it is for their customers because
these organizations can increase the number of their future
customers by having a successful experience in their
history.
As the results of FAHP showed, ‘‘changes in the
stakeholders and top management’’ is the most important
risk factor in CRM implementation in Iran. As mentioned
earlier, this finding reveals that management permanence
can play a critical role in implementing CRM. Since CRM
implementation is an expensive and lengthy project, top
managers should be more patient. Constant changes in
managers, stakeholders and strategies would cause failure
in implementing the project.
Also the results of FAHP show that the second impor-
tant risk factor is a managerial issue. Our experts believed
that ‘‘Managers’ incorrect cognition of CRM and its
operational and strategic benefits’’ can be the second cause
of failure in CRM implementation projects in Iran. This
finding shows that our managers should be more familiar
with the benefits of CRM for their organizations. Attending
seminars, reading articles about CRM, passing CRM
courses can be suitable ways for managers to be more
aware of the advantages of CRM utilization in their
organization.
The third important risk factor in CRM implementation
has been recognized as ‘‘insufficient perception of organi-
zation and the environment’’. Analysis of current situations
of the organization (current process, human and techno-
logical resources, and the organizational culture) can
strongly affect choosing the appropriate solution in CRM
implementation. In other words, readiness assessment of
the organization and capability audit of the current situa-
tion of the organization can help managers to decrease the
CRM implementation risks.
Finally, although our experts considered some factors
such as ‘‘dynamic monitoring and review’’ as the least
important classification in CRM success/failure, this does
not mean that these factors are not important in CRM
implementation. As the results of many previous experi-
ences showed, monitoring and reviewing the CRM is
important in both system development stage and outcomes
of operational stage. Considering such risk factors as the
least important factors by our experts may have been
caused by the fact that CRM implementation is a new
project in Iran and the importance of such factors might
have not been recognized yet.
123
Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53
8.2 Future research directions
Using the FAHP methodology in this paper and repeating
the introduced methodology for the evaluation of risk
factors in other fields (for example, in a country other than
in Iran or by focusing on organization or by using CRM
project managers of the organizations that develop CRM
instead of purchasing CRM services) or repeating this
research in future years (by entering life cycle CRM
implementation in Iranian firms in the middle and final
phases) and comparing the results with the results of this
research is the policy which starts in this paper. Further-
more, using other methods such as TOPSIS, DEA in fuzzy
environment other than FAHP to evaluate risks of CRM
projects and comparing the results with the results of this
research are the proposed research fields of this paper.
8.3 Limitations
This study has some limitations that should be taken into
consideration, especially due to the fact that this study is
based on data from Iranian organizations. Consequently,
similar studies in other countries may result in different
results because of different cultures, different technologies,
etc. Also, lack of comprehensive lists in the CRM literature
and unavailability of some journals to review key papers
were the other problems of doing this research. The high
number of risk factors causes difficulties in prioritizing and
evaluating factors of a CRM project.
Acknowledgments The authors are grateful for the valuable com-
ments and suggestion from the respected reviewers. Their valuable
comments and suggestions have enhanced the strength and significance of
our paper. The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of
University of Tehran for this research under grant number 7314812/1/06.
Appendix: Questionnaire appraising relative
importance of criteria
Questionnaire instruction
If the criterion noted on the right is more important than the
one on the left, please check the cells on the right of the cell
‘‘Equally important’’. Vice versa, if the criterion noted on
the right is less important than the one on the left, please
check the cells on the left of the cell ‘‘Equally important’’.
Please note that from right to left the relative importance of
the criterion on the right to the criterion on the left decreases.
Empty cells between the importance cells show intermediate
importance between the according cells (for example the cell
between ‘‘Very strongly important’’ and ‘‘Absolutely
important’’ shows importance more than ‘‘Very strongly
important’’ but less than ‘‘Absolutely important).
Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53 S51

Absolutely Very Essentially Weakly Equally Weakly Essentially Very Absolutely

important strongly important important important important important strongly important
important important

Organization Stakeholders
and its and top
context management
Organization Project
and its organization
context
Organization Final users
and its
context
Organization Dynamic
and its monitoring
context and review
Stakeholders Project
and top organization
management
Stakeholders Final users
and top
management
Stakeholders Dynamic
and top monitoring
management and review
Project Final users
organization
Project Dynamic
organization monitoring
and review
Final users Dynamic
monitoring
and review

References 8. Boulding W, Staelin R, Ehret M, Johnston WJ (2005) A customer

1. Alavi M, Leidner D (1999) Knowledge management systems:
emerging views and practices from the field. In: Hawaii Inter-
national conference on system sciences, Los Alamitos
2. Al-Hudhaif SA (2011) The critical success factors for imple-
mentation of customer relationship management in the banking
sector of Saudi Arabia. J Glob Bus Manag 7(1):1–7
3. Aloini D, Dulmin R, Mininno V (2007) Risk management in ERP
project introduction: review of the literature. Inf Manag
44(6):547–567
4. Au KF, Wong WK, Zeng XH (2006) Decision model for country
site selection of overseas clothing plants. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 29(3):408–417
5. Azadeh A, Nazari-Shirkouhi S, Hatami-Shirkouhi L, Ansarinejad
A (2011) A unique fuzzy multi-criteria decision making: com-
puter simulation approach for productive operators’ assignment
in cellular manufacturing systems with uncertainty and vague-
ness. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 56(1):329–343
6. Azadeh A, Shirkouhi SN, Rezaie K (2010) A robust decision-
making methodology for evaluation and selection of simulation
software package. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 47(1):381–393
7. Beldi A, Cheffi W, Dey PK (2010) Managing customer rela-
tionship management projects: the case of a large French tele-
communications company. Int J Proj Manag 28(4):339–351
relationship management roadmap: what is known, potential
pitfalls, and where to go. J Mark 69(4):155–166
9. Bouma, JT (2009) Why participation works: the role of employee
involvement in the implementation of the customer relationship
management type of organizational change. Ph.D. thesis, SOM
Research School, University of Groningen, Groningen
10. Bouyssou D, Marchant T, Pirlot M, Perny P, Tsoukias A, Vincke
Ph (2000) Evaluation and decision models: a critical perspective.
Kluwer, Boston
11. Buckley JJ (1985) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst
17(3):233–247
12. Chalmeta R (2006) Methodology for customer relationship
management. J Syst Softw 79(7):1015–1024
13. Chan FT, Kumar N (2007) Global supplier development con-
sidering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach.
Omega 35(4):417–431
14. Chang DY (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on
fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95(3):649–655
15. Chang H (2007) Critical factors and benefits in the implemen-
tation of customer relationship management. Total Qual Manag
18(5):483–508
16. Chen Q, Chen HM (2004) Exploring the success factors of eCRM
strategies in practice. J Database Mark Cust Strategy Manag
11(4):333–343

123
S52
17. Chen IJ, Popovich K (2003) Understanding customer relationship
management (CRM): people, process and technology. Bus Pro-
cess Manag J 9(5):672–688
18. Cheng CH (1997) Evaluating naval tactical missile systems by
fuzzy AHP based on the grade value of membership function. Eur
J Oper Res 96(2):343–350
19. Cooper MJ, Gwin CF, Wakefield KL (2008) Cross-functional
interface and disruption in CRM projects: is marketing from
Venus and information systems from Mars? J Bus Res
61(4):292–299
20. Croteau A, Li P (2003) Critical success factors of CRM tech-
nological initiatives. Can J Adm Sci 20(1):21–34
21. Dagdeviren M, Yüksel İ (2008) Developing a fuzzy analytic
hierarchy process (AHP) model for behavior-based safety man-
agement. Inf Sci 178(6):1717–1733
22. Fox T, Stead S (2001) Customer relationship management:
delivering the benefits. White Paper, CRM (UK) and SECOR
Consulting, New Malden
23. Gargeya VB, Brady C (2005) Success and failure factors of
adopting SAP in ERP system implementation. Bus Process
Manag J 11(5):501–516
24. Haq N, Kannan G (2006) Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for
evaluating and selecting a vendor in a supply chain model. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol 29(7–8):826–835
25. Iranmanesh H, Shirkouhi SN, Skandari MR (2008) Risk evalua-
tion of information technology projects based on fuzzy analytic
hierarchal process. Int J Comput Inf Sci Eng 2(1):38–44
26. Kale SH (2004) CRM failure and the seven deadly sins are your
CRM undertakings lost in a sea of failed or uncompleted pro-
jects? Mark Manag 13(5):42–47
27. Kaufmann A, Gupta MM (1988) Fuzzy mathematical models
in engineering and management science. Elsevier Science Inc,
New York
28. Keramati A, Afshari-Mofrad M, Kamrani A (2011) The role of
readiness factors in E-Learning outcomes: an empirical study.
Comput Educ 57:1919–1929
29. Keramati A, Mojir N, Afshari-Mofrad M, Jahanandish I, Dera-
khshani A (2012) An artificial neural network-based DSS to
prioritise information technology and its complementary invest-
ments in industrial firms. Int J Bus Inf Syst 9(2):149–168
30. Keramati A, Zavareh JT, Ellioon A, Moshki H (2008) The
adoption of customer relationship management (CRM): an
empirical study on Iranian firms. Int J Electron Cust Relationsh
Manag 1(4):354–373
31. Kimberling E (2006) In search of business value: how to achieve
the benefits of ERP technology’’, white paper. Panorama Con-
sulting Group, Denver
32. King SF, Burgess TF (2008) Understanding success and failure in
customer relationship management. Ind Mark Manag 37(4):421–431
33. Krigsman M (2009) CRM failure rates: 2001–2009. Technology
News, Analysis, Comments and Product Reviews for IT Profes-
sionals ZDNet, 2001–2009
34. Li L, Shi ZH, Yin W, Zhu D, Ng SL, Cai CF, Lei AL (2009) A
fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach to eco-envi-
ronmental vulnerability assessment for the danjiangkou reservoir
area, China. Ecol Model 220(23):3439–3447
35. Lindgreen A, Palmer R, Vanhamme J, Wouters J (2006) A
relationship-management assessment tool: questioning, identify-
ing, and prioritizing critical aspects of customer relationships. Ind
Mark Manag 35(1):57–71
36. Liou TS, Wang MJ (1992) Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral
value. Fuzzy Sets Syst 50(3):247–255
37. Lopes F (2011) Critical success factors of customer relationship
management implementation in residential real estate. Disser-
tação de Mestrado. Universidade Técnica de Lisboa. Instituto
Superior de Economia e Gestão, Technical report
123
Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53
38. Mack O, Mayo MC, Khare A (2005) A strategic approach for
successful CRM: a European perspective. Probl Perspect Manag
2:98–106
39. Mao-qin G, Ling G, Qi X (2011). The critical success factors for
the banks implementing e-CRM. In: E-Business and E-Govern-
ment (ICEE), 2011 international conference on (pp 1–4)
40. McFarlan FW (1981) Portfolio approach to information systems.
Harv Bus Rev 59(5):142–150
41. Mendoza LE, Marius A, Perez M, Grimán AC (2007) Critical
success factors for a customer relationship management strategy.
Inf Softw Technol 49(8):913–945
42. Mikhailov L (2000) A fuzzy programming method for deriving
priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. J Oper Res Soc
51(3):341–349
43. Mikhailov L, Tsvetinov P (2004) Evaluation of services using a
fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Appl Soft Comput 5(1):
23–33
44. Naghadehi MZ, Mikaeil R, Ataei M (2009) The application of
fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach to selection of
optimum underground mining method for Jajarm Bauxite Mine,
Iran. Expert Syst Appl 36(4):8218–8226
45. Nazari-Shirkouhi S, Ansarinejad A, Miri-Nargesi S, Dalfard VM,
Rezaie K (2011) Information systems outsourcing decisions
under fuzzy group decision making approach. Int J Inf Technol
Decis Mak 10(06):989–1022
46. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn.
McGraw Hill, New York, pp 214–286
47. Okoli C, Pawlowski SD (2004) The Delphi method as a research
tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inf
Manag 42(1):15–29
48. O’Malley L, Mitussis D (2002) Relationships and technology:
strategic implications. J Strateg Mark 10(3):225–238
49. Özdağoğlu A, Özdağoğlu G (2007) Comparison of AHP and
fuzzy AHP for the multi-criteria decision making processes with
linguistic evaluations. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri
Dergisi 6(11):65–85
50. Özgener S, Iraz R (2006) Customer relationship management in
small-medium enterprises: the case of Turkish tourism industry.
Tour Manag 27(6):1356–1363
51. Papadopoulos T, Ojiako U, Lee K (2011) The criticality
of implementation risk factors in CRM projects. Project Manag J
(in press)
52. Payne A (2006) Handbook of CRM: achieving excellence in
customer management. Butterworth-Heinemann
53. Payne A, Frow P (2006) Customer relationship management:
from strategy to implementation. J Mark Manag 22(1):135–168
54. Peelen E, van Montfort K, Beltman R, Klerkx A (2009) An
empirical study into the foundations of CRM success. J Strateg
Mark 17(6):453–471
55. Plouffe CR, Williams BC, Leigh TW (2004) Who’s on first?
Stakeholder differences in customer relationship management
and the elusive notion of ‘‘shared understanding’’. J Pers Sell
Sales Manag 24(4):323–338
56. Raman P, Wittmann CM, Rauseo NA (2006) Leveraging CRM
for sales: the role of organizational capabilities in successful
CRM implementation. J Pers Sell Sales Manag 26(1):39–53
57. Reichheld FR, Sasser WE (1990) Zero defections: quality comes
to services. Harv Bus Rev 68(5):105–111
58. Rigby DK, Reichheld FF, Schefter P (2002) Avoid the four perils
of CRM. Harv Bus Rev 80(2):101–109
59. Roberts ML, Liu RR, Hazard K (2005) Strategy, technology and
organizational alignment: key components of CRM success.
J Database Mark Cust Strategy Manag 12(4):315–326
60. Roh TH, Ahn CK, Han I (2005) The priority factor model for
customer relationship management system success. Expert Syst
Appl 28(4):641–654
Neural Comput & Applic (2013) 23 (Suppl 1):S29–S53
61. Ryals L, Knox S (2001) Cross-functional issues in the imple-
mentation of relationship marketing through customer relation-
ship management. Eur Manag J 19(5):534–542
62. Ryals L, Payne A (2001) Customer relationship management in
financial services: towards information-enabled relationship
marketing. J Strateg Mark 9(1):3–27
63. Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical
structures. J Math Psychol 15(3):234–281
64. Saaty TL (1980) The analytical hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill,
New York
65. Saaty TL (1986) Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy
process. Manag Sci 32(7):841–855
66. Salmeron J, Herrero I (2005) An AHP-based methodology to rank
critical success factors of executive information systems. Comput
Stand Interfaces 28(1):1–12
67. Salmeron JL, Lopez C (2010) A multicriteria approach for risks
assessment in ERP maintenance. J Syst Softw 83(10):1941–1953
68. Schmidt R, Lyytinen K, Keil M, Cule P (2001) Identifying
software project risks: an international Delphi study. J Manag Inf
Syst 17(4):5–36
69. Shang SSC, Lin SF (2010) People-driven processes in customer
relationship management. Serv Ind J 30(14):2441
70. Sin LYM, Tse ACB, Yim FHK (2005) CRM: conceptualization
and scale development. Eur J Mark 39(11/12):1264–1290
71. Strauss J, Frost R (2008) E-marketing. Prentice Hall, New York
72. Sun CC (2010) A performance evaluation model by integrating
fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst Appl 37(12):
7745–7754
73. Torkzadeh G, Chang JC, Hansen GW (2006) Identifying issues in
customer relationship management at Merck-Medco. Decis
Support Syst 42(2):1116–1130
View publication stats
S53
74. Torkzadeh G, Chang JC, Hansen GW (2006) Identifying issues in
customer relationship management at Merck-Medco. Decis
Support Syst 42(2):1116–1130
75. Tüysüz F, Kahraman C (2006) Project risk evaluation using a
fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: an application to information
technology projects. Int J Intell Syst 21(6):559–584
76. Van Laarhoven PJM, Pedrycz W (1983) A fuzzy extension of
Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst 11(1–3):199–227
77. Wilson H, Daniel E, McDonald M (2002) Factors for success in
customer relationship management (CRM) systems. J Mark
Manag 18(1):193–219
78. Wu J (2008) Customer relationship management (CRM) imple-
mentation in China: a case study of legend group. Res Practical
Issues Enterp Inf Syst II 255:1441–1447
79. Xia D, Chen B (2011) A comprehensive decision-making model
for risk management of supply chain. Expert Syst Appl 38:4957–
4966
80. Yang CC, Chen BS (2004) Key quality performance evaluation
using fuzzy AHP. J Chin Inst Ind Eng 21(6):543–550
81. Yim FH, Anderson RE, Swaminathan S (2004) Customer rela-
tionship management: its dimensions and effect on customer
outcomes. J Pers Sell Sales Manag 24(4):265–280
82. Zablah AR, Bellenger DN, Johnston WJ (2004) An evaluation of
divergent perspectives on customer relationship management:
towards a common understanding of an emerging phenomenon.
Ind Mark Manag 33(6):475–489
83. Zaerpour N, Rabbani M, Gharehgozli A, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam
R (2009) A comprehensive decision making structure for parti-
tioning of make-to-order, make-to-stock and hybrid products.
Soft Comput 13(11):1035–1054
123