A

PROJECT REPORT

ON

“CRM implementation in marketing”

SUBMITTED

To

CENTRE FOR ONLINE LEARNING

Dr. D.Y.PATIL VIDYAPEETH, PUNE

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF DEGREEOF

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

BY

Aashvin Chadha

PRN: 22115537

BATCH: 2022-2024

1
 Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth’s
CENTRE FOR ONLINE LEARNING,
Sant TukaramNagar,Pune.

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Miss. Aashvin Chadha PRN – 22115537 has completed her

working Professional at Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd starting from

05/11/2023 to 20/12/2023. Her project work was a part of the MBA (ONLINE

LEARNING) The project is on “CRM implementation in marketing” Which includes

research as well as industry practices. She was very sincere and committed in all tasks.

Course Coordinator Director

_________________
----------------------------

( ) ( )

Date -

2
20-December-2023

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

This is to certify that Aashvin Chadha, holding Badge: 665980 is employed with Dell

International Services India Pvt Ltd in India. Aashvin Chadha was hired on 21-April-

2014 and is currently working as a Representative 2, Inside Sales. This letter is being

issued only for the purpose of To Enroll for Higher Studies

This is a system-generated document and does not require a signature. Any unauthorized

use, disclosure, dissemination, or copying of this document is strictly prohibited and may

be unlawful. If you have any queries contact letters.admin@dell.com

Dell International Services India Private Limited Corporate Identification Number:

U74999KA1996FTC055568 Registered office: Crystal Downs, Survey no. 7/1, 7/2, 7/3,
Embassy Golf Links Business Park, Off-Intermediate Ring Road, Domlur, Challaghatta Village,
Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru- 560071, Karnataka, India. Main: +91 08028077749 Email Id:
Info@Dell.com , Website: DellTechnologies.com

3
 DECLARATION BY LEARNER

This is to declare that I have carried out this project work myself in part fulfillment of the

M.B.A Program of Centre for Online Learning of Dr.D.Y.Patil Vidyapeeth’s, Pune –

411018

The work is original, has not been copied from anywhere else, and has not been

submitted to any other University / Institute for an award of any degree / diploma.

Date: - Signature: -

Place: Name: Miss. Aashvin Chadha

4
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Prof Vikas Pawar for providing me an

opportunity to do my project work in “CRM implementation in marketing”. I also wish

to express my gratitude to the officials and other staff members who rendered their help

during the period of my project work.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to Prof Safia Farooqui the Director of Dr.

D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth Center for Online Learning for providing me the opportunity to

embark on this project. My sincere thanks to Vikas pawar for guiding all the time for

project.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents and friends. who helped me a lot in

finishing this project.

Signature: -

Name: Miss. Aashvin Chadha

5
 Table of content
Sr. Item Page
No. No
1 Executive Summary 6

2 Chapter 1: Introduction (Company Profile & General 8

Introduction of Topic)

& Objective, Scope and Purpose of Study

3 Chapter 2: Literature Review 12

4 Chapter 3: Research methodology 24

5 Chapter 4: Data Analysis 31

6 Chapter 5: Findings, suggestions, recommendation 51

7 Chapter 6: Conclusion 57

8 Bibliography (Books, Journals, research work) 59

9 Reference (Website, company paper) 60

10 Annexure (A to C) 69

11 A- Questionnaire 69

12 B- Scope for future study 70

13 C- Photograph, Drawings 71

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

6
 Introduction. The implementation of CRM systems for small companies have not

been widely explored by previous literatures, giving me the opportunity to research the

system implementation process of Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd. The purpose

of this research is to understand how to process an implementation of a CRM system

within the frame of a company.

Theoretical Framework. The theoretical framework encompasses the concepts of

CRM and previous theories on implementation processes: one focusing on business

implementation of CRM (Chalmeta, 2006), and another focusing on the IS

implementation of CRM (Cooper and Zmud, 1990). The literatures represent a ground to

understand the implementation process of Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd.

Methodology. The paper is an action research, a relevant research design to the

implementation process of Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd in real-world

settings. The sampling are project documents from the CRM projects implementation,

implicating technical records from Company Dell Technology, and an interview with a

key actor of Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd implementation process.

Empirical findings. The results showcased different themes and subthemes that

arose in the system implementation process of Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd

which are correlated in the analysis to previous theories.

Analysis. The analysis of this action research explores the question of Dell

International Services India Pvt Ltd implementation stages. Because CRM is a

multidisciplinary subject, grouping technology, people and processes creates a

systematic perspective over Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd results with 2

7
theories: one emphasizing a business implementation perspective (Chalmeta, 2006), and

one information system implementation perspective (Cooper and Zmud, 1990).

Conclusion. The implementation process was executed, having a large scope

grouping 3 themes: problem discussion, implementation and management of change

(Chalmeta, 2006). These 3 themes revealed implementation stages such as initiation,

adoption, adaptation, acceptance, routinization and infusion (Cooper and Zmud, 1990).

The implementation process approached different factor in Dell International Services

India Pvt Ltd : user, organization, task and technology.

8
Chapter 1: Introduction

9
1. INTRODUCTION:

1.1. Background.

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is not a clear concept (Pohludka and

Štverková, 2019, p.3). CRM “refers to a strategy, a set of tactics, and a technology that

has become indispensable in the modern economy” (Kumar and Reinartz, 2018, p.6).

CRM is a wide concept (Pohludka and Štverková, 2019) that initially focused on keeping

customer loyalty (Gilbert, Lee‐Kelley and Mannicom, 2003) and developing strong

customers’ relationships. However, this side of CRM represents, today, only the tip of

the iceberg.

CRM has been gaining interest from scholars (Peppard, 2000; Osarenkhoe and

Bennani, 2007; Wilson et al., 2002) because of its multidisciplinary role in “marketing,

operations, sales, customer service, R&D and IT” (Buttle, 2001, p.52). CRM grew into a

field that interrelates people, processes, and significantly more technology (Almotairi,

2009), but why? “Since CRM uses IT as an enabler, the importance of its

implementation has been revealed by different authors in both academia and industry”

(Lawson-Body, Lawson-Body and Willoughby, 2017, p.759). Hence, technology makes

CRM an interesting topic (Buttle, 2001) to explore because of its advances in CRM

systems (Chen and Popovich, 2003).

A CRM system is an information system (IS) aiming to develop and leverage

customer relationships digitally (Foss, Stone and Ekinci, 2008). A CRM system can have

different goals like providing digitalized customer support or generating sales, for

instance (Intercom, 2021; Growbots, 2021). “[CRM and its system] are gaining

10
increasing interest from smaller businesses” (Greenberg, 2010, p.410). However,

literature express a gap of knowledge, having mainly examined the implementation of

CRM systems for large companies (Buttle, 2001; Buttle, 2003) without testing these ones

on large companies. Small companies lack research on implementing CRM systems

fitting their organizational size.

1.2. Case Background.

Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd is a company located in Texas, USA,

that specializes in the IT and deal in computer/servers, cloud. The company possesses

over a hundred customers in the Nordics. Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd chose

automation as a strategy to be cost efficient in its CRM to prepare an efficient growth on

the market, choosing hence, to not hire more human resources Dell International

Services India Pvt Ltd wants to have several CRM tasks to become automated, meaning

the company wants to implement a CRM system in its organization. The challenge that

this case reveals is in the implementation process. Indeed, Dell International Services

India Pvt Ltd needs to implement a CRM system when there is a lack of knowledge on

understanding implementation processes for large companies.

1.3. Problem discussion.

“Many management specialists embraced the vague notion of CRM […] and

rushed its implementation despite the lack of best practices, and without understanding

of the enormity and complexity of restructuring required” (Piskar and Faganel, 2009,

p.201). Previous literature also explain that implementation inefficiency is one of the

main causes of CRM failures (Mendoza et al., 2007). There are literatures on CRM

systems (Ibrahim, Mohd and Rababah, 2011; Foss, Stone and Ekinci, 2008) but they are,

11
however, not specifically designed for SMEs’ implementation processes (Bull, 2003;

Almohaimmeed, 2021; Toggler, 2008), and these ones have few articles (Pohludka and

Štverková, 2019) addressed to implement a CRM system. Compared to large companies’

literatures, there exist no common practice on integrating automation successfully in

these SME (Greenberg, 2010; Toggler, 2008). Hence, the research investigates the

implementation process of a large company’s CRM system implementation:

How to implement a CRM system in a large company?

1.3. Problem research.

This study is an action research that focuses on the process of CRM system

implementation. The paper aims to contribute to the CRM system literature, encircling

existing business and technology processes, to test whether these processes could suit

small companies as they were not originally designed for them. The study’s delimitations

are from August 2020 - due to the implementation project done from that time - to April

2021 at Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd (staying under anonymity), Stockholm,

Sweden.

Objectives

 Improved Customer Satisfaction

 Improve The Efficiency Of Your Business

 Enhance Your Sales And Support Teams

 Decrease your customer acquisition cost

12
Chapter 2: Literature Review

13
2. Literature Review

The literature section examines how to implement a CRM system in a large

company with the knowledge of previous theories to understand different perspectives on

implementation processes. The literature section firstly examines the CRM form that one

should implement in a large company. Subsequently, the section describes the criteria of

a CRM system, to thirdly, introduce two different frameworks of implementation for a

CRM system. Lastly, the section sums up a conceptual framework.

2.1. CRM forms

“CRM is primarily about harmonizing customer strategies and business

processes, all in order to increase customer loyalty and business profitability” (Pohludka

and Štverková, 2019, p.3). CRM can be implemented in three forms (Chan and

Khodakarami, 2014). These ones are named operational, analytical and collaborative

CRM (Chan and Khodakarami, 2014), and they generate different business processes.

There also exists another form which is called strategic CRM (Ibrahim, Mohd, and

Rababah, 2011) but this one is not studied here because I examine the implementation

process from an already existing strategy (1.2. Case Background). Companies implement

the CRM forms (operational, analytical and collaborative) that are relevant to their

strategies, in other words, relevant to their business priorities (Ibrahim, Mohd and

Rababah, 2011). These ones can be “involving acquiring customers, knowing them well,

providing services and anticipating their needs” (Chan and Khodakarami, 2014, p.29).

Ibrahim, Mohd and Rababah (2011) emphasize that large companies become more

efficient when implementing all the forms of CRM in systems; while Toggler (2008)

explains that implementing all CRM forms is unsuitable to small companies because the
14
implementation required is too complex (Toggler, 2008). As there is no conceptual

process directly designed for small companies (Greenberg, 2010; Toggler, 2008); it is

interesting to understand the CRM forms’ complexities to implement a system that is

match for large companies.

Operational CRM “was called ‘the front-office of CRM’, and is responsible for

supporting organization-customer interactions by underpinning customer service”

(Almohaimmeed, 2021, p.711). Front-office means the side that is in touch with

customers (Ibrahim, Mohd and Rababah, 2011). Operational CRM’s tasks deal with

automation and streamlining workflow a the front office which includes collecting data,

processing transactions, and controlling workflow at the sales, marketing, and services”

(Ibrahim, Mohd and Rababah, 2011, p.23). Operational CRM pinpoints the process of

short-sales process and e-commerce businesses (Kulpa, 2017). This CRM form encircles

customer interactions, customer service, marketing inbound and outbound (Kulpa, 2017).

Hence, operational CRM represents the core of a functioning CRM because it is the form

whose tasks directly relate to the customers (Buttle, 2003). Focusing on implementing

operational CRM in small companies means to implement CRM’s essentials without

implementing complex data structures.

Analytical CRM “was termed ‘the back office of CRM’, and is responsible for

understanding customers through customer data analysis” (Almohaimmeed, 2021,

p.711). Back-office means the side that refers to data management. Analytical CRM is a

‘data complex’ CRM form because it “builds on operational CRM and analyze customer

data to create information about the customer segmentation” (Ibrahim, Mohd and

Rababah, 2011, p.23). Analytical CRM is more elaborated (Almohaimmeed, 2021;

Appendix 5, Appendix 6) than operational CRM regarding technical knowledge because

15
this form requires data analysis, data mining and data warehousing (Almohaimmeed,

2021). By collecting and interpreting the data information of customers, analytical CRM

offers product development opportunities; however, a challenge that small companies

often experience is a lack of financial resources to realize these projects (Toggler, 2008)

compared to large companies (Ibrahim, Mohd and Rababah, 2011). Hence, a large

company is often drawn a financial limit to implement analytical CRM (Toggler, 2008).

Analytical CRM represents a time-consuming process (Gavval et al., 2020), which is

difficult to achieve (Bhatnagar and Ranjan, 2010). Analytical CRM is a significant factor

of failures from CRM projects (SAS, 2003), pointing analytical CRM as: a lack of an

integrated view of customers, a lack in customer intelligence, and an inaptitude to act on

this one quickly (Buttle and Iriana, 2007). Translating this highly complex CRM form

(Toggler, 2008) into small companies would already mean to have a working operational

CRM. Hence, operational CRM represents a business priority to implement as a CRM

system first (Almohaimmeed, 2021), so analytical CRM may be implemented only when

small companies would possess enough financial and time resources.

Collaborative CRM is a vague concept because it is lastly developing (Alt and

Reinhold, 2009). “Many researchers counted it as a subset of the operational CRM,

focusing on customer integration using a set of interaction channels, and working

intimately with selected customers, suppliers, and business partners” (Ibrahim, Mohd and

Rababah, 2011, p.23). Hence, collaborative CRM is represented through several

customers touchpoints (Appendix 4), meaning an interaction moment between the

customer and the company (Alt and Reinhold, 2009). Customer touchpoints can be

effortless to create (linked to operational CRM; Appendix 2) but they can also be highly

complex (linked to analytical CRM; Appendix 5) because collaborative CRM represents

16
the technical integration of both operational and analytical CRM forms (Ibrahim, Mohd

and Rababah, 2011). Hence, collaborative CRM can focus on a multi- channel

management of interaction with the customers (Alt and Reinhold, 2009). In other words,

collaborative CRM is not a priority to implement per se, because it can be withheld in a

CRM system that runs operational CRM.

2.2. CRM system.

“A CRM system is a technology-based business management tool for developing

and leveraging customer knowledge to nurture, maintain, and strengthen profitable

relationships with customers” (Foss, Stone and Ekinci, 2008, p.69). Because CRM

systems are commonly implemented in large companies (Bhatnagar and Ranjan, 2008),

these ones are often represented as complex IT systems in theories (Chan and

Khodakarami, 2014). Indeed, “unlike small firms, the need to manage large

organizations forces larger firms to attempt ambitious rollouts of CRM systems”

(Bohling et al., 2006, p.190). These rollouts emerged from information systems (IS) that

“have long been recognized as an enabler to radically redesign business processes”

(Chen and Popovich, 2003, p.673). However, the IS’ beneficial effects on large

companies may not infer the same effects on small companies, because a small business

is not a little big business (Harvard Business Review, 1981). Hence, there are different

ways of implementing a CRM system to fit one’s company (Foss, Stone and Ekinci,

2008) which can be to follow existing models (2.3. and 2.4.); or to develop further from

the existing models if these ones are not suitable (Foss, Stone and Ekinci, 2008, p.69).

Ibrahim, Mohd and Rababah (2011) developed a model of CRM pre-

implementation (fig.1) aiming to organize the CRM forms before a ‘real-world’

17
implementation. As literatures lack system implementation process framework for small

companies, Ibrahim, Mohd and Rababah’s renown model (2011) can still be used to

familiarize with CRM systems. The authors categorized the CRM forms in the

framework to emphasize different business priorities. For instance, the CRM system

implementation model emphasizes operational CRM and analytical CRM (Ibrahim,

Mohd and Rababah, 2011). The model describes operational CRM as a multi-channel

integration process, e.g., sales automation, marketing automation, customer support,

information system integration (Almotairi, 2009).

Figure 1. The CRM pre-implementation model (Ibrahim, Mohd and Rababah, 2011).

There is, on the other hand, an underlying omnipresence of analytical CRM

(Ibrahim, Mohd and Rababah, 2011). The information management process (fig.1)

represents the set of concepts mentioned earlier in analytical CRM, meaning this one
18
entails a complex information system (Kirsch, 1996). Ibrahim, Mohd and Rababah’s

model (2008) can be relevant for small companies’ operational CRM, whilst analytical

CRM may be unsuitable for them (Toggler, 2008). Indeed, analytical CRM is often too

challenging for small companies to fully implement and use proactively (Toggler, 2008),

often lacking financial resources (Forbes Financial Council, 2020). Pohludka and

Štverková (2019) that aimed at understanding the CRM system implementations’

benefits on SMEs, did not mentioned, either, the implementation of data complex system

like analytical CRM systems for large companies. Hence, there is a contrast between the

emphasis of analytical CRM in Ibrahim, Mohd and Rababah’s framework (that shows a

process), and the absence of investigating analytical CRM from Pohludka and Štverková

(2019).

As Pohludka and Štverková’s (2019) research focuses on the outcome, their

research cannot be taken here as main literature here to analyze a process. Regardless,

Pohludka and Štverková’s (2019) mainly focused on operational CRM to understand

SMEs’ best implementation results.

The lack of focus on analytical CRM in CRM research for small companies

(Pohludka and Štverková’s, 2019; Toggler, 2008), and the previous identification of

analytical CRM can infer that small companies can focus, at first, on operational CRM.

Indeed, Toggler conducted a study on SMEs’ CRM practices results (2008) and found

that analytical CRM was too complex for small companies’ structures (Toggler, 2008),

leaving operational CRM as a form of interest to implement for SMEs (Toggler, 2008).

Hence, the large company’s CRM system implementation prioritizes the implementation

of operational CRM, meaning the automation of customer support, customer onboarding

and short-sales processes (Kulpa, 2017).

19
2.3. CRM system implementation

As I research on the implementation of a CRM system, the focus is onto the

process, the technology, and the consistency that ties both in the organization. Fig.3

shows the CRM-Iris methodology (Chalmeta, 2006; fig.2) which is a framework that

works as a waterfall method (fig.2). A waterfall method means a sequential and

downward process working through phases of analysis (Alshamrani and Bahattab, 2015).

The framework defines phases of “1. organizational framework, 2. customer strategy, 3.

system for assessing customer relationship, 4. process map, 5. implementation and 6.

monitoring” (Chalmeta, 2006, p.1018). The framework’s 5th phase named

implementation. The IRIS Methodology Implementation phase consists of (Chalmeta,

2006, p.1018):

1. Project definition and prioritization

2. Implementation

3. Management of change.

20
 Chalmeta (2006) highlights that the Implementation phase is to be aligned with 1.

the organizational framework and 2. the customer strategy of the company, meaning that

the CRM system should fit into a strategic alignment (Trevor, J. and Varcoe, 2016;

Pohludka and Štverková, 2019). On the one hand, the CRM-Iris Methodology is

appropriate to understand a CRM system implementation. Indeed, this one has a general

perspective on implementation that generates the reflection needed to understand the

cruciality of aligning a system with its organization and customer strategy providing,

hence, a large frame. On the other hand, this large frame might cause obscurity in its

implementation, e.g., the stage of 2. Implementation (fig.3), wherein the transformative

stage may lack adequate conceptualization on how to transform a 1. project definition

(fig.3) in a system that enables 3. change management (fig.3). For instance, what are the

concerned factors during the implementation stage (fig.3)? Or, to what extent are the

factors important in the management of change? Is there a change of dynamic between

conducting the implementation’s stage, and the management of change’s stage?

21
 Hence, Chalmeta’s framework may answer theoretically how to implement a

CRM system in a large company with his framework containing a general perspective,

however, other literature may also emphasize supplementary implementation stages

focusing more about system implementation and factors that may influence the

implementation process.

2.4. IT implementation process.

Detailing the implementation process.

Compared to Chalmeta’s perspective of CRM system implementation process,

another theory emphasizing technology in the implementation process could reveal a

different framework. As a CRM system is an IS (glossary, p.9), the IT implementation

literature allows me to gather in- depth technological knowledge in order to grasp a

systematic perspective on the implementation process that a CRM system can have in a

large company.

Table 1. Cooper and Zmud (1990) IT Implementation Model.

The table of Cooper and Zmud (1990) represents an implementation process detailing

different stages and factors (table 1). Cooper and Zmud dive into 5 factors that one faces

22
when implementing a system (1990). They identify user, organization, task, technology

and environment (Cooper and Zmud, 1990) (table 2).

User “Job tenure, education, resistance to change” (Cooper and Zmud, 1990,
p.125).
Organization “Specialization, centralization, formalization” (Cooper and Zmud, 1990,
p.125).
Task “To which the technology is being applied” task uncertainty and
autonomy” (Cooper and Zmud, 1990, p.125).
Technology Its “complexity” (Cooper and Zmud, 1990, p.125).
Environment “Uncertainty, interorganizational dependence” (Cooper and Zmud, 1990,
p.125).

When implementing a system with regards to the factors, there is a “good

probability of significantly enhancing an understanding of the implementation process”

(Cooper and Zmud, 1990, p.125). Moreover, Cooper and Zmud (1990) explain that the

exploration of results when researching an implementation process can be eased through

the comparison of the factors in the different stages (table 3) being initiation, adoption,

adaptation, acceptance, routinization and infusion (Cooper and Zmud, 1990).

Initiation First stage aiming to start off the process (Grillitsch, Müller-Stingl and
Neumann, 2007) in terms of tasks determination (Cooper and Zmud, 1990).
Adoption Early stage aiming to appropriate oneself of task and technology (Cooper
and Zmud, 1990).
Adaptation Stage identifying the change of the users and the organization (Cooper and
Zmud, 1990).

23
 Acceptance Identification of the process’ factors early outcomes (Cooper and Zmud,
1990).
Routinization Ongoing process (Cooper and Zmud, 1990).
Infusion Incrementation of the process tasks and technology (Cooper and Zmud,
1990).

2.5. Conceptual Framework.

The previous literature examines the implementation process of a CRM system. This

research investigates CRM system encompassing 4 themes to understand how to

implement a CRM system in a large company.

1) The implementation of a chosen CRM form, aiming to understand which part of

CRM one would implement in a large company.

2) The identification of a CRM system, exploring the question of which CRM form

is suitable in a large company’s CRM system.

3) The CRM implementation, showing the implementation of CRM digitally

following its business and customer strategy consistency.

4) The system implementation, representing the technological implementation

process of implementing a suitable system for a large company.

The conceptual frameworks – the IRIS Methodology (Chalmeta, 2006) and the IT

Implementation Model (Cooper and Zmud, 1990) – do not aim to investigate the

interviewee’s opinion on each. Instead, those frameworks aim to be a ground for

analyzing the empirical results of the implementation process conducted in a large

company.

24
Chapter 3: Research methodology

25
3.1. Research Design & Strategy
The research design and strategy express the reasoning used to answer the RQ

‘how to implement a CRM system in a large company?’. The philosophical approach of

this research is partly abductive (table 5) because this reasoning implies a “reasoning

from a given data to a hypothesis that explains the data” (Walton, 2005, p.6). The

research is also partly constructed from a deductive approach because it also draws

generalization from the antecedents (Walton, 2005). Hence, the research’s philosophical

approach oscillates between the two types of inferences, expressing a possible mixed or

ambiguous deductive-abductive reasoning (Wieten et al, 2020; table 5).

Deductive Inference Abductive Inference Mixed Inference

II.Theory & V.Analysis IV. Results The overall research

“Inference can be “Abduction can also be “Deduction and abduction can be

performed in a deductive performed: from a causal
fashion, where from a generalization and by
causal or evidential affirming the consequent,
generalisation and by the antecedents are
affirming the antecedents, inferred, since if the
the consequent is inferred antecedents are true, it
by modus ponens on the would allow us to
generalisation” (Wieten et deductively infer the
al., 2020, p.384). consequent modus-ponens-
style” (Wieten et al., 2020,
p.384).
iteratively performed, where mixed
abductive-deductive inference is also
possible. Suppose that from the causal
generalisation and by affirming the
consequent, the antecedent is inferred.
Now, if the additional causal
generalisation is provided, then
consequent can be deductively inferred
(or predicted) as antecedent has been
previously abductively inferred”
(Wieten et al., 2020, p.385).

Table 5. Deductive, Abductive, Mixed Inferences (Wieten et al., 2020).

3.1.1. Qualitative Research Methods.

26
 As I examine a CRM system implementation, the focus is onto the process. To

analyze a process, a qualitative method is convenient because it allows to grasp a deep

understanding of complex phenomena (Sofaer, 1999). The qualitative research method’s

data collection aims in this study at describing a large company’s CRM system

implementation process. The implementation process studied is a “real problem within

an organization designed to assist in a solution” (Bell, Bryman and Harley, 2019, p.379)

that I conducted at Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd is a company located in

Texas, USA.

3.1.2. Action Research.

Action Research’s definition.

Action research is a method that challenges conventional thinking (Albert,

Lingard and Levinson, 2008). Indeed, action research (AR) is an iterative process

(Albert, Lingard and Levinson, 2008) which means the practice of improving a process.

In AR, the researcher and the participants collaborate to achieve a result that generates

change (Albert, Lingard and

Levinson, 2008). The characteristics of AR are: 1) its partnership nature, 2) a

balanced perspective over power and education, and 3) the importance of enabling action

through the research process (Albert, Lingard and Levinson, 2008). “Action research

concerns practitioners, and others like social scientists, and is intended to generate new

knowledge, solve practical issues and to create a match between theory and practice”

(Reynolds and Satariyan, 2016, p.21). Schön (1983) mentions the correlation between

theory and practice that should exist to enhance results, supporting action research that

emphasizes the role of research – knowing – and action – practice.

27
Action Research in its field.

“Action research emerged recently in the IS (glossary, p.9) field because it

benefits both the researcher and the organization which is being studied. The IS field has

been considered as a natural application domain for action research” (Lawson-Body,

Lawson-Body, Willoughby, 2017, p.761). Action research is relevant in this study

examining a system implementation because I, the researcher, am involved in the

research process aiming to improve a large company’s process (Waser and Johns, 2003).

Moreover, AR enables me even more to collect, analyze and create conceptualizations of

the data gathered (Kock, 1998).

Action Research’s partnership.

This CRM system action research is the result of a collaboration between

Company and I, a Master student from Uppsala University. “Action research is

appropriate for change because it can involve executives of corporations in an ongoing

process in which they develop a sense of ownership of the outcomes” (Benn and

Dunphy, 2009, p.285). Company benefited from this collaboration because of my

research on implementing a CRM system that fitted their needs. The company also

received this research. I personally benefitted from this collaboration by learning more

about CRM system’s implementation methods.

3.2. Data Collection.

3.2.1. The Company Selection.

Company is a large SaaS (glossary, p.9) company (9 employees; Appendix 1)

that operates in the media industry, a niche market (1.2. Case Background). The

company sells a product which is an online marketplace for advertising professionals to

28
buy and sell advertising spots. Company product represents an in-between place between

buyers and sellers to create faster business deals compared to the usual routines of

buying / selling advertising spots.

My reason to have selected this company is, firstly, by convenience of collecting

primary data (3.3.1. Technical Records) because I started my internship in this company

in Autumn 2020. The second reason is because of the topic being an action research on a

process implementation wherein “the researcher usually studies a single small sample of

organization in depth” (Lawson-Body, Lawson-Body, Willoughby, 2017, p.761). I focus

on describing how can a large company implement a CRM system; hence, meaning to

focus and disseminate one company process.

3.2.2. The Interviewee Selection.

The interviewee selection was conducted with a purposive sampling (Bryman,

Bell and Harley, 2019), meaning a someone that is relevant regarding the action research

conducted. The interviewee selected was the Chief Customer Officer (SITE

DIRECTOR) of Company because of three reasons.

1) As AR focuses on action and research, the interviewee is someone

selected that has taken part of the action (change) and is concerned with the research

(outcomes publications) (Lawson-Body, Lawson-Body, Willoughby, 2017; Kock, 1998).

2) Interviewing someone from the C-suite (glossary, p.9) is crucial to

understand the executive’s acceptancy when implementing a system (Buttle, 2004).

Indeed, Buttle (2004) mentions that a CRM system may usually benefit from a high-

quality implementation when the executive(s) linked to the project support(s) the project

and its consequences on the company’s operations (Buttle, 2004).

29
 3) The sampling is operated by convenience, too, because the 2 CRM

managers left Company during the study. The SITE DIRECTOR is looking for new

CRM managers, but it means that only the SITE DIRECTOR was perceived as a

permanent member of Company, hence, a fundamental basis to understand his opinion

during the action research.

30
Chapter 4: Data Analysis

31
4.1. Project documents.

The objective of collecting project documents in AR is to understand the process

of the study. Here, the project documents depict the implementation process of a CRM

system in a large company. Project documents might reveal stages in the implementation

process or other important factors tackled that can be discussed in the analysis (5.). The

records collected from Dell Technology Company’s CRM system implementation is,

hence, structured in project documents. These project documents are considered primary

data and contain technical documentation of the implementation process detailing the

systems’ projects.

Data Sourcing.

The data were collected through 3 systems for the implementation (table 6). The

goal is not to analyze each CRM system independently, but solely to explain the frame in

which the data collection takes place. It is important to note that this action research

studies how to implement a CRM system, emphasizing one and not several CRM

systems. Hence, the results foreground the first CRM system implemented named

Intercom because it is the most technically challenging to implement. In other words, it

processed a high amount of data collected (Appendix 9 to Appendix 20) that can be

analyzed compared to another CRM system that is less complex to implement like

Mailchimp (Appendix 25, Appendix 26). The reason to disclose the 3 systems instead of

only 1 (Intercom) is to keep the study transparent, explaining to the readers that the

researcher conducted different implementation processes, however, following the same

logic and implementation methods.

32
 Dell CRM systems CRM tools provided
Technology
Intercom System focusing on Bots, apps, product tours, email
conversational support between messages, help center for companies
users and the company website with Intercom’s CRM systems
(Intercom, 2021). (Intercom, 2021).

Technical records.

The technical records’ goal is to showcase Dell International Services India Pvt

Ltd s implementation records to structure the results (4.) and to correlate the empirics to

the theories (2.) in the analysis (5.). Technical records speak for themselves,

demonstrating each step of the chatbot process (Appendix 9 to Appendix 20), so the

reader knows as much as me and the SITE DIRECTOR, the information that we were

working with in order to create the system implementation. Another reason to emphasize

technical records in this data analysis section is to explain that the data (Appendix 9 to

20) were the direct results of the vision of Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd s

SITE DIRECTOR.

Analysis Process.

The challenge that comes to light in qualitative research is the complexity of the

analysis process because the research method generates unstructured data and documents

(Bryman, Bell and Harley, 2019). Indeed, the project documents (Appendix 9 to

Appendix 28) gather data which may be demanding to categorize. Qualitative Content

Analysis (CA) “involves codifying qualitative information into pre-defined categories in

33
order to derive patterns in the presentation and reporting of information” (Argan et al.,

2013, p.4). The analysis of qualitative data is not only valid because of its level of

codification (Bryman and Burgees, 1994; Bryman, Bell and Harley, 2019) but because it

follows scholar strategies such as content analysis (CA) or thematic analysis (TA) to be

valid (Bryman, Bell and Harley, 2019). These 2 strategies of data analysis (table 7) -

among others - seem the most interesting for this action research (table 7); however, TA

may be more adequate because it “analyzes a wide variety of types of qualitative data

and as a part of narrative, grounded theory and discourse analytic approach” (Bryman,

Bell and Harley, 2019, p.520). Moreover, TA focuses on qualifying the data more non-

linearly than CA (Bondas, Turunen and Vaismoradi, 2013) which might enhance my

understanding of the stages of

Content Analysis (CA) Thematic Analysis (TA) Sources

Aims to understand phenomena, and Aims to target common thread that (Bondas,
work on the unknown phenomenon can extent to an interview Turunen and
Perspective of facts and directly Perspective of realism and Vaismoradi,
related to theory constructionist based on facts. 2013; Braun
Highly descriptive and more Focused on qualitative, detailed and Clark,
systematic, not always focusing on analysis of data and interpretation, 2006;
context, finding a theme for its more meta in its analysis process, Bryman, Bell
frequency rather than its relevance integrating manifest and latent data. and Harley,

Tends to quantify data Tends to qualify data 2019).

Linear analysis Non-linear analysis

a CRM system implementation process.

Coding the TA.

34
The coding of the data follows the procedure agreed by Bondas, Turunen and

Vaismoradi (2013) and Braun and Clark (2006). The coding follows phases of:

- “Familiarizing with data

- Generating initial codes

- Searching for themes

- Reviewing themes

- Defining and naming themes

- Producing the report” (Bondas, Turunen and Vaismoradi, 2013, p.11; Appendix

The goal of the key informant interview is to discover whether the implemented

CRM system is accepted by Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd to understand if the

system could evolve in the company for a longer time frame. Hence, the degree of

acceptability of the interviewee is measured.

Interviewing for Action Research.

The interviewee has taken part of the decision making during the identification

phase, the design, and is not solely a target for dissemination of results (Peters et al.,

2014). Indeed, the challenge of this interview with a key actor (SITE DIRECTOR) is to

understand whether this one truly agrees and believes in the action research conducted.

Unstructured Interview.

Action research emphasizes that the interviewee and the researcher work in close

collaboration, meaning they know each other. A structured or semi-structured interview

may increase the risk to receive undisclosed information upon the CRM system
35
implementation acceptance because the interviewee might try to stay polite on the

researcher work. I chose to conduct an unstructured interview. Indeed, as action research

leads to change (Albert, Lingard and Levinson, 2008), it is important to understand if the

respondent would be keen to change. As mentioned previously, action research focuses

also on context and disturbances, which is reflected in unstructured interviews through

the value of unpredicting conversations (Punch, 1998). Hence, unstructured interviews

may contain information that may lead to a complete statement of the interviewee’s true

mindset (Bell, Bryman and Harley, 2019). This interview’s objective is to examine the

concerned actor’s opinion because Buttle (2004) explains that it is easier to implement

CRM when executives agree upon its implementation and mission.

Interview’s Analysis Process.

The interview’s analysis is processed through 2 phases:

1) Categorizing (Wong, 2008): a systematic reduction of data creating an

identification and grouping of meaningful data.

2) Still using a TA (table 7), I focused on a restructuring the categorization of data

(Appendix 31), integrating manifest and latent data interpretation (table 7) in a non-

linear process.

Interview’s coding.

The data collection methods of the interview to generate answers to understand

whether a large company would validate a CRM system implementation which consist of

three steps.

1) Conducting the interview (recorded and saved)

36
2) Transcribing it into written data (word by word to create an accurate coding

manual)

3) Coding of the written data into categories aiming to answer whether the

implementation of the CRM system is accepted (Appendix 29; Appendix 31).

4.4. Ethical Considerations.

Given (2008) explains the importance of covering the themes of anonymity,

confidentiality, consent and data handling when interviewing. The interviewee was

offered to be anonymous and this one accepted. I also asked for consent to record the

interview and declared that this one would be used to transcribe it into written data for

the research purpose. The interview guide was sent before the interview to inform the

interviewee of the topic in order ensure the consent of the interviewee. The interviewee

also agreed to the disclosure of each of the documents in the appendices, having verified

and accepted them.

4.5. Research Quality.

Credibility.

Credibility represents the respondent validation (Bryman, Bell and Harley, 2019),

also defined as member validation (Bryman, Bell and Harley, 2019). It is “particularly

popular among qualitative researchers, because they frequently want to ensure that there

is a good correspondence between their findings and the perspectives and experiences of

their research participants” (Bryman, Bell and Harley, 2019, p.363). Credibility entails

the criterion of truth- value (Korstjens & Moser, 2018) representing internal validity.

37
Transferability.

Transferability describes a thick description (Bryman, Bell and Harley, 2019),

meaning a contextual illustration of the environment in which the research is conducted

so the readers can understand whether this research could be transferable to their cases

(Bryman, Bell and Harley, 2019). For the readers to understand the context of this action

research, all the data collected follow the three dimensions of transparency of Moravcsik

(2013):

1) Data transparency: referencing of all data and using proactively appendices to

enhance data transparency.

2) Analytic transparency: referring to the sources of data analysis. Analytic

transparency enables the readers to access the information in the research to be reached

in the appendices, references, in the operationalization (3.7.2.), and in the time frame

implementation (3.7.1.).

3) Production transparency: data and method chosen for the study to justify to best

use of the data.

Dependability.

Dependability represents trustworthiness and validation (Bryman, Bell and Harley, 2019)

which “involves the adoption of an auditing approach which ensure that complete

records are kept of all phases of the research process” (Bryman, Bell and Harley, 2019,

p.365). Dependability also defines the matter of evaluating the correlation between

empirics and theorical inferences (Bryman, Bell and Harley, 2019).

Confirmability.

38
 Confirmability emphasizes that the researcher achieved her highest objectivity in

the research meaning, have acted in good faith (Bryman, Bell and Harley, 2019) to not

influence the research results and theoretical inferences. “It should be apparent that [she]

has not overtly allowed personal values or theoretical inclination to sway the conduct of

the research and findings deriving from it” (Bryman, Bell and Harley, 2019, p.365).

Action research quality.

Hopkins (2002) emphasizes that action research should comply to transparency criteria

such as having findings that are accessible for the reader to consult. This criterion is

present in this paper, using appendices to have the action part of the research available.

Moreover, the action conducted by the researcher should also have proof, which is also

provided in the appendices (Hopkins, 2002).

4.6. Empirical Limits.

Problem of generalization (Bryman, Bell and Harley, 2019).

Bryman, Bell and Harley (2019) mention that qualitative research is often

criticized because of the limited perspective to generalize. Hence, no generalization has

been drawn outside from this action research, this one containing its own contextual

environment and contingency to conduct an implementation process. In order to conduct

such drawings, a quantitative research could be conducted, hence, enabling this action

research to be generalized (Ahrne and Svensson, 2015).

Problem of repeatability (Bryman, Bell and Harley, 2019).

To generalize this action research also means to have a repeatable study. “Action

research is criticized, in similar way to other qualitative methods, for its lack of

39
repeatability and consequent lack of rigor and for concentrating too much on

organizational action at the expense of research findings” (Bryman, Bell and Harley,

2019, p.380). Hence, to decrease the problem of repeatability, the strategy for the project

documents’ analysis is to focus on previous theories, minimizing the emphasis on topic

that I would perceive as significant, compared to another researcher that would not, and

enhancing potential significant results. The strategy for the interview analysis is to focus

on coding and re-writing the data that was audio recorded to avoid memory loss and any

potential misinterpretation during the interview, also leading to potential significant

results.

4.6. Operationalization.

4.6.1. Implementation time frame.

Categories Area Keywords Questions Source

Implementation CRM forms Automation How to structure (Ibrahim, Mohd
structure the envisioned and Rababah,
implementation? 2011)
Organization Pre- CRM How to organize (Greenberg,
implementation Company the CRM system 2010; Buttle,
strategy structure to implement? 2001).
Automation Robotic Chatbots How to (Buttle, 2001;
Process Product tours implement the Almohaimmeed,
Automation Newsletters CRM projects? 2021).
Leads
Implementation Stages Initiation How to conduct (Cooper and
steps Adoption an Zmud, 1990).
Adaptation implementation
Acceptance process in a
Routinization large company?
Infusion

40
 Implementation Actors User How to explore (Cooper and
factors Organization the system Zmud, 1990).
Task implementation?
Technology
Implementation Business & IRIS model How to link the (Chalmeta,
theory Tech processes IT model results to 2006; Cooper
theories? and Zmud,
1990).
Implementation CRM strategy Framework of How to align the (Chalmeta,
alignment IRIS & IT implementation? 2006; Cooper
Model and Zmud,
1990).

4.7. Results.

The results section presents the empirical findings of Dell Technology Company.

This section aims at answering how to implement a CRM system in a large company?

The results revealed different themes to understand the CRM system implementation

process of Dell Technology Company: initiation, adoption, adaptation, acceptance, and

infusion. Though the implementation process of a CRM system can be executed in

different ways (Foss, Stone and Ekinci, 2008), the results section aims to follow the

structure represented in the conceptual framework (2.5). Note that each project document

(Appendix 9 to 28) was agreed with the SITE DIRECTOR, responsible for the CRM

system implementation project and agreed to each step of the implementation process.

4.7.1. Initiation.

The results portray an initiation theme wherein the process starts off. Dell

Technology Company’s SITE DIRECTOR is an important decision maker in the

implementation of a new project for customer strategy (Appendix 1). This early stage in
41
Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd highlighted a situation that aimed at defining a

problem and understanding what the company wants in order to improve its organization.

CRM forms.

The problem definition that relied in Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd

was that its operational CRM was inefficient. Indeed, the concerned C-suite partner

(SITE DIRECTOR) explained that the problem turned out to be repetitive manual tasks

that would represent a barrier for the team to grow exponentially in a near future.

“Currently, they are some manual stuffs that we are doing, and with manual work. It’s

not so nice if we want to scale up and we get more customers, it’s going to be harder, and

you need to hire more people. I think it’s a lot of manual work and we are looking for

ways to improve that” (SITE DIRECTOR, Dell Technology Company, Appendix 30).

The SITE DIRECTOR wanted its CRM team to be scalable, meaning be able to

grow largely and at a high pace without hiring more human resources. The vision of the

SITE DIRECTOR to not bring in more human resources corresponds to his strategy to

enable automation to improve Dell Technology Company’s CRM. “Automation. For

example, many things of the things we are working with. With SaaS companies, you are

working to get a product that is taking care of itself with automation by different parts of

the company by the support side for example” (SITE DIRECTOR, Dell Technology

Company, Appendix 30).

The strategy of Dell Technology Company’s SITE DIRECTOR with automation infers

the goal of redistributing tasks: the ones being repetitive and laborious to automation,

meaning the CRM system, and the rest to the CRM team.

Task prioritization.

42
 I understood that Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd prioritizes the

implementation of operational CRM (table 6. CRM systems’ introduction), focusing on

the primary goal to automate customer support, but also to increase the engagement of

existing customers, and to reach new potential customers.

“We are looking to automate a lot of stuffs like outreach to the customers such as

onboarding tours, so people get interested in the product. We are going to have a chatbot

that leads to people and make them want to engage with the product or encourage them

to book a meeting with us for example” (SITE DIRECTOR, Dell Technology Company,

Appendix 30).

Prioritizing the implementation of operational CRM’s tasks means to enable the growth

of collaborative CRM and analytical CRM only after, meaning the implementation

process of a CRM system in Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd focuses on

operational CRM and its tasks. The initiation phase generates the plan of CRM system

implementation (fig.5) that indicates the first task to implement (from left) which is

customer support, a priority for the SITE DIRECTOR.

Analysis
Dell Technology Company’s results are interpreted with two theories

emphasizing the stages and factors of the implementation process differently: the IT

Implementation Model (Cooper and Zmud, 1990; 2.4.) and the IRIS Methodology

Implementation phase (Chalemta, 2006; 2.3.). The reason to discuss Dell Technology

Company’s results with the 2 theories is to understand Cooper and Zmud’s perspective

(1990) that have an emphasis on the IS literature while Chalmeta’s (2006) perspective

43
contains an emphasis on the CRM literature. Also, picking the two theories gives me the

opportunity to understand whether the two theoretical frameworks could be applied to

large companies. Hence, the two perspectives may generate a systematic understanding

of Dell Technology Company’s implementation process. I started to interpret Dell

Technology Company’s results with the IT Implementation model (Cooper and Zmud,

1990).

The IT Implementation Model

The results of the large company’s implementation process are interpreted from

the IT Implementation Model (Cooper and Zmud, 1990) which emphasizes the

perspective of implementing an IS (2.4. The IT Implementation Model) through stages

and factors.

The Implementation Stages.

The IT Implementation Model contains 6 implementation stages: initiation,

adoption, adaptation, acceptance, routinization, and infusion (Cooper and Zmud, 1990)

(table 12). The results can be compared with Cooper and Zmud (1990) to understand the

correlation between Dell Technology Company’s process and the IT Implementation

Model (Cooper and Zmud, 1990).

IT Implementation Stages (Cooper and Results of the Implementation Stages of

Zmud, 1990). Dell Technology Company.
Initiation Initiation
Adoption Adoption
Adaptation Adaptation

44
 Acceptance Acceptance
Routinization
Infusion
Infusion

One can see a correlation between Cooper and Zmud (1990), and Dell

International Services India Pvt Ltd results from initiation to acceptance. Indeed, the

initiation stage (4.1) explained the SITE DIRECTOR’s vision on automation to be able

to grow largely, whilst Cooper and Zmud (1990) express that initiation corresponds to

the beginning of an implementation by investigating which task one should first

implement. The adoption stage (Cooper and Zmud, 1990) focuses on the adoption of the

task and technology to generate the implementation. Dell Technology Company’s results

showed the correlation to the adoption stage by understanding CRM tools like the

chatbot and understand the actions to perform with it. The adaptation stage (Cooper and

Zmud, 1990) corresponds to the stage in which the users adjust to the new task. Dell

Technology Company’s results described this change, adapting from the old to the new

habits of working, e.g., enhancing the chatbot, rather than keeping answering repetitive

email. Dell Technology Company’s organizational adaptation stage was also effectuated

(4.3) wherein the new task distribution appeared between the CRM team and the CRM

system. The acceptance stage (Cooper and Zmud, 1990) means that one can be able to

assess the factors’ early outcomes (Cooper and Zmud, 1990), meaning for Dell

Technology Company, an assessment of all its factors studied so far: task, technology,

user, and organization.

However, Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd seems to show a difference in

the end of its implementation process (table 12). The results expressed an infusion stage

45
(4.5) which represents an incrementation of the implementation process. Comparing it

with the IT Implementation Model, this one reveal two stages which are:

- the routinization stage (Cooper and Zmud, 1990) that shows the ongoing process

of implementation.

- the infusion stage (Cooper and Zmud, 1990) which corresponds to a deeper level

of incrementation of the tasks and technology and assesses whether the system

implementation is being processed.

The routinization stage is a stage identifying that the process is still ongoing

(Cooper and Zmud, 1990). Routinization means that Dell Technology Company’s

implementation factors would still be incremented to finalize a stage of infusion. In other

words, it means that Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd did not change of plan

after the acceptance stage. The results showed that the strategy was executed

consistently. Hence, routinization can be interpreted as if it appeared by Dell Technology

Company, however, not this one was directly deducted from the results. The infusion

stage, on the other hand, is a major stage that was revealed in the results, aiming to

understand if the implementation was processed by Dell Technology Company, and

arising after the routinization stage (Cooper and Zmud, 1990)

The implementation factors.

Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd implementation process’ results are put in

comparison with the other bloc of the IT implementation model which are the

implementation factors (Cooper and Zmud, 1990). The model contains 5 factors: task,

technology, user, organization and environment

46
 IT Implementation Model’s Factors (Cooper Results of the Implementation Factors of
and Zmud, 1990). Dell Technology Company
Task Task (automating operational CRM)
Technology Technology (chatbot)
User User (the employees)
Organization Organization (Dell International Services
India Pvt Ltd and CRM team)
Environment -
There is a correlation between Cooper and Zmud (1990), and the results: in task,

technology, user, and organization. However, the results showcased a divergence with

the environment factor. The environment factor covers the “interorganizational

dependence” (Cooper and Zmud, 1990, p.125), e.g., the potential rivalry between

different organizations (Oxford Reference, 2021). The interorganizational dependence

was not in the frame of this research as I studied an internal process in a company, hence,

excluding the examination of an external factor of Dell Technology Company. The

perspective taken of Dell Technology Company’s implementation does not refute the

existence of the environment factor from Cooper and Zmud (1990); but rather, it means

that environment is not a factor influencing Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd

system implementation. Creating this natural framing in this study could be because the

primary reason that Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd wanted a CRM system was

for organizing CRM before a potential growth; meaning there was no priority of

considering any external actor, for example, questioning the customer’s comfort of

communicating efficiently. In other words, there was no correlation regarding Dell

Technology Company’s external environment, hence, no framing outside Dell

International Services India Pvt Ltd created.

The IT Implementation Model’s lack of focus.

47
 The IT Implementation Model (Cooper and Zmud, 1990) has an in-depth focus

into the system implementation process, but this one may lack of a greater perspective

concerning the strategic alignment that comes along the implementation of a new system

(Chalmeta, 2006). Though, the IT Implementation Model contains the factor of

organization, however, Chalmeta (2006) accentuates more the priority to align one’s

CRM system with the organizational framework and customer strategy (Chalmeta, 2006)

IRIS Methodology Implementation (Chalmeta, 2006).

The results of the implementation process can be interpreted from the IRIS

Methodology Implementation phase (Chalmeta, 2006). This one may analyze different

criteria emerging from Dell Technology Company’s implementation process as this

method regroups 3 implementation stages (Chalmeta, 2006) instead of Cooper and

Zmud’s 6 stages (1990).

Problem discussion (Chalmeta, 2006) and Dell Technology Company. The first

stage of the IRIS Methodology is the problem discussion and prioritization (Chalmeta,

2006), meaning a focus on addressing the right question. The results (4.1) revealed the

theme of initiation (4.1), in which Dell Technology Company’s SITE DIRECTOR

defined the problem of having many manual tasks that were laborious (fig.18). The SITE

DIRECTOR wanted to the upbringing of chatbots, product tours, leads systems and

newsletters which is linked to operational CRM wherein Buttle (2001) mentions that it is

the root of automation in CRM. It is to implement first, as analytical CRM builds on it to

collect data from the customers (Buttle, 2001). Without operational CRM system

48
implementation, analytical and collaborative CRM cannot be implemented which makes

a priority to implement a system for operational CRM.

Implementation (Chalmeta, 2006) and Dell Technology Company.

The IRIS methodology implementation stage (Chalmeta, 2006) defines a stage of

action wherein the solution to the problem is implemented (Chalmeta, 2006). This one

may, however, represent an obscure implementation process because a system

implementation process can be operated in many ways (Foss, Stone and Ekinci, 2008).

The results that frame Chalmeta’s action in the implementation may apply to the themes

of adoption (4.2.) and of adaptation (4.3.) meaning a combination between task -

technology (4.2.) and user - organization (4.3.) .

A systematic perspective of a CRM system implementation.

As both theories allow me to correlate how to implement a CRM system in a

large company, I may obtain a systematic perspective by combining both theories from

the results (table 14): as a business process (Chalemta, 2006) and as an IS process

(Cooper and Zmud, 1990).

IRIS Methodology (Chalmeta, 2006) IT Implementation Model (Cooper and Zmud, 1990)

Emphasis on implementing the CRM process Emphasis on implementing the IS process

Focuses on: Focuses on:
- strategic alignment - the detailed implementation of the
- customer strategy different stages
- problem discussion - the detailed implementation across the
- change management. factors.

49
 Larger scope: focusing on business Smaller scope: focusing on technological
productivity and efficiency. productivity and efficiency.
Is relevant for Dell International Services Is relevant for Dell International Services
India Pvt Ltd implementation process to India Pvt Ltd implementation process to
understand the coherence between the understand the detailed stages of the
business, the product and the CRM implementation process of an IS
system process. (glossary, p.9).

The early stages of the implementation process.

Both theories contain an early stage (table 15), middle stage and last stages. The early

stage of The IRIS implementation phase represents the problem definition &

prioritization (Chalmeta, 2006) whilst the early stage of the IT Implementation Model

represents the initiation stage (Cooper and Zmud, 1990).

50
 Chapter 5: Findings, suggestions,
recommendation

Suggestions:

1. Ensure top management buy-in

Let’s start with the obvious – a CRM adoption is successful only if people use the

system. More so, studies prove the lack of support from senior executives tops the

reasons of why CRM projects fail.

Since CRM is a project that involves all parts of an organization, top

management must be not only involved, but also inspire and build credibility among

others. Top management drives the opinions and culture in the organization, that’s why

their early involvement sends a positive ripple effect through the entire organization. So,

get your leaders onboard!

2. Find an awesome project manager

When you are implementing a new CRM system (or if you have just switched to

a new system) the most important person is the one that has the mandate to run the

51
project – the project manager This person is very important, because he or she

orchestrates the entire show. So, they’d better be awesome!

They will make sure that the necessary steps are taken on time and the goals are

met. It does not have to be someone from the management, but it must be a “doer” with

contagious enthusiasm, commitment and a great eye for details.

3. Appoint a dedicated super-user

When others in your organization have problems or need support, this is the

internal go-to person who is there to help. The super-user is also often the CRM vendor’s

contact point, and will be the first to get information about product releases, software

updates, bugs, etc.

4. Launch with a BANG!

If the real estate agents’ mantra is Location, Location, Location, for CRM project

managers it should be Motivation, Motivation, Motivation.

Internal marketing is often underestimated, but when implementing CRM software, you

need to sell it to your colleagues.

How? Publish a fun article on your intranet, create a poster, make a special

launch t-shirt, or – even better – organize a launch party for everyone!

It doesn’t have to cost a lot of money, but something to celebrate the launch and incite

enthusiasm.

52
 Yet, after the party is over, you can’t just rest on your laurels. You need to keep

the flame burning. Walk around, ask people how things are going and help them if they

struggle.

5. Set up internal usage guidelines

A CRM system is only as good as the data put in it.

That’s why it is essential to set common usage guidelines.

For example, how to include new company data or register a sale. If Jane, Marcus

and Stephanie all register their sales in the CRM system, but Michael doesn’t, then it is

difficult for their sales manager to take out correct sales reports and coach his sales team.

And so on. If people don’t know how to enter data into the CRM system, it makes it

difficult to do many other things: track sale progress through sales pipelines, pull reports,

send marketing emails to customers, and offer quick and effective customer service.

The CRM usage guidelines should be easily available and clearly state what,

when and how needs to be done in the CRM system.

6. Offer sufficient training

All of us are different – some get a kick from trying out a crispy-new system and

start using it right away. Others are more skeptical about the new way of working. The

(awesome) project manager should have strategies on how to handle both types. One

thing that is similar to both enthusiasts and skeptics is that they all need training!

You can choose a classroom-type training from a vendor, or if you can assign

your super-user to do the training.

53
 You should also include an introduction to your CRM system in the onboarding

process for new employees. This way new personnel will learn how to use CRM from

the start.

7. Define a CRM strategy and adopt a CRM philosophy

CRM is not just technology, but a strategy and a philosophy.

Saying “Let’s do CRM this year” is not a strategy. Neither saying “We’ll work in a CRM

way from now on” is a philosophy.

To have a successful CRM strategy means that you need to define how your

work processes will change, what steps you’re going to take at each implementation

stage, what you want to achieve and how you’re going to measure your goals, and how

CRM is going to complement your business development plan.

54
 Recommendations
The success of your marketing and sales strategies depends heavily on the

understanding you have of your target audience. If you don’t understand the needs,

wants, goals, and challenges of your customers, the ability to reach them and engage

with them will be difficult, to say the least. Fortunately, there’s a lot of data available

that can provide you with valuable insight into your customers and prospects via forms,

reviews, comments, feedback, and through their online behaviors and actions.

All of this data is sourced from multiple channels and interactions, making it

difficult to organize, manage, and analyze. It’s why every business, both big and small,

should implement a CRM (customer relationship management) solution to organize these

information sources in one centralized location. A CRM solution is the centralized hub to

manage all information on your customers and prospects

55
Chapter 6: Conclusion

56
Conclusion

6.2. Answering the researched question.

This implementation of a CRM system sums up a systematic framework

describing a large company’s implementation process (fig.23). The implementation

process describes 3 stages (providing a large perspective) emerging from the IRIS

Methodology Implementation phase: problem discussion, implementation, and

management of change (Chalemta, 2006). The 3 stages of the implementation process

contain sub-stages emerging from the IT Implementation Model (Cooper and Zmud,

1990) that answers questions that arise in an IS (glossary, p.9) process, e.g., the adoption

stage (4.2.), made to understand the extent to which the tasks or the technology chosen

are implemented.

6.3. Contributions to literatures.

57
 The contributions of this research to existing literatures are the empirics collected

from a large company and the reasoning adopted to understand how to conduct an

implementation process. Moreover, this research aimed to answer the RQ in real-world

settings, enabling the academia to have a newly researched study in the practitioners’

world. This action research also aimed to gain a systematic approach to understand a

large company’s system implementation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

In this chapter the reference made from textbooks, journals, newspapers and magazines

are listed. The source of the internet and websites may also have mentioned with correct

address of the site.

Books Referred: Author Name

1. CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT By KAUSHIK

MUKERJEE · 2007

2. Handbook of CRM By Adrian Payne · 2012

3. CRM Unplugged Releasing CRM's Strategic Value By Philip Bligh, Douglas

Turk · 2004

Websites & Search Engines.

58
1. https://www.apty.io/blog/crm-implementation-process/

2 https://nethunt.com/blog/crm-implementation/

3. www.bollore-transport-logistics.com

4. www.logisticssupplychain.org

5. www.freepatentsonline.com

Reference

 Aguirre, S., Rodriguez, A. (2017) Automation of a Business Process Using

Robotic Process Automation (RPA): A Case Study. In: Figueroa-García J.,

López-Santana E., Villa-Ramírez J., Ferro-Escobar R. (eds) Applied Computer

Sciences in Engineering. WEA 2017. Communications in Computer and

Information Science, vol 742. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-

319-66963-2_7

 Albert, M., Lingard, L. and Levinson, W. (2008). Grounded theory, mixed

methods, and action research. BMJ, 337(aug07 3), pp.a567-a567.

 Almotairi, M. (2008). CRM Success Factors Taxonomy. In: CRM Success

Factors Taxonomy. [online] Dubai: European and Mediterranean Conference on

Information Systems 2008. Available at

59
 <https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?

doi=10.1.1.598.8210&rep=rep1&type=pdf> [Accessed 5 February 2021].

 Almotairi, M. (2009). A Framework for Successful CRM Implementation. In:

European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009. [online]

Brunel: Brunel University, pp.1-8. Available at:

<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?

doi=10.1.1.576.9678&rep=rep1&type=pdf> [Accessed 1 July 2021].

 Alshamran, A. and Bahattab, A. (2015). A Comparison Between Three SDLC

Models Waterfall Model, Spiral Model, and Incremental/Iterative Model. IJCSI

International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 12(1), pp.106-111.

 Alt, R. and Reinhold, O. (2009). Enhancing collaborative CRM with mobile

technologies. In: 22nd Bled eConference eEnablement. [online] Leipzig:

University of Leipzig, pp.97-112. Available at: <https://domino.fov.uni-

mb.si/proceedings.nsf/0/c1b1cc5ec468c1b4c1257600003a6682/$FILE/7_Reinhol

d.pdf> [Accessed 16 March 2021].

 Bell, E., Bryman, A., and Harley, B. (2019). Business Research Methods. Oxford

University Press: Oxford.

 Berger, S. C., Gensler, S., Skiera, B., Wiesel, T. (2009). Customer Relationship

Management Processes in Retail Banking – Best Practice and Business Value

Evaluation, Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System

Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii.

60
 Bhatnagar, V. and Ranjan, J. (2008). Critical Success Factors for Implementing

CRM Using Data Mining. Interscience Management Review, pp.50-55.

 Bhatnagar, V. and Ranjan, J. (2011), "Role of knowledge management and

analytical CRM in business: data mining based framework", The Learning

Organization, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 131-148.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471111103731.

 Bhatnagar, V. and Ranjan, J. (2010). A framework for analytical CRM: a data

mining perspective. International Journal of Business Excellence, 3(1), p.1.

 Bohling, T., Bowman, D., LaValle, S., Mittal, V., Narayandas, D., Ramani, G.

and Varadarajan, R. (2006). CRM Implementation. Journal of Service Research,

9(2), pp.184- 194.

 Bondas, T., Turunen, H. and Vaismoradi, M. (2013). Content analysis and

thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study.

Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), pp.398-405.

 Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.

Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

 Bull, C. (2003). Strategic issues in customer relationship management (CRM)

implementation. Business Process Management Journal, 9(5), pp.592-602.

 Buttle, F. (2001). The CRM value chain. Marketing Business, [online] p.p.52.

Available at: <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francis-

61
 Buttle/publication/228396256_The_CRM_value_chain/links/

5de46027299bf10bc3375e00/T he-CRM-value-chain.pdf> [Accessed 21 June

2021].

 Buttle, F. (2004). Customer relationship Management: Concepts and Tools,

Oxford: Elsevier.

 Buttle, F. and Iriana, R. (2007). Strategic, Operational, and Analytical Customer

Relationship Management. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 5(4), pp.23-42.

 Chalmeta, R. (2006). Methodology for customer relationship management.

Journal of Systems and Software, 79(7), pp.1015-1024.

 Chan, Y. and Khodakarami, F. (2014). Exploring the role of customer

relationship management (CRM) systems in customer knowledge creation.

Information & Management, 51, pp.27-42.

 Chatterjee, S., Ghosh, S.K., Chaudhuri, R. and Nguyen, B. (2019), "Are CRM

systems ready for AI integration? A conceptual framework of organizational

readiness for effective AI- CRM integration", The Bottom Line, Vol. 32 No. 2,

pp. 144-157. https://doi.org/10.1108/BL- 02-2019-0069.

 Crawford, K. and Whittaker, M., 2016. The AI Now Report. 1. [online] New

York: the White House and New York University’s Information Law Institute,

p.21. Available at

<https://www.artificialintelligencenow.com/media/documents/AINowSummaryR

eport_3_Rp mwKHu.pdf> [Accessed 18 July 2021].

 Forbes Finance Council. (2020). Don't Waste Your Small Business Budget On

These 11 Line Items. [online] Forbes. Available at:

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2020/04/06/dont-waste-

62
 your-small- business-budget-on-these-11-line-items/?sh=15f687a62ac4>

[Accessed 4 July 2021].

 Foss, B., Stone, M. and Ekinci, Y. (2008). What makes for CRM system success

— Or failure?. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy

Management, 15(2), pp.68-78.

 Gavval, R., Gangwar, A., Harsha, K. and Ravi, V. (2020). CUDA-Self-

Organizing feature map based visual sentiment analysis of bank customer

complaints for Analytical CRM. [online] pp.1-6. Available at:

<https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.09598.pdf> [Accessed 3 July 2021].

 Gilbert, D., Lee‐Kelley, L. and Mannicom, R. (2003). How e‐CRM can enhance

customer loyalty. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 21(4), pp.239-248.

 Given, L.M. (2008). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods.

Los Angeles, CA:Sage.

 Goldenberg, B. (2000). What is CRM? What is an e-customer? Why you need

them now.

 Greenberg, P. (2010). The impact of CRM 2.0 on customer insight. Journal of

Business & Industrial Marketing, 25(6), pp.410-419.

 Grillitsch, W. Müller-Stingl, A. and Neumann R. (2007). “Successful Sharing of

Project Knowledge: Initiation, Implementation and Institutionalisation” The

Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 5 Issue 1, pp 19 - 28,

available online at www.ejkm.com

 Growbots. (2021). Growbots: An Outbound Sales Platform to Get New

Customers Faster.. [online] Available at: <https://www.growbots.com//>

[Accessed 25 March 2021].

63
 Harvard Business Review. (1981). A Small Business Is Not a Little Big Business.

[online] Available at: <https://hbr.org/1981/07/a-small-business-is-not-a-little-

big-business> [Accessed 16 March 2021].

 Holmukhe, R., Madakam, S. and Kumar Jaiswal, D. (2019). The Future Digital

WorkForce: Robotic Process Automation (RPA). Journal of Information Systems

and Technology Management, 16, pp.1-17.

 Hopkins, D. (2002). A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research, 3rd ed.

Buckingham: Open University Press.

 Huq, Z. and Martin, T. (2007). Realigning Top Management's Strategic Change

Actions for ERP Implementation: How Specializing on Just Cultural and

Environmental Contextual Factors Could Improve Success. Journal of Change

Management, 7(2), pp.121-142.

 Ibrahim H., Mohd, H. and Rababah, K. (2011). Customer Relationship

Management (CRM) Processes from Theory to Practice: The Pre-implementation

Plan of CRM System. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-

Management and e-Learning.

 Intercom.com. 2021. Conversational Relationship Platform | Intercom. [online]

Available at: <https://www.intercom.com> [Accessed 25 March 2021].

 Ivanov, S. (2019). Ultimate transformation: How will automation technologies

disrupt the travel, tourism and hospitality industries?. Zeitschrift für

Tourismuswissenschaft, 11(1), pp.25-43.

64
 Kirsch, L. (1996). The Management of Complex Tasks in Organizations:

Controlling the Systems Development Process. Organization Science, 7(1), pp.1-

21.

 Korstjens, I. and Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative

research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General

Practice, 24(1), pp.120-124.

 Kulpa, J. (2017). Why is customer relationship so important? Forbes. Available

at: < https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2017/10/24/why-is-

customer-relationship- management-so-important/?sh=4c47f97c7dac> [Accessed

1 August 2021].

 Kumar, V. and Reinartz, W. (2018). Customer Relationship Management. 1st ed.

Berlin: Springer, p.6. Lawson-Body,

 A., Lawson-Body, L. and Willoughby, L. (2017). Using Action Research To

Identify Unexpected Factors Affecting CRM Implementation. Journal of Applied

Business Research (JABR), 33(4), p.757

 Libai, B., Bart, Y., Gensler, S., Hofacker, C., Kaplan, A., Kötterheinrich, K. and

Kroll, E., 2020. Brave New World? On AI and the Management of Customer

Relationships. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 51, pp.44-56.

 Mendoza, L.E., Marius, A., Perez, M. and Griman, A.C. (2007). Critical success

factors for a customer strategy. Information Software Technology, 49, p.913-945.

 Moravcsik, A. (2013). Transparency: The Revolution in Qualitative Research.

PS: Political Science & Politics, 47(01), pp.48-53.

65
 Moutot, J.M. and Bascoul, G. (2008). Effects of Sales Force Automation Use on

Sales Force Activities and Customer Relationship Management Processes,

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 28, pp. 167-184.

 Osarenkhoe, A. and Bennani, A. (2007) An Exploratory Study of Implementation

of Customer Relationship Projects. Business Process Management Journal, 13,

139-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637150710721177 Oxford Reference.

(2021). Inter-organizational. [online] Available at:

 <https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/

authority.20110803100008241> [Accessed 8 August 2021].

 Peppard, J. (2000). Customer Relationship Management (CRM) in financial

services. European Management Journal, 18(3), pp.312-327.

 Peters, D., Adam, T., Alonge, O., Agyepong, I. and Tran, N. (2014). Republished

research: Implementation research: what it is and how to do it. British Journal of

Sports Medicine, 48(8), pp.731-736.

 Piskar, F. and Faganel, A. (2009). A Successful CRM Implementation Project in

a Service Company: Case Study. Organizacija, 42(5), pp.199-208.

 Pohludka, M. and Štverková, H. (2019). The Best Practice of CRM

Implementation for Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Administrative

Sciences, 9(1), p.22.

 Punch, K.F. (1998). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative

Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

 Raguseo, E. (2018). Big data technologies: An empirical investigation on their

adoption, benefits and risks for companies. International Journal of Information

Management, 38(1), 87-195.

66
 Rygielski, C., Wang, J. and Yen, D. (2002). Data Mining Techniques for

Customer Relationship Management. Technology in Society, 24, pp.483–502.

 Sampson, C., Arnold, R., Bryan, S., Clarke, P., Ekins, S., Hatswell, A., Hawkins,

N., Langham, S., Marshall, D., Sadatsafavi, M., Sullivan, W., Wilson, E. and

Wrightson, T. (2019). Transparency in Decision Modelling: What, Why, Who

and

 How?. PharmacoEconomics, 37(11), pp.1355-1369.

 SAS. (2003). Maximizing ROI from CRM Initiatives: SAS white paper. Schank,

R. (1987). What Is AI, Anyway?. AI Magazine, 8(4), p.64.

 Sarmaniotis, C., Stafyla, A. and Stefanou, C. (2003). CRM and customer‐centric

knowledge management: an empirical research. Business Process Management

Journal, 9(5), pp.617- 634.

 Support. Dell Technology Company.com. (2021). Dell International Services

India Pvt Ltd Support Center. [online] Available at: <https://support. Dell

Technology Company.com/en/> [Accessed 26 March 2021].

 Toggler, M. (2008). The Functionality and Usage of CRM Systems. Engineering

and Technology, 41, pp.300-308.

 Trevor, J. and Varcoe, H. (2016). A Simple Way to Test Your Company’s

Strategic Alignment. Harvard Business Review. [online] Available at:

<https://hbr.org/2016/05/a-simple-way-to- test-your-companys-strategic-

alignment> [Accessed 1 July 2021].

67
 Walton, D. (2005). Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama

Press, p.6.

 Wilson, H.D., Malcolm, E. and Malcolm, M. (2002). Factors for success in

customer rela- tionship management (CRM) systems. Journal of Marketing

Management, 18(1), pp. 193–219.

 Wong, L.P. (2008). Data Anlysis in Qualitative Research” A Brief Guide to

Using Nvivo. Malaysian Family Physician, 3(1), pp.14-20.

 Yong Ahn, J., Ki Kim, S. and Soo Han, K. (2003). On the design concepts for

CRM system, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 103(5), pp. 324-

 331. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570310477370.

Questionnaire

Questions & Themes Subject & Goal

What do you think of CRM in Dell Understanding the orientation of the
Technology company? (Without automation) interviewee within the context of the
company.

68
 How complex do you think the CRM is in Understanding the knowledge of the
Dell Technology Company? interviewee and its stance on the
organization of CRM
How do you perceive CRM for Dell Understanding the vision of CRM strategy of
International Services India Pvt Ltd
the interviewee
in the next year? (For automation)
How do you perceive CRM for Dell Understanding the vision of the interviewee
Technology Dell Technology Companyin and its role in the company, then in relation
the next 5 years? (For automation) to CRM.
What do you think of CRM digitization for Understanding the level of acceptancy from
Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd ? the interviewee of CRM automation.
What do you think of the automated CRM Understanding the level of acceptancy from
system before and after implementation? the interviewee of CRM automation.
(Monday, Intercom and Growbots)

Scope for future study

Further research could be conducted from this action research with a quantitative

approach, aiming to understand whether the systematic model deducted from previous

theories could be confirmed in more SMEs. Research that would also study the

69
implementation process of a CRM system in a longer time frame could be interesting to

test the model combining Chalmeta (2006) and Cooper and Zmud (1990).

Photograph

70
71
72
73
74