A Critique of the JISC Self-Analysis Framework for CRM

A Critique of the JISC

Self-Analysis Framework

for

Relationship Management

Martin Hamilton

http://martinh.net

@martin_hamilton

Page 1 of 106 Loughborough University Business School

http://martinh.net/

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

TABLE OF FIGURES 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 8

COPYRIGHT9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10

1. INTRODUCTION 11

1.1 Customer Relationship Management in FE/HE....................................11

1.2 JISC Self-Analysis Framework for Customer Relationship

Management.................................................................................................11

1.3 The Process Improvement Pilot at Loughborough (PIPaL) project...13

2. PROJECT AIM AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 14

2.1 Project Aim.............................................................................................14

2.2 Summary of Research Methology.........................................................14

2.3 Incorporation of PIPaL Project Results................................................14

2.4 Structure of This Report........................................................................15

2.5 Rationale for Report Structure..............................................................17

3. REVIEW: “WHAT IS CRM?” 18


3.1 From the JISC Framework.....................................................................18

3.2 From the Literature................................................................................21

3.3 Summary.................................................................................................26

4. REVIEW: “THE NEEDS OF HEIS AND FECS” 27



4.3 Summary.................................................................................................35

5. REVIEW: “WHO ARE YOUR CUSTOMERS?” 36



5.3 Summary.................................................................................................35

6. REVIEW: “WHERE ARE YOU NOW?” 42



6.3 Summary.................................................................................................50

7. REVIEW: “ARE YOU READY FOR CHANGE?” 51



7.3 Summary.................................................................................................59

8. REVIEW: “PROCESS MAPPING” 60




8.3 Summary.................................................................................................71

9. REVIEW: “WHICH CRM?” 72



9.3 Summary.................................................................................................83

10. CONCLUSIONS 84

11. RECOMMENDATIONS 87

REFERENCES 89

Appendix A – JISC Self-Analysis Framework for Customer Relationship

Management 103


Table of Figures

Figure 1 - Traditional Organization (Rodgers and Howlett, 2000)..................19

Figure 2 - CRM Facilitated Organization (Rodgers and Howlett, 2000).........19

Figure 3 - Models of customer loyalty (Uncles et al, 2003).............................21

Figure 4 - Facebook application use of personal data (Felt and Evans, 2008)

................................................................................................................25

Figure 5 - Classic Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1992)...............28

Figure 6 - Comparison between student and consumer lifecycles (Svensson

and Wood, 2005).....................................................................................30

Figure 7 - Neural network predicting probability of student dropout (Luan,

2002).......................................................................................................32

Figure 8 - Business questions that CRM data mining could help with (Luan,

2002).......................................................................................................33

Figure 9 - Potential data sources for KPIs (Kim et al, 2003)...........................33

Figure 10 - Generic Value Map example (Donaghy, 2008)............................37

Figure 11 - Analytical uses of CRM (Xu and Walton, 2005)...........................40

Figure 12 - The CRM Continuum (Payne, 2006)............................................42

Figure 13 - Institutional maturity (Heywood et al, 2007).................................43

Figure 14 - Number of years since CRM implemented (Heywood et al, 2007)

................................................................................................................43

Figure 15 - Investment in CRM technology to date (Heywood et al, 2007)....44

Figure 16 - Business and Community Engagement transactions managed by

primary CRM system (Heywood et al, 2007)...........................................44


Figure 17 - Proportion of academic staff using CRM system regularly

(Heywood et al, 2007).............................................................................45

Figure 18 - Graphical summary of CRM case studies (Heywood et al, 2007)45

Figure 19 - Approaches to system implementation (InfoNet, 2008)...............46

Figure 20 - Potential benefits from CRM (Cap Gemini, 2005)........................48

Figure 21 - CRM benefits assessment model (Cap Gemini, 2005)................48

Figure 22 - CRM benefits matrix (Cap Gemini, 2005)....................................49

Figure 23 - CRM benefits from London authorities (Cap Gemini, 2005)........49

Figure 24 - Change Management (InfoNet, 2006)..........................................51

Figure 25 - Difficulty and disturbance, InfoNet (2006) after Pennington (2003)

................................................................................................................52

Figure 26 - Stakeholder model for PIPaL unified database (Hamilton et al,

2010).......................................................................................................53

Figure 27 - Complex Adaptive Systems view of Change Management (Olsen

and Eoyang, 2001)..................................................................................54

Figure 28 - Organisational Development - InfoNet (2006), after Burke and

Litwin (1992)............................................................................................55

Figure 29 - Types of Change (Ackerman, 1997)............................................56

Figure 30 - Episodic versus Continuous Change (Munduate and Bennebroek

Gravenhorst, 2003).................................................................................56

Figure 31 – The Zone of Complexity (Zimmerman, 2001)..............................57

Figure 32 - Building Commitment to Organizational Change (Conner and

Patterson, 1982)......................................................................................58

Figure 33 - Generic Business Process Re-engineering model (Vakola et al,

1998).......................................................................................................60


Figure 34 - Undergraduate prospectus process map (Hamilton et al, 2010). .61

Figure 35 - DARO telephone campaign process map (Hamilton et al, 2010).62

Figure 36 - External Affairs inquiry process map (Hamilton et al, 2010)........63

Figure 37 - Annual report process map (Hamilton et al, 2010).......................63

Figure 38 - Major Gift team process map (Hamilton et al, 2010)....................64

Figure 39 - Consultancy engagement process map (Hamilton et al, 2010)....65

Figure 40 - Business Process Re-Engineering techniques (Kittinger et al,

1997).......................................................................................................66

Figure 41 - Google Group creation process...................................................68

Figure 42 - Sending Google Group invitations...............................................68

Figure 43 - Value Stream Map approach to process mapping.......................69

Figure 44 - 5 Steps to Successful Selection (InfoNet, 2006)..........................72

Figure 45 - Project Set-Up (InfoNet, 2006).....................................................73

Figure 46 - Project Roles (InfoNet, 2006).......................................................73

Figure 47 – Evaluate Suppliers (InfoNet, 2006).............................................74

Figure 48 - A new model for CRM strategy and implementation (Payne and

Frow, 2006).............................................................................................76

Figure 49 - Overview audit of CRM key processes (Payne and Frow, 2006).77

Figure 50 - Relative implementation importance of CRM capabilities for

different CRM implementation paths (Henneberg, 2006)........................77

Figure 51 - Hypothetical CRM implementation model (Henneberg, 2006).....78

Figure 52 - Implementation timeframe analysis (Adebanjo, 2003).................80

Figure 53 - Time based configurability of e-CRM applications (Adebanjo,

2003).......................................................................................................80



Acknowledgements

I wish to extend my heartfelt thanks to Dr Nicola Bateman in Loughborough

University Business School, who supervised this project. Also to my wife

Michelle and daughters Holly and Eliza for their patience and understanding!

Loughborough University stakeholders and their nominees provided the raw

material for this study. I am indebted to them for sparing me the time to

discuss their work, and for their contributions to the feedback provided in this

report on the JISC Self-Analysis Framework.

I am particularly grateful to Phill Dickens, Pro-Vice Chancellor (Enterprise);

Jon Walker, Director of External Affairs; Ian Cairns, Director of Marketing &

Communications; Hannah Baldwin, Head of Public Relations; Jim Overend,

Head of Alumni Relations; Kathryn Walsh, Director of Business Partnerships;

Chris Garrod, Assistant Registrar (Graduation); Julie Taylor, Consultancy

Manager and Richard Barber, Information Officer for Development and Alumni

Relations.

This report builds upon work carried out for the “Process Improvement Pilot at

Loughborough” (PIPaL). PIPaL was funded under the Joint Information

Systems Committee (JISC) Business and Community Engagement

programme. I gratefully acknowledge the support provided by JISC

Programme Managers Simon Whittemore and Myles Danson during the

PIPaL project, and their valuable feedback on this report.

The process maps included in this report were developed by Anjana Lad from

IT Services, in consultation with the stakeholders being interviewed for the

PIPaL project.


Copyright

All original material is presented under a Creative Commons Attribution

Share-Alike license, as described by

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode


http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode

Executive Summary

This report provides a critique of the theory underlying the JISC Self-Analysis

Framework for Relationship Management (Donaghy, 2008). This relates to

Customer Relationship Management technology in a Further and Higher

Education context, and is informed by the results of the PIPaL project, a study

conducted at Loughborough (Hamilton, 2010).

Key findings of this report are that a future revision of the Framework would

benefit from:

Consideration of the sector’s use of techniques such as the Balanced

Scorecard and Key Performance Indicators. Some examples have

been cited in this report of Key Performance Indicators from leading

UK institutions (HEFCE, 2009)

Consideration of the role of Customer Experience Management (CEM)

in the success of leading brands such as Apple and Virgin, if no

appropriate case studies can be found for the HE/FE sector (Burton,

2005)

Greater use of the literature around CRM in Further and Higher

Education (e.g. Svensson and Wood, 2005)

Coverage of the subtle distinctions between “partner” and “customer”

relations (Hamilton et al, 2010)

Inclusion of further material from other JISC projects, including the

JISC InfoNet infoPack on Change Management (InfoNet, 2006) and

the KSA Partnership study (Heywood et al, 2007)

Exploration of additional/alternative process mapping techniques such

as Value Stream Mapping (Rother and Shook, 2003)

Greater use of the literature around CRM failures and how these may

be avoided - such as by improving engagement with employees (e.g.

Bohling et al, 2006)


1. Introduction

1.1 Customer Relationship Management in FE/HE

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is a popular business strategy to

foster a broader and deeper engagement between a firm and its customers.

Examples of this approach at work include loyalty card schemes such as

Tesco’s Clubcard (Dennis et al, 2005), and purely online systems such as

Amazon recommendations (“people who bought X also bought Y”), as

described in Linden et al (2003).

CRM is typically implemented through software such as Microsoft Dynamics

or Oracle Peoplesoft (Reinartz et al, 2004), but this is only a small part of the

picture. There is a substantial body of evidence that to be successful with

CRM an organization should examine its existing business processes and

adapt or reinvent them to take advantage of the centralized customer

database provided by the CRM system – Payne (2006), Boulding et al (2005).

In Further and Higher Education, CRM is still in its infancy, and there is an

ongoing debate over the nature of “relationship management” in an

educational context – Driscoll and Wicks (1998), Svensson and Wood (2005).

1.2 JISC Self-Analysis Framework for Customer Relationship

Management

The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) is funded by the Learning

and Skills Council, the Higher Education Funding Councils, the Research

Councils and the Department for Employment and Learning in Northern

Ireland. JISC describes its objectives (JISC, 2010) as:

“1) Provide cost-effective and sustainable shared national services and

resources


2) Help institutions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their

corporate and business systems

3) Help institutions to improve the quality of learning and teaching and the

student experience

4) Help institutions to improve the quality, impact and productivity of

academic research

5) Be a responsive, reflective and learning organisation that demonstrates

value for money”

At the time of writing JISC operated 49 services including the JANET network,

and 207 projects within 31 programmes (JISC, 2010a).

A recent JISC programme resulted in the development of a “Self-Analysis

Framework for Relationship Management” (Donaghy, 2008). This is intended

to provide institutions with a way of measuring their readiness for Customer

Relationship Management. The JISC Framework also aims to assist

organizations in assessing their “institutional maturity” - the breadth and depth

of any current use of this technology at an organization.

The JISC Framework resource consists of:

Web pages providing an introduction to Customer Relationship

Management, Business Process Modelling (Daniel Hunt, 1996) and

Business Process Re-engineering (Grint and Willcocks, 2007).

Templates and tools for self-reflection, to be used in conjunction with

stakeholder interviews, workshops etc

Advice on mapping out existing business processes using a simple

flowchart based Business Process Modelling technique inspired by the

Unified Modelling Language (UML) (Fowler, 2003)


1.3 The Process Improvement Pilot at Loughborough (PIPaL)

project

The Process Improvement Pilot at Loughborough (PIPaL) project was funded

by JISC to apply the Self-Analysis Framework for Relationship Management

at Loughborough and report back on the results. In the course of this work a

number of key stakeholders were interviewed, a workshop was held, and

Business Process Modelling was carried out in many of the external facing

areas of the institution.

It should be noted that (at the time of writing) Loughborough only made

“tactical” use of CRM technology – notably in the form of the Raiser’s Edge

system used by the Development and Alumni Relations Office to coordinate

fundraising and advancement activities. The JISC programme that funded

PIPaL was of particular interest to stakeholders in external facing

departments, who had already been discussing the possibility (and potential

pitfalls) of a single central CRM system.

Findings from the PIPaL project (Hamilton et al, 2010) are noted in this report

where appropriate, and have been incorporated in to the critique of the JISC

Self-Analysis Framework. The reader should be aware that PIPaL’s remit

was to apply the UML based Business Process Modelling technique

advocated in the Self-Analysis Framework, rather than to explore possible

alternatives.


2. Project Aim and Research Methodology

2.1 Project Aim

This aim of this project was to provide a critique of the academic theory

underlying the JISC Self-Analysis Framework for Relationship Management

(Donaghy, 2008), hereinafter “JISC Framework”. The findings of this critique

are used to make suggestions for improvements or clarifications to be

considered by JISC for a future revision of the Framework.

2.2 Summary of Research Methodology

The methodology chosen for this work was a examination of the JISC

Framework’s primary sources – summarizing and critiquing the literature

referred to. For reference, a copy of the Framework is attached to this report

as an Appendix.

2.3 Incorporation of PIPaL Project Results

Where appropriate, data gathered during the PIPaL project is used to inform

the critique. This material includes:

Notes from nine interviews which I conducted with CRM stakeholders

from the University’s external facing departments. The interviews were

loosely structured around the sections of the JISC Framework

document, with a particular goal of gathering information about

existing business processes and their quirks.

Findings from a stakeholder workshop convened by the project to

consider the evidence unearthed through the stakeholder interviews.


This brought together a number of key figures including the Director of

Marketing, the Director of Alumni Relations and Development, and the

Director of External Affairs. The workshop was facilitated by an

external consultant with expertise in CRM technology.

Maps of 14 business processes. These included a number of tasks

requiring a high degree of inter-departmental cooperation, often a

problem due to the lack of a central “customer” database such as

would be provided by a CRM system. These process maps were

constructed from my interview notes by my colleague Anjana Lad.

The findings of the PIPaL project were synthesized into a Case Study

(Hamilton et al, 2010) which constituted the project’s major deliverable.

2.4 Structure of This Report

This report is structured to mirror the JISC Framework, with major sections

covering each of the following JISC Framework topics (section numbers from

this report are shown in brackets):

“What is CRM?” (3) – introduces the area and discusses business

drivers for CRM. The potential impact on organizational structure is

noted, along with the need for a robust approach to process mapping.

Academic models of customer loyalty are examined, and issues around

privacy, security and data protection are explored.

“The Needs of HEIs and FECs” (4) – considers the use of techniques

such as the Balanced Scorecard and Key Performance Indicators

(KPIs) to monitor and manage performance, existing use of KPIs in the

sector, and the literature around CRM in Higher Education and the

“student as consumer”.

“Who are your customers?” (5) – identifying customer groups, the

needs of those groups, and ways of mapping and managing value; use


of tools such as the Value Map to visualize this cost/benefit

relationship, and the importance of the customer experience.

“Where are you now?” (6) – explores the concept of “institutional

maturity”, and the range of approaches (operational, tactical, strategic)

that organizations have followed with their CRM implementations; the

results of a survey of UK Further and Higher Education institutions’ use

of CRM, and lessons learned from the CRM National Programme in

local government.

“Are you ready for change?” (7) – provides advice on assessing the

institution’s readiness for change, including “people factors” such as

resistance to change and senior management buy-in, and tools that the

organization can use to measure its “will or desire” for change.

“Process Mapping” (8) – examines the JISC Framework’s suggested

light touch approach to Business Process Modelling, considers the

wider context of Business Process Re-Engineering, and discusses

some alternative strategies (such as Value Stream Mapping) that may

be more effective in some cases. Particular use is made here of the

findings of the PIPaL project, which conducted process mapping tests

in most of Loughborough’s external facing departments using the JISC

Framework’s methodology.

“Which CRM?” (9) - details the steps required in order to develop the

business case for introducing CRM including requirements gathering

and costing, and good practice in project management. The JISC

Framework only provides generic project management examples – I

have augmented this with examples from the literature that focus

specifically on the introduction of CRM.


2.5 Rationale for Report Structure

Each section of this report has three subsections:

“From the JISC Framework” – the references from the corresponding

section of the JISC Framework are highlighted and discussed.

References have been followed and in some cases additional material

has been indentified that I feel the JISC Framework would benefit from

including in a future revision. Results from the PIPaL project are

included in this section, given their direct relationship to the JISC

Framework.

“From the literature” – the academic literature (typically peer reviewed

journal papers) is investigated for additional material that might

usefully augment the JISC Framework. The JISC Framework is

notably light on examples of CRM in a Further/Higher Education

context, hence it was of particular interest to determine whether there

was a motherlode of more relevant material in the literature that could

be of use to JISC.

“Summary” – each section has a short summary which aims to

highlight the key findings. The section summaries are brought forward

to form the basis of the report’s overall conclusions and

recommendations to JISC.

Whilst this is a somewhat unusual approach, I chose to take it due to the

length of the JISC Framework – breaking the Framework down into sections

meant that I was able to preserve the context of the topic under discussion,

e.g. the unique requirements of the education sector (section 4) or

approaches to Business Process Modelling (section 8).


3. Review: “What is CRM?”

This section of the JISC Framework is concerned with introducing the

underlying concepts of Customer Relationship Management (CRM).

3.1 From the JISC Framework

Feinberg and Kadam (2002) report back on a study of customer satisfaction

with retail Web sites. They are quoted in the JISC Framework observing that:

“CRM is a business and marketing strategy that integrates technology,

process and all business activities around the customer.”

Das Gupta (2005) defines CRM as:

“a management strategy that enables an organisation to become

customer-focussed and develop stronger relationships with its clientele.

It helps piece together information about customers, sales, marketing

effectiveness, responsiveness and market trends”

The JISC Framework also references the widely cited Handbook of CRM

(Payne, 2006). This advises that organizations should:

“Keep the technological aspects of CRM in perspective as the means,

not the end. Think ‘successful corner shop’ as an underlying principle.

There, a working ‘memory’ of customers, supported by two-way

dialogues, is what enabled effective customer relationship

management”

Rodgers and Howlett (2000) illustrate two different approaches to

Relationship Management in the figures below. The first is an organization

with “front of house” and “back of house” activities:


Figure 1 - Traditional Organization (Rodgers and Howlett, 2000)

The second is a modern organization that puts the customer at the centre of

its processes, facilitated by the central CRM customer database:

Figure 2 - CRM Facilitated Organization (Rodgers and Howlett, 2000)

This JISC Framework quotes a blog posting by Phinney (2001) discussing the

importance of process mapping in introducing Customer Relationship

Management. Phinney states that:

“By definition – a business is only as successful as its processes”

Phinney also goes on to make the following case for mapping and

understanding business processes. This is not quoted in the JISC

Framework, but would make a useful addition to a future revision of the

document.


Phinney notes that a process mapping based approach:

“1. Locks in agreement on how things work among sales process owners

2. Provides an efficient environment to discuss or produce change

3. Provides least cost initiative approaches

4. Compresses the time needed to decide on changes

5. Provides an accurate picture of the steps and relative ROI of each for

prioritization

6. Provides documentation and internal disciplines to re-create change

downstream”

Burton (2005) discusses the use of CRM at airline EasyJet:

“The airline industry is extremely competitive and while safety record,

image, price and flight convenience are undoubtedly influences on

passenger behaviour, it is service that is the real differentiator”

The references and quotes reproduced above are typical of the JISC

Framework’s introductory material. Whilst they help to establish some

general principles, I would argue that the lay reader is left somewhat in the

dark as to what a Customer Relationship Management system is, how it

works – and why large companies such as EasyJet are so interested in it.


3.2 From the Literature

Verhoef (2003) provides a useful summary of the literature in this area and

highlights two key areas for commercial use of CRM technology: Customer

Retention and Customer Share Development. Verhoef defines the latter (after

Peppers and Rogers, 1999) as:

“the ratio of a customer’s purchases of a particular category of

products or services from supplier X to the customer’s total purchases

of that category of products or services from all suppliers.”

To this end all aspects of a customer’s dealings with a company are recorded

and subject to predictive analysis. This is used to determine the likes of

special offers made under loyalty schemes and the content of direct marketing

mailshots. Uncles et al (2003) discuss three academic models of customer

loyalty, as illustrated in the Figure below:

Figure 3 - Models of customer loyalty (Uncles et al, 2003)


These models are characterised by Uncles et al as follows:

1. “loyalty as primarily an attitude that sometimes leads to a relationship

with the brand” – e.g. see Day (1969), Jacoby and Chestnut (1978),

Foxall and Goldsmith (1994) and Reichheld (1996).

2. “loyalty mainly expressed in terms of revealed behaviour (i.e. the

pattern of past purchases)” – e.g. see Ehrenberg (1988), Fader and

Hardie (1996), Kahn et al (1988), Massey et al (1970).

3. “buying moderated by the individual’s characteristics, circumstances,

and/or the purchase situation” – e.g. see Belk (1974, 1975), Blackwell

et al (1999), Fazio and Zanna (1981).

There is a clear implication here that an organization may find that it has put

into place the “wrong” CRM system, or at least one not best suited to the

behaviour exhibited by its customers.

Boulding et al (2005) discuss strategic approaches and potential pitfalls, in

particular issues around privacy and security:

“Sometimes the firm can unobtrusively collect information about the

customer at the time of the transaction. Other times, the firm must rely

on the customer providing this information.”

Lewis (2005) found that customer behaviour changes when the customer is

aware that they are being monitored and profiled. These conclusions are

amplified by Boulding et al (2005):

“Lewis shows that some customers anticipate what a firm will do after it

observes customer behavior. This leads these customers to modify

their own behavior. In other words, the customers act strategically, this

reduces the firm’s share of the value creation pie, even if the firm

anticipates these reactions, though anticipation on the part of the firm

will reduce this reduction in share of the value pie.”

The JISC Framework discusses resistance to change from staff members, but

does not cover privacy and data protection. I contend that these are key


issues - who has access to which customer information, with whose

permission, and what is being done with it? Note that information may have

been provided by a third party not covered under institutional policies for staff

and students, such as a tenant or a conference delegate.

Amplifying the disclosure theme identified above, Rygielski et al (2002) look at

data mining techniques and policy issues. They conclude that:

“One basic principle for businesses using personalized technology is to

disclose to their consumers the kinds of information they are seeking

and how that information will be used. Some groups list objectives for

ethical information and privacy management. Others have developed a

Privacy Bill of Rights that includes fair access by individuals to their

personal information, responsible linkage of online and off-line

information, suitable criteria for opt-in and opt-out privacy options,

standardizing the disclosure to consumers of any existing privacy

policy, independent verification of implementation and execution of

privacy and security policies, and fair mechanisms for resolving

disputes by a trusted third party”

We often hear of information being disclosed inadvertently through the loss or

theft of computer equipment – e.g. the recent loss of 63,000 current and

former employees’ personal information by Stanford University (Naraine and

Danchev, 2010). High profile data breaches have been chronicled by the

Open Rights Group in the UK (ORG, 2010) and the Privacy Rights

Clearinghouse in the United States (PRC, 2010).

Taber (2010) warns organizations to be extremely careful in their use of CRM

to avoid potential legal issues with legislation such as EU Directive 2002/58

on Privacy and Electronic Communications (the “E-Privacy Directive”),

FERPA/HIPAA in the US, and lawsuits from competitors seeking access to

data or aggrieved customers seeking redress after a data breach.

This is an area where there is already a substantial body of work that a future

revision of the JISC Framework could draw upon – particularly in the area of

online commerce. For example, Chellappa and Sin (2005) study the


dichotomy between privacy and personalization for the online consumer.

Boyens et al (2002) look at privacy conflicts between consumer oriented

features and data mining carried out by service operators – often contracted

out to third parties.

In an ideal world you would have control over who did what with your personal

data. However, this requires “buy in” from a number of participants. In a

widely cited paper on IT systems techniques for preserving privacy, Karjoth et

al (2002) sketch out a “Platform for enterprise privacy practices” that puts

information disclosure under the control of the consumer. This is based on

the work of the World-Wide Web Consortium’s on Internet privacy, which was

subsequently wound down in 2007 after concluding (W3C, 2007):

“there was insufficient support from current Browser implementers for

the implementation of P3P 1.1”

There is now a body of work around the privacy issues that have arisen with

one service provider alone – Facebook. For example, see Acquisti and Gross

(2006) and Dwyer et al (2007). For the purposes of this report I shall use

Facebook as an example of the more general areas that need to be

addressed around privacy, security and data protection in relation to CRM.

Facebook have been widely criticized for introducing technologies that

remove or reduce users’ privacy, such as News Feeds (Boyd, 2008) and the

ill fated “Beacon” system (Perez, 2007):

“Off-Facebook activities that can be broadcast to one's Facebook

friends include purchasing a product, signing up for a service and

including an item on a wish list.”

Jones and Soltren (2005) surveyed students at four US Universities:

“As a whole, users are familiar with the privacy features Facebook

offers, and choose not to use them. […] of the 380 users who gave

information regarding their use of “My Privacy," 234 (62%) said they

use the feature, while 146 (38%) said they do not. Actively choosing to


not use “My Privacy" indicates that users believe there is a benefit to

providing information and allowing others to see it.”

Jones and Soltren (2005) also noted that:

“We asked users to guess whether or not Facebook can share your

information with other companies. Of 374 respondents, 174 (47%)

believed Facebook could not do this, while 200 (53%) believed

Facebook could. Facebook can indeed share your information with

other companies for advertising or other purposes, as indicated in their

privacy policy”

Felt and Evans (2008) looked at 150 Facebook applications, and found that it

was commonplace for applications to use information that they had not

explicitly been given permission to, as shown below.

Figure 4 - Facebook application use of personal data (Felt and Evans, 2008)

Of course Facebook is a public web service, far removed in many ways from

the private databases collected for the purposes of Customer Relationship

Management. However, many of the same considerations apply – e.g. the

case of disclosure to third parties noted above is particularly relevant when

information was provided to a related entity such as a University subsidiary

that handles conference and accommodation bookings.


3.3 Summary

I have examined the Customer Relationship Management introductory

material provided by the JISC Framework and identified several cases where

better use could be made of the literature referred to by the Framework - e.g.

the various JISC InfoNet infoKits (InfoNet, 2008 etc).

A lack of clarity has been noted over core concepts – the JISC Framework’s

descriptions of CRM and its uses tend to be at quite a high level. Business

stakeholders and staff affected by the introduction of a CRM system would

require additional information about day-to-day practicalities. Some examples

have been provided from the literature, e.g. Boulding et al (2005) note the

effect on consumer behaviour of being monitored and profiled via CRM.

Introductory examples from the peer reviewed literature have been supplied.

These reinforce the rather upbeat messages about CRM technology

highlighted in the JISC Framework, and also provide some cautionary tales.

Examples have been drawn from Facebook’s “sinister” side (e.g. Jones

and Soltren, 2005), in the absence of CRM specific literature covering data

protection and privacy.


4. Review: “The Needs of HEIs and FECs”

This section of the Framework considers the application of CRM technology in

the context of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and Further Education

Colleges (FECs).


The Framework considers how one might measure the success of a CRM

programme, quoting from Hughes (2008):

“No matter what anyone says, the purpose of CRM, like all other

marketing programs, is to increase profits by increasing sales by more

than the cost of the CRM. These global measures conceal a number

of vital steps towards profits that CRM, if it is working, will be able to

bring about. They are:

1. Increased customer retention (less defections each year)

2. Increased visits or orders per customer per year

3. Increased average spending per order or visit

4. Increased cross sales – customers buy in more categories

5. Increased up sales – customers buy higher priced items

6. Increased reactivation of previous customers

7. Increased referrals of new customers by existing customers

8. Doing all of the above while keeping increased costs (required to

make them happen) from exceeding the increased sales”

This section of the JISC Framework also considers managing the outcomes of

introducing CRM. It contains just one other citation from the literature, the


landmark paper where Kaplan and Norton (1992) introduce the Balanced

Scorecard and the use of Key Performance Indicators. The figure below

illustrates the concept of the Balanced Scorecard.

Figure 5 - Classic Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1992)

In an educational context, what would these goals and measures (Key

Performance Indicators) be? I will look into this in further detail in the next

section, but will note at this point that CRM is only one component of a larger

portfolio of metrics, reflecting the breadth and depth of the institution’s

activities.

The JISC Framework offers a template for identifying the outcomes of

introducing CRM that organizations can adapt for their own self-analysis. This

is, however, rooted in the language of business and may be inappropriate for

an educational setting. For example one of the first statistics to be monitored

is “Overall profit generated”.



The lack of detailed coverage of CRM in a Further/Higher Education context

lets the JISC Framework down considerably.

This is a critical area, because an institution developing its own business case

for CRM would need to find the equivalent of Hughes’ vital steps above. What

is the equivalent of customer retention, what do “sales” mean in an

educational context, and are Hughes’ cross/up selling meaningful concepts?

Moving beyond the JISC Framework, there is a substantial body of work

looking at Customer Relationship Management in the Higher Education

context. For example, Svensson and Wood (2005) address the issue of

student-as-consumer, and conclude that:

“the citizen-authority relationship metaphor provides a more accurate

description of the relationship between universities and students than

the traditional customer-supplier relationship metaphor.

Knowledge and the official pursuit of it through the attainment of a

degree has been turned into a readily-for-sale commodity. Universities

need to collectively enlighten their students that they are citizens of the

university community and not just customers of the university product

alone.“

This is a common theme for the literature covering use of CRM in Higher

Education. Driscoll and Wicks (1998, p. 59) identify a number of risks

associated with treating education as a commodity to be bought and sold e.g.:

“if students are able to negotiate curriculum and evaluation based on

their perceived needs as customers, then universities may possibly

erode the quality to which students were attracted in the first place.“


This work proved remarkably prescient, with the subsequent introduction and

failure of the Individual Learning Account (PAC, 2003). However, Wolf (2008)

offers a contrary viewpoint:

“In fact, individuals are in a better position to know what is good for

them than are governments, because they are close to "their" labour

market, and know what sort of work fits their lives. The record of "youth

training" and "adult retraining" schemes, in which governments decide

what training to offer, with benefits often dependent on attendance, is

uniformly dreadful.”

Writing in the International Journal of Education Management, Lust (1998, p.

34) considers the student-as-consumer dilemma, and concludes that:

“If we think only of the short term customer satisfaction, the longer term

benefits of intrinsic motivation and intellectual exploration will be lost. “

This is problematic for CRM, given its focus on tools and techniques that have

been brought in from the world of business. Tierney (1999, p. 126) notes that

these may not be applicable in an educational context:

“A customer driven focus certainly runs the risk of destroying standards if

the definition of such a focus is to blindly adapt to the marketplace and

merely meet the whims of whoever comes to classes.“

Svensson and Wood (2005) offer a simple diagrammatic view of the differing

rights and obligations involved in the customer and student lifecycles:


Figure 6 - Comparison between student and consumer lifecycles (Svensson and Wood, 2005)

This highlights that there is a far deeper question that (by taking the

introduction of the CRM system as a given) has yet to be addressed – what is

the purpose of the CRM system in an educational context? It may be that use

of CRM technology is limited to “customer facing” scenarios such as call

centres run during clearing or alumni fundraising, but it would be helpful to a

wider institutional view. Again there is literature to draw upon.

Grant and Anderson (2002) describe their vision for Customer Relationship

Management in Higher Education, and list some goals that institutions might

aspire to:

“Increased revenue through improved recruitment and retention

Reduced recruitment costs

Improved customer service

Quicker yield conversions

Improved customer satisfaction”

However, they also sound a note of caution, observing that these goals can

only be achieved through a sea change in the way that IT systems are

implemented, as part of a holistic programme rather than existing in silos:


“The evolution from point-to-point integration between applications to a

single institution-wide database with integrated business rules and a

workflow process library will blur the distinction between student,

finance, alumni, and human resource systems.”

Grant and Anderson (2002) also offer an example of possible use of CRM

within a Higher Education institution:

“A personalized mailing campaign would […] be launched using both e-

mail and traditional mail. Within each mailing, prospects would be given

a personal identification code for access to the university. All prospects

not responding by any channel (Web, e-mail, phone, fax, or other)

would be sent follow-up e-mails.

A prospect receives the e-mail three days before the receipt of the

paper letter. The prospect then activates the hyperlink and is linked to

the university’s recruitment Web page. The prospect is requested to

enter his or her personal identification code and then is linked to a

personalized home page and portal. The Web page is customized,

based on interests known from the search data. For example, if the

prospect is interested in sports or band, links to the university’s athletic

department or music club Web pages are provided.”

Coverage in the literature of CRM in a Higher Education context typically

focuses on those situations that most closely resemble a conventional

customer/supplier relationship – recruitment and advancement/fundraising.


But what purposes will the customer database be put to? Luan (2002) offers

us some clues as to this in his paper on Data Mining in Higher Education:

Figure 7 - Neural network predicting probability of student dropout (Luan, 2002)

Figure 8 - Business questions that CRM data mining could help with (Luan, 2002)

Clearly there are some very sensitive topics potentially under consideration –

and what should an institution do in order to react sensitively when a

computer system predicts that a student is likely to drop out or fail their

course? It may be best not to acknowledge the source of the information due

to the preconceptions that will arise about computer (or operator) error – see

Tait and Entwistle (1996) and Parker (1999).


Kim et al (2003) study the implementation of a Balanced Scorecard approach,

and highlight a number of areas where data may be gathered in to populate

Key Performance Indicators, e.g. through the interactions shown in the figure

below.

Figure 9 - Potential data sources for KPIs (Kim et al, 2003)

Many UK Universities publish their Key Performance Indicators on their public

websites. For example, the University of Birmingham’s institutional KPIs

(UoB, 2010), and the Newcastle University Library KPIs (UoN, 2009).The

Higher Education Funding Councils also produce high level KPIs for the

sector (HEFCE, 2009).

A useful addition to a future revision of the JISC Framework would be a

section covering KPIs in use across the sector, and in particular any use of

KPIs to monitor the introduction of a CRM system. This could be based on a

survey of existing institutional practice coupled with web based research.

Croteau and Li (2003) examine the literature around Critical Success Factors

(CSF) for CRM implementations, and study CRM implementations in 57 large

organizations in Canada. They conclude that top level management support

and involvement is a critical pre-requisite for success, and to defuse potential

resistance to change.


4.3 Summary

This section highlights the commercial view of CRM as a technology to drive

sales, increase customer loyalty, and so on. This is contrasted with

institutional goals, which are typically expressed in rather different language,

e.g. reducing drop out rates and failure to complete courses.

This is an area where the JISC Framework is notably weak, in that no attempt

is made to draw examples from the education sector – even though these are

readily available. Examples include Svensson and Wood (2005), Driscoll and

Wicks (1998), Wolf (2008) and Tierney (1999).

It is suggested that a future revision of the JISC Framework might benefit from

including a study of the sector’s use of techniques such as the Balanced

Scorecard and Key Performance Indicators to satisfy the broader agenda of

performance management beyond that which may be achieved purely through

adoption of CRM. Some examples have been cited in this report of Key

Performance Indicators from leading UK institutions (HEFCE, 2009)


5. Review: “Who are your customers?”

This section of the JISC Framework is concerned with identifying customer

groups, the needs of those groups, and ways of creating and mapping

customer value.


Bennis (1989) states that:

“The true measure of any society is not what it knows but what it does

with what it knows”

The JISC Framework also cites the “Doing the Business” case study into

collaboration between Further Education colleges and employers (Fusion,

2007). This observes that consultation around the implementation of a CRM:

“…is a wide process that involves utilizing regional and sub regional

labour market intelligence as well as working with partner organizations

across the immediate area to identify gaps. Also each provider would

work with each of their employers individually or in a cluster across a

sector to ascertain whether or not there are gaps in the local market.

This can be shared with the consortium to ensure the sharing of best

practice and maintain strong referral routes and sign posting

opportunities.”

Dwyer (2008) introduces the concept of the Value Map and describes how

this may be applied to the hospitality industry – where CRM technology is

already widely used. The figure below provides an illustrative example of the

Value Map technique. I was unable to find examples of Value Maps in an

education context in the literature, and this would be a useful area for a future

revision of the JISC Framework to cover.


Figure 10 - Generic Value Map example (Donaghy, 2008)

Peppers and Rogers (2007) discuss the difference between Customer

Experience Management and Customer Relationship Management (CEM):

“...CRM, that’s how a customer looks to a company ...CEM, that’s really

how the company looks to the customer. In way too many cases, the

way a customer looks to a company is sort of the way prey looks to a

vulture.”

Alperin (2005) offers this helpful definition of CEM:

“Broadly defined, Customer Experience Management (CEM) is the

process of managing the events and personal interactions that make up

a customer’s experience. By looking outside of itself, an institution or

organization gains valuable insight into the customer’s perspective. This

process determines customers’ experience by managing “touchpoints”—

interactions with all who come in contact with a customer. Customer

Experience Management is the process that successfully builds brand

loyalty and repeat business.

A further quote from Alperin (2005) on examples of Customer Experience

“touchpoints” beyond the key teaching and learning experience would be


useful to include in a future revision of the JISC Framework:

1. Student housing preferences – campus appearance, ensuite

bedrooms, computer labs, coffee bars etc

2. Technology, e.g. wireless Internet access

3. Fitness and athletics – Alperin states that students expect to find

facilities matching or exceeding those of a private health club

4. Dining – increased choices, presence of brand name franchises, food

prepared as you watch

5. Entertainment – cultural and sporting events, invited speakers and

other opportunities to bring outsiders to campus and present a vibrant

image of the institution

However, an important question follows from this: what is the scope of the

CRM activity? The recent JISC PIPaL case study concluded that this was

perhaps the key issue for any project. From Hamilton et al (2010):

“There was clear consensus that a Relationship Management

programme can only be successful given effective business processes,

committed people and supporting technology. The scale of the effort

involved at an institution could vary drastically depending on the scope

of the project – e.g. a system for use only by external facing units,

versus a system or systems for cross-institutional use. Some

consideration should be given to institutions taking a dual-path

approach, with separate (but integrated) Relationship Management

systems targeting particular business areas.”

It is perhaps worth noting that some University staff members (typical in

administrative and support roles) already have a requirement to monitor and

track dialogue on an ongoing basis – e.g. to facilitate conference and

accommodation bookings, to liaise with the press, to manage consultancy and

research contracts, and so on. For people working in these roles a carefully

implemented CRM system could be hugely beneficial and is likely to be

welcomed rather than feared.



There is a body of work covering Customer Experience Management in an

educational context, driven primarily by the Quality Assurance agenda. For

example, Aldridge and Rowley (1998) reviewed the literature on CEM in

Higher Education and carried out a survey on the student experience. Key

findings were:

“Continued perceived poor quality will […] lead to disconfirmation which

may be expressed through course and module questionnaires and other

formal measurements of student summative evaluations. Disaffirmation

occurs when the student ceases to be an effective member of the

educational community. This withdrawal may be exhibited through formal

withdrawal, or through failure. On occasion, disaffected students will

remain in the institution, and continue to perform poorly; although

disaffected they may feel that they have no option but to continue with

their studies. These students are likely to be vulnerable to

dissatisfaction, disconfirmation and dissonance.”

This section of the JISC Framework also highlights that the Framework

provides very little coverage of CRM in relation to managing partner relations

– e.g. with funding councils, regional development agencies, peer institutions

and so on. There are subtle differences between “partner” relations and

“customer” relations

Xu and Walton (2005) discuss the analytical uses to which data gathered by a

CRM may be put, and offer this helpful diagram summarizing their findings:


Figure 11 - Analytical uses of CRM (Xu and Walton, 2005)

Xu and Walton also note what they feel is a key role of a CRM system in

providing analytical support:

“An analytical CRM should provide customer profiling and customer

segmentation functions with the capability to identify strategically

significant customers.”


5.3 Summary

The JISC Framework introduces the Value Map tool (Dwyer, 2008), which is

evidently intended to be a key concept. Unfortunately the Value Map

examples provided in the Framework are generic and no exceptions are made

for the education sector’s unique characteristics.

The Framework introduces the concept of Customer Experience Management

(CEM), but does not elaborate further upon this – even where there are some

obvious quotes from the referenced material, and a body of published peer

reviewed work such as Alperin (2005) and Peppers and Rogers (2007).

It might be appropriate for a future revision of the Framework to consider the

role of CEM in the success of brands such as Apple and Virgin, if no

appropriate case studies can be found for the HE/FE sector.

A significant problem with this section of the Framework is that it fails to

address issues around the scope of the CRM implementation – how does an

institution decide whether to put a “full service” system in for use by everyone,

or a system for use by (say) staff in external facing departments only? Advice

and survey/case study results would be very helpful here. The KSA

Partnership study (Heywood et al, 2007) offers much in the way of source

material.

Similarly the distinctions between “partner” and “customer” relations (Hamilton

et al, 2010) are not addressed in the Framework, and coverage of this area

would be a welcome addition to a future revision of the Framework.

An observation from the literature of some relevance is that to carry out the

analytical work required to scope out a CRM implementation, it may be

necessary to put into place something that comes close to the functionality of

a CRM system (Xu and Walton, 2005). This in itself may be a clue as to why

many CRM implementations are reported as failing or being incorrectly

specified (Lindgreen, 2004).


6. Review: “Where are you now?”

This section of the JISC Framework is concerned with establishing

institutional “maturity” in terms of Customer Relationship Management, i.e.

any systems already in use and the breadth and depth of their use.


The JISC Framework draws upon Payne (2006) to suggest that there is a

“continuum” of CRM use at organizations, from tactical to strategic:

Figure 12 - The CRM Continuum (Payne, 2006)

Whilst there are no further literature references, this section of the JISC

Framework also draws upon prior work funded by JISC – a study conducted

by KSA Partnership (Heywood et al, 2007) and advice from the JISC InfoNet

advisory service on System Implementation models (InfoNet, 2008). Arguably

the key KSA Partnership finding was the concept of “institutional maturity”, as

illustrated in the figure below:


Figure 13 - Institutional maturity (Heywood et al, 2007)

The KSA Partnership study carried out a survey of institutions (with 69

respondents), followed up with a series of face to face interviews and a

workshop. Inevitably the quantitative elements of the study will be overtaken

by events and become less relevant as time passes. However, several of the

quantitative results may be helpful to institutions seeking to understand how

CRM systems are being used in the sector, e.g. see the figures below.

Figure 14 - Number of years since CRM implemented (Heywood et al, 2007)


Figure 15 - Investment in CRM technology to date (Heywood et al, 2007)

Figure 16 - Business and Community Engagement transactions managed by primary CRM system (Heywood et al, 2007)


Figure 17 - Proportion of academic staff using CRM system regularly (Heywood et al, 2007)

It is also unfortunate that greater use is not made of the qualitative results of

the KSA Partnership work – notably the case studies conducted with

institutions, summarised graphically below.

Figure 18 - Graphical summary of CRM case studies (Heywood et al, 2007)


The JISC Framework refers to the implementation models described in

(InfoNet, 2008), and notes that:

“The appropriateness of each model will depend on the circumstances

of your institution. You do not have to move from peripheral straight to

strategic. Many developers/consultancies advise on a phased

approach so that the organization can get accustomed to the changes

and any difficulties can be resolved without huge consequences to the

entire organization.“

The figure below illustrates the different approaches characterized in InfoNet

(2008). It should be noted that this is a generic document dealing with the

introduction of new IT systems, and not specific to Customer Relationship

Management per se.

Figure 19 - Approaches to system implementation (InfoNet, 2008)



I was unable to find examples of “CRM maturity” in the literature covering

CRM’s use in an educational setting. However, there have been a number of

publications exploring CRM maturity more generally in the public sector.

King (2006) considers the use of CRM in local government by examining the

lessons learned from eight CRM Pathfinder projects, and notes that:

“Customer relationship management (CRM) is seen as a key element

in delivering citizen-centric public services in the UK. However, CRM

originated in the private sector as a technology to support customer

acquisition, retention and extension (cross-selling). The

appropriateness of this technology to organizations striving to meet

complex goals such as improving the quality of life for vulnerable

people is open to question.”

It is important to note that the Pathfinder projects were part of a larger

government initiative to incorporate CRM technology into processes and

interaction with the citizen – the CRM National Programme (eGov, 2004). The

goal of the CRM National Programme was to facilitate “joined up e-

Government” in time for a central Government deadline in 2005. CRM

Bassham (2005), summarises the lessons learned from the national

programme.

Unfortunately much of the information relating to this work is no longer

generally available. Ironically this is a direct result of embracing new

technologies – the primary resource for the programme was the

www.crmacademy.org website, which is no longer available. Some

information has been captured by the Internet Archive project and is available

via their “Way Back Machine” (IA, 2010).

Other key resources were the Local e-Government website -

www.localegov.gov.uk, and the CRM National Project site www.crmnp.net,

but again these have been allowed to lapse. The material from these sites


http://www.crmnp.net/

http://www.localegov.gov.uk/

http://www.crmacademy.org/

could still be helpful to the FE/HE community on its own CRM journey, if a

digital preservation ethos had been adopted (Farrell, 2010). As it is there are

now few visible outputs of this £4.27m taxpayer funded project.

One of the available outputs is the report of a benefits realization study

conducted for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Cap Gemini, 2005).

The study provides an insight into the areas where it was felt that CRM could

make the greatest impact. The chart below summarises its results:

Figure 20 - Potential benefits from CRM (Cap Gemini, 2005)

Cap Gemini also developed a model for quantifying benefits which exposes

the underlying process logic, e.g. reduced transaction time, reduced number

of transactions, and improved staff productivity. This is illustrated below:

Figure 21 - CRM benefits assessment model (Cap Gemini, 2005)


The Cap Gemini study highlights a number of areas where CRM may be

beneficial, as shown in the figure below:

Figure 22 - CRM benefits matrix (Cap Gemini, 2005)

Cap Gemini also provide evidence of the potential benefits of CRM using data

gathered from two London authorities, as shown below:

Figure 23 - CRM benefits from London authorities (Cap Gemini, 2005)


6.3 Summary

The JISC Framework introduces the concept of “institutional maturity”, which

is presented without any further comment. This makes it difficult for the lay

reader to determine whether institutional maturity is something that has been

invented for the Framework, or is already in widespread use. A literature

search has determined that this is a common label (King, 2006 and Cap

Gemini, 2005), but failed to identify any literature focusing on the education

sector.

The KSA Partnership (Heywood et al, 2007) carried out both qualitative and

quantitative research into CRM adoption in the sector, and it is unfortunate

that greater use is not made of their results to inform the Framework. This

would be more relevant to readers in FE and HE than many of the examples

that the Framework uses, which are drawn for the most part from the world of

business.

This section of the JISC Framework refers to an “infoPack” on System

Implementation planning (InfoNet, 2008) produced by the JISC InfoNet

service. Whilst this is hugely useful as a training and development resource, it

is in the wrong part of the Framework and should be moved to one of the later

sections.

This lack of examples in the education sector should be countered by the

wealth of data available about the recent initiative to introduce CRM across

local government. Unfortunately key results from the programme appear to

have been lost due to there being no Digital Preservation strategy (Farrell,

2010) in place at the time of this work. The key players in the “CRM National

Programme” are well known, and qualitative interviews might help to inform

further work by JISC in this area.


7. Review: “Are you ready for change?”

This section of the JISC Framework considers readiness for change, and

tools that the institution can use to measure their “will or desire” for change.

Strategies for dealing with different organizational cultures are explored, along

with tactics for introducing change without alienating the people of the

organization.


The Framework draws from the JISC InfoNet “infoKits” on Change

Management (InfoNet, 2006) and Creating a Managed Learning Environment

(InfoNet, 2003). The Change Management infoKit offers a particularly apt

figure that summarises graphically the issues involved around this topic:

Figure 24 - Change Management (InfoNet, 2006)

Whilst this section of the JISC Framework makes minimal use of the literature,

the Change Management InfoKit has a very thorough investigation of Change

Management theory. I will return to this document in section 7.2 below.


The JISC Framework quotes Pennington (2003), who proposes a tool to

assist organizations in diagnosing the impact of a proposed change. This is

shown in the figure below, which is not included in the JISC Framework but

would be a welcome addition to it.

Figure 25 - Difficulty and disturbance, InfoNet (2006) after Pennington (2003)

In a report entitled “Effecting change in HE”, the Higher Education Funding

Council for England writes (HEFCE, 2004):

“Academics are challenging individuals - it is the nature of academia to

debate, discuss and criticise. Engaging in debate is essential if there is

to be buy-in from the academic community and criticism should not

necessarily be seen as a lack of support.”

It should be noted at this point that academics as a group, whilst not wholly

excluded from the JISC Framework, are certainly under-represented. On the

role of the academic in a CRM project, the PIPaL project stakeholder

consultation found that (Hamilton et al, 2010):

“Academics are the key to new relationships but the pressure of their

roles leaves little time for on-going relationship development or account

management


For research and consultancy it is the academic who is contacted in an

estimated 95% of enquiries

In what is a competitive situation a more consistent and simple contact

procedure would improve the partner experience

Information and the relationship is retained by the academic with

further and duplicate information built up in other departmental touch

points

Major companies often need/want a wide range of services. The

combined relationship value of Enterprise and Academics is more

powerful and could be successfully deployed if Enterprise had an

greater awareness of current partners and their existing relationships

with for example Academics”

The PIPaL project went on to develop a unified database model that made

Academics “first class” users, alongside external facing departments:

Figure 26 - Stakeholder model for PIPaL unified database (Hamilton et al, 2010)



This section of the report draws heavily upon sources identified by the JISC

InfoNet team in their Change Management infoKit (InfoNet, 2006) - the

InfoNet work includes a comprehensive literature review.

The relationship between Complexity Theory and change management is

introduced through the work of Lewin and Regine (1999) and Olson and

Eoyang (2001). Olson and Eoyang offer a view of change management

through the lens of Complex Adaptive System theory (Holland, 1992), as

illustrated in the table below.

Traditional Complex Adaptive System

Few variables determine outcomes Innumerable variables determine outcome

The whole is equal to the sum of the parts (reductionist)

The whole is different from the sum of the parts (holistic)

Direction is determined by design and the power of a few leaders

Direction is determined by emergence and the participation of many people

Individual or system behaviour is knowable, predictable and controllable

Individual or system behaviour is unknowable, unpredictable and uncontrollable

Causality is linear: every effect can be traced to a specific cause

Causality is mutual: Every cause is also an effect, and every effect is also a cause

Relationships are directional Relationships are empowering

All systems are essentially the same Each system is unique

Efficiency and reliability are measures of value

Responsiveness to the environment is the measure of value

Decisions are based on facts and data

Decisions are based on tensions and patterns

Leaders are experts and authorities Leaders are facilitators and supporters


Figure 27 - Complex Adaptive Systems view of Change Management (Olsen and Eoyang, 2001)

Stacey (1999) notes that:

“Most textbooks focus heavily on techniques and procedures for long-

term planning, on the needs for visions and missions, on the

importance and the means of securing strongly shared cultures, on the

equation of success with consensus, consistency, uniformity and order.

[However, in complex environments] the real management task is that

of coping with and even using unpredictability, clashing counter-

cultures, disensus, contention, conflict, and inconsistency. In short the

tasks that justifies the existence of all managers has to do with

instability, irregularity, difference and disorder.”

These themes are quite at odds with the more traditional “causal” view of

change management espoused by the likes of Burke and Litwin (1992):

Figure 28 - Organisational Development - InfoNet (2006), after Burke and Litwin (1992)


Ackerman (1997) observes that there are several distinct models of change to

be found in the literature. Change is typically planned, as shown in the table

below, but can also be emergent (Mintzberg, 1989).

Type of

Change

Characteristics

Developmental May be either planned or emergent; it is first order, or

incremental. It is change that enhances or corrects existing

aspects of an organisation, often focusing on the improvement of

a skill or process.

Transitional Seeks to achieve a known desired state that is different from the

existing one. It is episodic, planned and second order, or radical.

Much of the organisational change literature is based on this type.

Transformation

al

Is radical or second order in nature. It requires a shift in

assumptions made by the organisation and its members.

Transformation can result in an organisation that differs

significantly in terms of structure, processes, culture and strategy.

It may, therefore, result in the creation of an organisation that

operates in developmental mode - one that continuously learns,

adapts and improves.

Figure 29 - Types of Change (Ackerman, 1997)

Episodic change is introduced by Weick and Quinn (1999), and amplified by

Munduate and Bennebroek Gravenhorst (2003), as shown below:

Episodic Continuous

Tempo Short time-span development of

radical change

Sequence of events in the development of

incremental change

Metaphor Reach new equilibrium Constant adjustment and growth

Analytical

framework

Change is intentional and has

dramatic impact

People are attracted to new situations that

gradually evolve


Change agent Transactional leadership

(Replacement)

Transformational leadership (Attraction)

Figure 30 - Episodic versus Continuous Change (Munduate and Bennebroek Gravenhorst, 2003)

Weick (1993) states that it is incorrect to view organizational change:

"as a bounded activity that occurs at a fixed point in time ... [where]

structures are assumed to be stable solutions to a set of current

problems"

Instead, Weick proposes that change:

“tends to be emergent and visible only after the fact. Thus, the design

is a piece of history, not a piece of architecture. [...] Design, viewed

from the perspective of improvisation, is more emergent, more

continuous, more filled with surprise, more difficult to control, more tied

to the content of action, and more affected by what people pay

attention to than are the designs implied by architecture.”

Zimmerman (2001) builds upon Stacey’s Agreement & Certainty Matrix

(Stacey, 1999) to highlight the area that she calls “The Zone of Complexity”:


Figure 31 – The Zone of Complexity (Zimmerman, 2001)


From Zimmerman (2001):

“There is a large area on this diagram which lies between the anarchy

region and regions of the traditional management approaches. Stacey

calls this large center region the zone of complexity - others call it the

edge of chaos. In the zone of complexity the traditional management

approaches are not very effective but it is the zone of high creativity,

innovation, and breaking with the past to create new modes of

operating.”

Conner and Patterson (1982) examine how support is built up for change,

both at an organizational and individual level. They assert that a linear model

applies, where each stage builds upon (and relies on) the previous one:

Figure 32 - Building Commitment to Organizational Change (Conner and Patterson, 1982)

Chen and Wang (2006) studied commitment to change in employees:

“participants with more internal locus of control were more likely to

have high affective and normative commitment to change, whereas

participants with more external locus of control were more likely to

have high continuance commitment to change“


http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/change-management/eight-stages-large/image_view

7.3 Summary

The role of Academics in the introduction of a CRM system was discussed,

and the results of the PIPaL project (Hamilton et al, 2010) used to augment

the literature referred to in the JISC Framework. The difficulties of reaching

agreement in an environment (academia) where all the actors are effectively

independent operators was noted (HEFCE, 2004).

The Complexity Theory perspective on Change Management was introduced

(Lewin and Regine,1999 and Olson and Eoyang, 2001), and contrasted with a

more traditional process and procedure oriented approach to project

management. The impact of emergent and episodic behavior was discussed.

Stacey’s Agreement & Certainty Matrix was used to illustrate the “co-

creation” approach to Change Management (Zimmerman, 2001 and Stacey,

1999).

The key finding on readiness for change is that the JISC InfoNet team had

already conducted a thorough literature review for their own document

(InfoNet, 2006), and the results of this are readily re-usable in the context of

the JISC Framework.


8. Review: “Process mapping”

This section of the JISC Framework is concerned with establishing the modus

operandi for successful process mapping (also referred to as Business

Process Modelling) using a simple technique inspired by the Unified Modelling

Language (Fowler, 2003). I give several examples drawn from the results of

the PIPaL project (Hamilton et al, 2010) to illustrate areas where this

approach breaks down, introduce possible alternative techniques and provide

a worked example of the Value Stream Map (Rother and Shook, 2003). I

should also note that much of the PIPaL related material originally appeared

in that project’s findings, of which I am the principal author.


Vakola et al (1998) offer a generic model for Business Process Re-

engineering, as shown in the Figure below:

Figure 33 - Generic Business Process Re-engineering model (Vakola et al, 1998)


Proesel (2001) notes that:

“When you KNOW what you are doing, there are often little quirks you

don’t see. The process of committing your process to paper exposes

these anomalies and affords you with the opportunity to make

conscious choices. We often think that what we don’t know is what gets

us in trouble. In reality it’s what we KNOW and act on that just ain’t so

that gets us in more trouble.”

A key conclusion from the PIPaL project (Hamilton et al, 2010) was that the

approach which had been developed to process mapping by JISC should

prove highly valuable as the institution takes a broader and deeper view of its

practices.

However, even from the relatively small number of processes that were

studied for the PIPaL project, it was clear that things were often more complex

than they needed to be. The diagram below demonstrates this general

principle by showing some of the steps involved in the production and

distribution of the University’s undergraduate prospectus.


Figure 34 - Undergraduate prospectus process map (Hamilton et al, 2010)

In reality the process is far more complicated, and student recruitment more

generally takes in the likes of student “ambassadors” visiting schools and

prospective student visits to the University. In our primary context of Business

and Community Engagement there are direct parallels with the benefits that

accrue from networking events.

A number of processes appeared mercifully simple, until one considered the

steps required to gather the information being used in the process. A good

example of this is the process followed by DARO when conducting an alumni

telephone campaign:

Figure 35 - DARO telephone campaign process map (Hamilton et al, 2010)


This seems to be almost trivial, until one considers the effort required to

maintain the contact information for each of the approximately 150,000

registered Loughborough Alumni. This issue of where to draw the line when

mapping out a business process turned out to be a common theme across the

programme of Relationship Management projects, and was neatly

summarised in Perry (2009).

Similarly, the process map below illustrates the difficulties of providing

information to senior management where the data is held by different units in

disjoint databases, with few opportunities to correlate. In reality the recursion

involved could be almost infinite as more and more individuals are consulted!

Figure 36 - External Affairs inquiry process map (Hamilton et al, 2010)

Another apparently simple process, the distribution of the University’s Annual

Report, contains a deceptive element:


Figure 37 - Annual report process map (Hamilton et al, 2010)

Without a coordinated approach to recording and maintaining contact details,

it is almost inevitable that some people will receive multiple copies of such

publications, and others will cease to receive them as they change address or

move on to work for another organization. A tacit assumption on most

people’s part would be that informing “the University” of a change of name or

address would result in any and all references to that information being

updated. However, this is difficult to do without a customer database.


Workflow is another requirement for successful Relationship Management:

Figure 38 - Major Gift team process map (Hamilton et al, 2010)

This process map tries to capture the situation whereby a junior member of

staff discusses advancement with a potential benefactor, and refers them

upwards due to the magnitude of the gift involved. In the past these “Major

Gifts” have included the establishment of Chairs and even the funding for new

University buildings, and such situations must be handled with great delicacy.

In a well implemented Relationship Management system workflow also

applies in numerous (and more pedestrian) day-to-day scenarios.

Then there are also processes that defy characterization through the

mechanism advocated by the JISC Framework. One such example is shown

below – the process that the Enterprise Office follows when entering into a

consultancy contract between an Academic and an outside company.


Figure 39 - Consultancy engagement process map (Hamilton et al, 2010)

The reality of the situation is that no two consultancy engagements are

created alike, and it would be easy to draw up a number of alternative

permutations of the diagram above – particularly where intellectual property is

a key factor. This highlights a certain flawed assumption in the process

mapping approach, in that there will inevitably be processes (and perhaps

critical ones) that cannot be reduced to a simple flowchart. This should not be

regarded as a failure.



A number of techniques could be used to augment the Process Mapping

approach advocated in the JISC Framework and as part of a larger Business

Process Review and Re-engineering exercise. Giaglis (2001) and Kittinger et

al (1997) provide a useful summary of these. Kittinger et al also have some

useful guidance on applicability as shown in the figure below:

Figure 40 - Business Process Re-Engineering techniques (Kittinger et al, 1997)

It was highlighted in the final PIPaL project report to JISC that the selection of

a single technique for process mapping was unfortunate and might yield

undesirable results. Ideally a future version of the JISC Framework would

incorporate a matrix such as the one shown in the figure above, leading to

advice for users on appropriate next steps.

Tools that could be considered as possible alternatives to the JISC

Framework’s UML based approach to Process Mapping include Role Activity

Diagrams (Huckvale and Ould, 1995) Speech Interaction Modelling (Scherr

1993, Winograd and Flores 1986), and Value Stream Mapping (Rother and

Shook, 2003).


Timing and available resources dictate that only one of these can be followed

up in any detail. Value Stream Mapping has been selected for this follow up

work, as an example of an outcome focused approach. The benefits of

concentrating on outcomes for the customer/service user are discussed

further in the report’s recommendations.

Value Stream Mapping is a technique that arose through the Lean movement

(Womack and Jones, 2003) and related initiatives such as Six Sigma (Yang

and El-Haik, 2009). In this worked example I will look at its application in IT

systems rather than the manufacturing context more traditionally associated

with the Lean approach.

Users of enterprise IT systems now have high expectations, set by their

experiences of using “Web 2.0” services such as those provided by Microsoft,

Yahoo and Google. A notable feature of these is that users are typically

empowered to carry out most operations themselves (O’Reilly, 2007). A quid

pro quo applies here in that pure play Internet companies typically provide

little or no end user support via human beings, telephone hotlines and

suchlike. Instead the user is usually expected to navigate through Frequently

Asked Questions and online forums if they have a problem with the service.

By contrast, organizations with their own IT functions will often have staff

dedicated to operating a Service Desk and providing direct end user support.

The contrast between the most successful of the Web 2.0 services and the

typical enterprise IT provision can often be striking. For this example I will

compare the process of setting up a shared workspace using Google’s

“Groups” facility with the equivalent process at my institution.

Google Groups:

- Click “create a group”

- Choose a group name

- Indicate whether your group should be accessible to the general public

- Enter the email addresses of the people you would like to invite to join

the group (or add their names directly), including external collaborators

- Now click on “visit your new group” and your group is now ready to use


The figures below illustrate just how straightforward the Google process is. I

then go on to show the current process as a Value Stream Map (Rother and

Shook, 2003).

Figure 41 - Google Group creation process

Figure 42 - Sending Google Group invitations


5 minutes

Worst case

scenario , e.g. Bank Holiday: 4

days

Carry out initial analysis of request and assign to Systems Services

team for actioning

IT Service Desk : Process request

Create shared area of filestore with initial ownership and

permissions , then assign case to

Internet Applications team

Systems Services : Create shared area

Set up a mailing list for the project group, and a Web accessible

archive of posting to the list

Internet Applications : Create mailing list

Set up an area on the UniversityÕs Intranet for this group Ğnote that

this is not accessible to externals

Web team :Create Intranet area

10 minutes

Typically 1-2 days

10 minutes

Typically 1-2 days

40 minutes

10 days

Request made by Faculty member

Service available to

students

!

! ! !

!

10 minutes

Typically 1-2 days

Agreeing services to be provided and Service Levels ; targets for

response times when requests are made; chasing progress and

receiving /acting on feedback

IT Service Desk Manager

Provide feedback on performanceService Level Agreement etc

Request entered into IT Service Desk Request Tracker system

Monitor case load , firstline fix rate etc Chasing if

necessaryChasing ifnecessary

Chasing ifnecessary

Notification thatrequest has been

fulfilled

Figure 43 - Value Stream Map approach to process mapping


In the interests of completeness it should be noted that:

1. A collaborator who is external to the institution can only have access if

they have registered as a University IT user, which requires a form to

be completed and a counter-signatory from University Faculty to

confirm that the need for access to IT systems is genuine.

2. I have shown a single request being made, however anecdotal

evidence suggests it is usually more effective from the end user’s point

of view to make separate requests for each “service”.

3. At Loughborough there is a duplication of service between “Intranet”

storage and “filestore”. It is not always clear which is the most

appropriate for a given request.

4. Staff and students are provided with individual areas for publishing to

the Web, but it is not possible to share one of these spaces e.g. with a

project group.

5. The IT department loosely works to office hours, Monday to Friday.

Therefore there are long periods where requests will go unactioned.

Clearly my institution has some way to go before it can match the five minute

setup time for Google Groups. The Value Stream Map shows a worst case

scenario of some 10 days to action the various elements of the request, of

which only some 40 minutes actually adds any value. Even if the request was

immediately handed from one team to another within the department, it would

still take some eight times longer to complete than with the Google system –

and this is before any external collaborators are taken into account.

Using the JISC Framework’s preferred approach to process mapping, the

nuances of this example would be lost. I conjecture that there are two key

problems with the JISC Framework’s one-size-fits-all approach, namely that

no account is taken of a) the stages of the process where value is added, and

b) timescales involved. Including this information provides a very powerful

feedback mechanism as to whether the current business process is efficient

and functional.


8.3 Summary

The JISC Framework presents a single approach to process mapping (based

on Fowler, 2003), implying that this will always be appropriate. I have

included examples from the PIPaL project (Hamilton et al, 2010) to highlight

the problems that may arise when a “one size fits all” approach is followed.

In fact there are a range of techniques that may be applied when conducting

Business Process Modelling (BPM). I have highlighted several well respected

tools (Huckvale and Ould 1995, Scherr 1993 and Winograd and Flores 1986),

and also presented a matrix model that allows the analyst to choose an

effective tool for a given process mapping scenario (Kittinger et al, 1997).

I have selected the Value Stream Mapping technique (Rother and Shook,

2003) for a worked example. This approach is particularly appealing as it

combines information about the stages of a process where value is added

with information about the timescales of the various stages of the process –

e.g. time spent waiting, and what for. The example presented in this report is

of another key area where CRM would come into play – the IT Service Desk.

A future revision of the JISC Framework should acknowledge that there are

multiple approaches to BPM. It should recommend a larger tool set so that

cases such as the IT Service Desk example can be properly represented.

Value Stream Mapping should be considered as one of these tools.


9. Review: “Which CRM?”

This section of the JISC Framework details the steps required in order to

develop the business case for introducing CRM, requirements gathering and

costing, and good practice in project management.


This section of the JISC Framework draws principally from the JISC InfoNet

infokit on System Selection (InfoNet, 2006). This includes advice on overall

project and programme management, as shown below:

Figure 44 - 5 Steps to Successful Selection (InfoNet, 2006)


InfoNet (2006) also provides some generic guidelines on project governance,

including key tasks and deliverables, and the role of groups and roles such

Project Sponsor and Steering Group – as shown in the figures below.

Figure 45 - Project Set-Up (InfoNet, 2006)

Figure 46 - Project Roles (InfoNet, 2006)


InfoNet (2006) notes the importance of Stakeholder analysis and suggests

that analysis of existing business processes is an essential pre-requisite of

the invitation to tender for a new system. It also provides advice on supplier

evaluation, as shown below.

Figure 47 – Evaluate Suppliers (InfoNet, 2006)

This material is all drawn from the literature around project management and

in particular the PRINCE2 methodology (Cadle and Yates, 2004). The JISC

Framework adds nothing specifically from the literature about implementation

of CRM, although this is an area where information is readily available. This is

explored further in the following section.



It is anecdotally reported that a large proportion of CRM projects end in

failure. Why might this be? Bull (2003) uses the case study of ELMS Limited

to examine strategic issues around CRM implementation and common failure

modes. He notes that:

“The results of the study are cause for concern, for they support the

findings of other surveys that show a high failure rate for CRM. […] The

ELMS case is an archetypal study of a CRM implementation that has

failed to deliver in these core areas and where many lessons can be

learnt by other adopters. It is an interesting example of the affect of

CRM and how it is forcing companies to change. Despite a decade of

developments in respect of business process change, systems

integration and information sourcing, it is only now with the threat of

CRM centric competition, targeting customers effectively, that ELMS

are exposed by their indifference to change in such areas. The impact

of CRM is real and so are the problems for certain organisations in

terms of successful implementation. This is a disturbing scenario

because of the accumulation of diverse and complex factors that now

need addressing, the lack of expertise to resolve them and the lack of

time in which to respond appropriately.”

Gefen and Ridings (2002) review the literature around failure of CRM

systems, and the potential shown by Social Exchange Theory:

“The importance of gaining user approval is highlighted by industry

reports suggesting that configuration problems account for an

estimated 65 percent of CRM project failures and that user resistance

is one of the major reasons ERP implementations fail.”

Gefen and Ridings also note that:

“ […] perceived responsiveness is associated with an increased

favorable assessment of large complex software packages during their

implementation. A possible reason for this, extrapolating from SET, is

that responsiveness helps confirm user expectations from the


implementation team, especially given the necessity of system

configuration and support before the system can be deployed

successfully.”

Payne and Frow (2006) examine alternative approaches to CRM strategy

development and propose a new model for strategy and implementation as

shown below.

Figure 48 - A new model for CRM strategy and implementation (Payne and Frow, 2006)

Payne and Frow suggest that the CRM readiness assessment (essentially

equivalent to the bulk of the JISC Framework) should be informed by an

overview audit of key CRM processes, as shown in the figure below.


Figure 49 - Overview audit of CRM key processes (Payne and Frow, 2006)

Henneberg (2006) studies CRM implementation models, and concludes that:

“Two clear CRM implementation foci can be distinguished: a dominant

“hard” implementation of CRM (focussing on analytics, centralisation,

and campaign management) and a “soft” implementation of CRM

(focussing on decentralised customer experience management at the

touch point level). Further analysis of the “hard” implementation model

shows that companies using this path often have only a vague strategic

understanding of the CRM project in place before they define the

process and technical requirements.”

From his research, Henneberg develops a matrix of CRM capabilities:

Figure 50 - Relative implementation importance of CRM capabilities for different CRM implementation paths (Henneberg, 2006)


Henneberg also proposes an alternative model of CRM implementation, with

the organization initially following either a “soft” or “hard” approach depending

on their unique characteristics, but then followed up by complementary work

taking the opposing approach to ensure that all bases are covered:

Figure 51 - Hypothetical CRM implementation model (Henneberg, 2006)

Bohling et al (2006) surveyed 101 US firms on their experiences implementing

CRM systems, and success factors in particular. Bohling et al found that:

“Respondents indicated that CRM success was most strongly

associated with CRM ownership being at the corporate level. […]

However, in another part of the survey, for those respondents who

reported CRM ownership for their organization, the most commonly

cited domain was marketing (39%), followed by sales (29%), corporate

(26%), customer service (15%), and then IT (12%). Hence, whereas

managers recognize the importance of CRM ownership being higher in

the organization, this is not always achieved in practice.”


Bohling et al also note criteria for success of the CRM system in the

commercial sphere, from their survey findings:

“Based on top-box score, the two most important criteria are (a) proven

customer impact in terms of retention and satisfaction (46%) and (b)

quantifiable revenue growth (46%). They were followed by (c) improved

information and insights (25%), (d) quantifiable cost reduction (24%),

(e) improved employee productivity (16%), (f) usage by employees

(9%), and (g) compliance to specifications (9%).”

Whilst I was not able to find something similar for CRM in the educational

sector, this would be a useful addition to the JISC Framework, and perhaps

the subject for a JISC project to follow up the original survey conducted by the

KSA Partnership (Heywood et al, 2007).

Adebanjo (2003) considers the difficulty in selecting a CRM system when the

marketplace offers a highly diverse range of offerings:

“In an analysis of CRM failures, Trembly (2002) noted that many

organisations foster a false expectation that simply buying a piece of

software will lead to CRM benefits. With the availability of hundreds of

commercial software applications, the selection of the appropriate

application can pose a major challenge. This difficulty is facilitated by

the fact that CRM means different things to different people with a

scope ranging from direct e-mails to mass customisation to call

centres”

Adebanjo suggests that the key relationship is between cost, timeframe to

implement, and complexity, as shown in the figure below.


Figure 52 - Implementation timeframe analysis (Adebanjo, 2003)

Adebanjo notes that:

“The study identified that the factors that impact the configurability of e-

CRM applications include database compatibility, process alignment,

user definition (e.g. the ability of the user to specify information

displayed and format of display) and the presentation template (i.e. the

layout of the page viewable by the user). Basic stand-alone

applications are typically the least configurable followed by modular

ERP systems. “Best of breed'” and bespoke applications are usually

most configurable as these can be modified or built to exact user

definition, presentation preferences and process alignment.”

This continuum is illustrated in the figure below.

Figure 53 - Time based configurability of e-CRM applications (Adebanjo, 2003)


Lindgreen (2004) considers the evaluation and monitoring of a CRM

implementation, using the example of a large Danish newspaper publisher as

a case study. Lindgreen notes that:

“The client company’s ability to perform in relation to the loyalty-

generating processes will determine if the investments in the CRM

programme will be profitable over time. Therefore, it is essential that

these processes are monitored on an ongoing basis, and that the

company keeps working on increasing its performance. In January

1998, there were 38,008 subscribers (27,607 regular subscribers and

4,661 were relatively new). In August 2002, the same numbers were

53,106, 33,704, and 5,311 respectively.”

Again it is interesting to consider what metrics would be meaningful in the

context of, say, a University - where recruitment (of home students) is tightly

controlled. It could be conjectured that retention, satisfaction and

recommendations are useful indicators. The work of Svensson and Wood

(2005) and Driscoll and Wicks (1998) quoted in section 4 is also very relevant

here.

Large scale formal IT projects are often mired in bureaucracy but also

inadequately specified to begin with. Notable examples of this syndrome in

the UK have included the London Ambulance Service dispatch system

(Fitzgerald and Russo, 2005) and the National Health Service national IT

programme (Avison and Young, 2007).

In his book The Second Cycle, Lars Kolind (2006, p.129) discusses the

benefits that may accrue from taking a new look at existing processes and

procedures:

“When new eyes begin looking at well-established procedures and

habits, it becomes clear that many procedures and habits can be

eliminated or improved. Both the employee and the company gain

tremendously from fresh eyes addressing old issues.”


In the context of the Business Process Re-Engineering that would typically

accompany the introduction of a CRM system, Kolind’s insights are

particularly keen. Kolind suggests that there are four key issues to be

addressed:

o Understanding the true purpose of the organization – Kolind’s

hearing aid manufacturer Oticon had felt that its purpose was to sell

hearing aids. However, after a re-examination it became clear that its

true goal was to help people to have the best possible hearing.

o Changing the organization in response to success and growth –

the assumption that whatever the organization is presently doing will

continue to serve it well. This is summarized in Kolind’s “lifecycle

curve”.

o New organizational structures that promote innovation – a move

from line management hierarchy to a more collaborative approach,

which Kolind describes as the spaghetti organization.

o Moving away from unhelpful mental models – e.g. oppositional

behaviour between management and staff members, and treating the

customer as a nuisance or an irritation.

Kolind also notes what he describes as the “acid test”: What would happen if

the organization (e.g. the IT department, or the institution) ceased to exist?

Whilst the reader may not agree with Kolind’s assertions, these are the sorts

of high level questions that the introduction of a sweeping new IT system such

as CRM may (or should) provoke. The JISC Framework presents this phase

of the project very much as “system selection”, which if followed too closely

may preclude the possibility of Business Process Re-Engineering by setting in

stone existing inappropriate or inefficient practices (Bull, 2003).


9.3 Summary

The JISC Framework makes frequent reference to the JISC InfoNet infoKit

series, but in a generic way that adds no particular material relating to CRM

from the literature – the generic examples are complemented by anecdotal

evidence around the introduction of CRM in the public sector.

However, due to the proportion of failed (or non value generating) CRM

implementations there is a large body of published work examining the issues

involved (e.g. Bohling et al, 2006). The results of this work, some of which

have been presented in this report, would be highly beneficial to incorporate in

a future revision of the JISC Framework.

The literature suggests that both the mechanistic elements (project and

programme management) and the softer (people oriented) side need to be

considered alongside each other, and that a time of great upheaval such as

the introduction of a CRM system can usefully lend itself to a re-examination

of the organization’s “mental model” (Kolind, 2006).


10. Conclusions

I have examined the Customer Relationship Management introductory

material provided by the JISC Framework and identified several cases where

better use could be made of the literature referred to by the Framework - e.g.

the various JISC InfoNet infoKits (InfoNet, 2008 etc).

A lack of clarity has been noted over core concepts – the JISC Framework’s

descriptions of CRM and its uses tend to be at quite a high level. Business

stakeholders and staff affected by the introduction of a CRM system would

require additional information about day-to-day practicalities. Some examples

have been provided from the literature, e.g. Boulding et al (2005) note the

effect on consumer behaviour of being monitored and profiled via CRM.

Introductory examples from the peer reviewed literature have been supplied.

These reinforce the rather upbeat messages about CRM technology

highlighted in the JISC Framework, and also provide some cautionary tales.

Examples have been drawn from Facebook’s “sinister” side (e.g. Jones

and Soltren, 2005), in the absence of CRM specific literature covering data

protection and privacy.

The JISC Framework consistently fails to draw examples from the education

sector and the peer reviewed literature. I have demonstrated that there is

much prior work in this area, and that the findings are readily available.

Examples include Svensson and Wood (2005), Driscoll and Wicks (1998),

Wolf (2008) and Tierney (1999).

The JISC Framework makes no special allowances for the unique nature of

the education environment. Indeed the language of the Framework

documents is that of business, and the jargon of “prospects”, “leads” and

“sales” is still quite alien to most staff working in Higher Education - for this

reason the PIPaL Case Study (Hamilton et al, 2010) refers to “Relationship

Management” with no “Customer” prefix.


The concept of Customer Experience Management (CEM) is introduced in

passing but merits further coverage –there are some obvious quotes from the

referenced material, such as Alperin (2005) and Peppers and Rogers (2007).

The JISC Framework fails to adequately address issues around the scope of

the CRM implementation – how does an institution decide whether to put a

“full service” system in for use by everyone, or a system for use by (say) staff

in external facing departments only? Advice and survey/case study results

would be very helpful here. The KSA Partnership study (Heywood et al, 2007)

offers much in the way of source material.

The KSA Partnership carried out both qualitative and quantitative research

into CRM adoption in the sector, and it is unfortunate that greater use is not

made of their results to inform the Framework. This would be more relevant to

readers in FE and HE than many of the examples that the Framework uses.

An observation from the literature of some relevance is that to carry out the

analytical work required to scope out a CRM implementation, it may be

necessary to put into place something that comes close to the functionality of

a CRM system (Xu and Walton, 2005). This in itself may be a clue as to why

many CRM implementations are reported as failing or being incorrectly

specified (Lindgreen, 2004)

The concept of “institutional maturity” is presented without any further

comment. This makes it difficult for the lay reader to determine whether

institutional maturity is something that has been invented for the Framework,

or is already in widespread use. Further literature searches have determined

that this is a common label (King, 2006 and Cap Gemini, 2005), but failed to

identify any literature focusing on the education sector.

The key role of Academics in the introduction of a CRM system is discussed,

and the results of the PIPaL (Hamilton et al, 2010) project used to augment

the literature referred to in the JISC Framework. The difficulties of reaching

agreement in an environment (academia) where all the actors are effectively

independent operators was noted (HEFCE, 2004).


The Complexity Theory perspective on Change Management was introduced

(Lewin and Regine,1999 and Olson and Eoyang, 2001), and contrasted with a

more traditional process and procedure oriented approach to project

management. The impact of emergent and episodic behavior was discussed.

Stacey’s Agreement & Certainty Matrix was used to illustrate the “co-

creation” approach to change management (Zimmerman, 2001 and Stacey,

1999).

The link between the Business Process Mapping and Business Process Re-

engineering (Vakola et al, 1998 and Proesel, 2001) is not explicitly stated and

there is a clear danger that users of the framework will leap to the conclusion

that the Relationship Management system should be implemented around

existing processes.

The JISC Framework presents a single approach to process mapping (based

on Fowler, 2003), implying that this will always be appropriate. I have

included examples from the PIPaL project (Hamilton et al, 2010) to highlight

the problems that may arise when a “one size fits all” approach is followed.

In fact there are a range of techniques that may be applied when conducting

Business Process Modelling (BPM). I have highlighted several well respected

tools (Huckvale and Ould 1995, Scherr 1993 and Winograd and Flores 1986),

and also presented a matrix model that allows the consultant to choose an

effective tool for a given process mapping scenario ( Kittinger et al, 1997).

I have selected the Value Stream Mapping technique (Rother and Shook,

2003) for a worked example. This approach is particularly appealing as it

combines information about the stages of a process where value is added

with information about the timescales of the various stages of the process –

e.g. time spent waiting, and what for. The example presented in this report is

of another key area where CRM would come into play – the IT Service Desk.

The JISC Framework makes frequent reference to the JISC InfoNet infoKit

series, but in a generic way that adds no particular material relating to CRM

from the literature – the generic examples are complemented by anecdotal

evidence around the introduction of CRM in the public sector.


11. Recommendations

From this report and its conclusions I suggest that a future revision of the

JISC Framework might benefit from consideration being given to the following:

The sector’s use of techniques such as the Balanced Scorecard and

Key Performance Indicators presently in use. Some examples have

been cited in this report of Key Performance Indicators from leading

UK institutions (HEFCE, 2009)

The role of CEM in the success of leading brands such as Apple and

Virgin, if no appropriate case studies can be found for the HE/FE

sector (Burton, 2005)

Greater use of the literature around CRM in Further and Higher

Education (e.g. Svensson and Wood, 2005)

Coverage of the subtle distinctions between “partner” and “customer”

relations (Hamilton et al, 2010)

Inclusion of further material from other JISC projects, including the

JISC InfoNet infoPack on Change Management (InfoNet, 2006) and

the KSA Partnership Relationship Management study (Heywood et al,

2007)

Exploration of additional/alternative process mapping techniques such

as Value Stream Mapping (Rother and Shook, 2003)

Greater use of the literature around CRM failures and how these may

be avoided - such as by improving engagement with employees (e.g.

Bohling et al, 2006)

The JISC Framework refers to the infoPack on System Implementation

(InfoNet, 2008) planning produced by the JISC InfoNet service. Whilst this is

hugely useful as a training and development resource, it is in the wrong part

of the Framework and should be moved to one of the later sections.


There should be a wealth of data available about the recent initiative to

introduce CRM across local government. Unfortunately key results from the

programme appear to have been lost due to there being no Digital

Preservation strategy (Farrell, 2010) in place at the time of this work –

something to avoid for future projects. The key players in the “CRM National

Programme” are well known, and qualitative interviews might help to inform

further work by JISC in this area.

The literature suggests that both the mechanistic elements (project and

programme management) and the softer (people oriented) side need to be

considered alongside each other, and that a time of great upheaval such as

the introduction of a CRM system can usefully lend itself to a re-examination

of the organization’s “mental model” (Kolind, 2006).

Finally, it has been observed that documents such as the JISC Framework

play an important part in channelling research results back to practitioners.

JISC potentially have a key role here in terms of fostering deeper engagement

between Academics and practitioners.


References

Ackerman, L (1997) Development, transition or transformation: the question of

change in organisations. In Van Eynde, D., Hoy, J. and Van Eynde, D. (eds)

Organisation Development Classics. San Francisco, Jossey Bass.

Acquisti, A and Gross, R (2006) Imagined Communities: Awareness,

Information Sharing, and Privacy on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 6th

workshop on privacy enhancing technologies, pp. 36-58. Springer-Verlag,

Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

Adebanjo, D (2003) Classifying and selecting e-CRM applications: an

analysis-based proposal. In Management Decision, Volume 41, Number 6,

pp. 570-577.

Aldrige, S and Rowley, J (1998) Measuring customer satisfaction in higher

education. In Quality Assurance in Education, Volume 6, Number 4, pp. 197-

204.

Alperin, B (2005) Customer Experience Management: Competing successfully

in Higher Education. Aramark Education Internet publication:

http://www.aramarkhighered.com/pdfs/articles/CustomerExperienceMgmt.pdf

Anghern, A (2004) Behind the EIS Simulation: An overview of models

underlying the simulation dynamics. CALT Report

http://www.calt.insead.edu/eis/documents/EISSimulationUnderlyingModels.pdf

Avison, D and Young, T (2007) Time to rethink health care and ICT? In

Communications of the ACM, Volume 50, Issue 6, pp. 69-74.

Bassham, M (2005) Lessons Learned from the CRM National Project. eGov

monitor Weekly, Internet publication: http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/186

Belk, R W (1974) An exploratory assessment of situational effects in buyer

behavior. In Journal of Marketing Research, Volume 11, pp. 156-163.

Belk, R W (1975) Situational variables and consumer behavior. In Journal of

Consumer Research, Volume 2, pp. 157-164.


http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/186

http://www.calt.insead.edu/eis/documents/EISSimulationUnderlyingModels.pdf

http://www.aramarkhighered.com/pdfs/articles/CustomerExperienceMgmt.pdf

Bennis, W. (1989). Why leaders lead. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blackwell, S A, Szeinbach, S L, Barnes, J H, Garner, D W and Bush, V (1999)

The antecedents of customer loyalty: an empirical investigation of the role of

personal and situational aspects on repurchase decisions. In Journal of

Services Research, Volume 1, Number 4.

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

Varadarajan, R (2006) CRM Implementation: Effectiveness Issues and

Insights. In Journal of Service Research, Volume 9, Number 2, pp. 184-194.

Boulding, W, Staelin, R, Ehret, M and Johnson, W J (2005) A Customer

Relationship Management Roadmap: What is Known, Potential Pitfalls and

Where to Go. In Journal of the American Marketing Association, Volume 69,

Number 4, pp. 155-166.

Boyd, D (2008) Facebook’s Privacy Trainwreck – Exposure, Invasion and

Social Convergence. In Convergence: The International Journal of Research

into New Media Technologies, Volume 14, Number 1, pp. 13-20.

Boyens, C, Gunther, O and Teltzrow, M (2002) Privacy conflicts in CRM

services for online shops: a case study. In Proceedings of the IEEE

international conference on Privacy, security and data mining, Volume 14, pp.

27-35.

Bull, C ( 2003) Strategic issues in Customer Relationship Management (CRM)

Implementation. In Business Process Management Journal, Volume 9,

Number 5, pp. 592-602.

Burton, G (2005) (ed) CRM flying high with EasyJet, In Enterprise Information.

Internet publication: http://www.eimagazine.com/display.asp?

articleid=7C6F13A9-BF2C-4CD5-B2FE-AA21AC0E5F6C

Burke, W and Litwin, G H (1992) A Causal Model of Organisational Change.

In Journal of Management, Volume 18, Number 3, pp. 523-545.

Cadle, J and Yates, D (2004) Project Management for Information Systems.

Pearson Education.


http://www.eimagazine.com/display.asp?articleid=7C6F13A9-BF2C-4CD5-B2FE-AA21AC0E5F6C

http://www.eimagazine.com/display.asp?articleid=7C6F13A9-BF2C-4CD5-B2FE-AA21AC0E5F6C

Cap Gemini (2005) The Benefits of CRM. Local e-Government National

Projects Internet publication:

http://www.localtgov.org.uk/webfiles/Benefits/CRM%20DOCUMENT.pdf

Chellappa, R K and Sin, R G (2005) Personalization versus Privacy: An

Empirical Examination of the Online Consumer’s Dilemma. In Information

Technology and Management, Volume 6, Numbers 2-3, pp. 181-202

Chen, J and Wang, L (2006) Locus of control and the three components of

commitment to change. In Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 42,

Number 3, pp. 503-512.

Conner, D R and Patterson, R B (1982) Building Commitment to

Organizational Change. In Training and Development Journal, Volume 36,

Number 4, pp. 18-30

Croteau, A-M and Li, P (2003) Critical Success Factors of CRM Technological

Initiatives. In Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Volume 20,

Number 1, pp. 21-34.

Daniel Hunt, V (1996) Process Mapping: How to Reengineer Your Business

Processes. John Wiley & Sons.

Daraoumis, T, Rodriguez-Ardura, I, Faulin, J, Juan, A A, Xhafa, F and

Martinez-Lopez, F (2010) Customer Relationship Management applied to

higher education: developing an e-monitoring system to improve relationships

in electronic learning environments. In International Journal of Services

Technology and Management, Volume 14, Number 1, pp. 103-125.

Das Gupta, S (2005). CRM: beyond technology. Network Magazine:

Technology Decisions for the Enterprise: May 2005. Internet publication:

http://www.networkmagazineindia.com/200505/coverstory01.shtml

Day, G S (1969) A two dimensional concept of brand loyalty. In Journal of

Advertising Research, Volume 9, pp. 29-35.


http://www.networkmagazineindia.com/200505/coverstory01.shtml

http://www.localtgov.org.uk/webfiles/Benefits/CRM%20DOCUMENT.pdf

Dennis, C, Fenech, T and Merrilees, B (2005) Sale: The 7 Cs -

teaching/training aid for the (e-)retail mix. In International Journal of Retail &

Distribution Management, Volume 33, Number 3, pp. 179-193.

Donaghy, M (2008) JISC Self-Analysis Framework for Relationship

Management. Online publication:

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/gradschool/crm/

Driscoll, C and Wicks, D (1998) The customer-driven approach in business

education: a possible danger? In Journal of Education for Business, Volume

74 Number 1, pp. 58-61.

Dwyer, C, Hiltz, S and Passerini, K (2007) Trust and Privacy Concern Within

Social Networking Sites: A Comparison of Facebook and MySpace. In

Proceedings of 13th Americas Conference on Information Systems. Internet

publication: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2007/339

Dwyer, K (2008) Mapping Customer Value. Internet publication:

http://www.4hoteliers.com/4hots_fshw.php?mwi=2764

eGov (2004) Conference Report: National CRM Programme Event. eGov

monitor Weekly, Internet publication:

http://www.egovmonitor.com/features/crmreport.html

Ehrenberg, A S C (1988) Repeat-Buying: Facts, Theory and Application.

Oxford University Press.

Fader, P S and Hardie, B (1996) Modeling consumer choice among SKUs. In

Journal of Marketing Research, Volume 33, pp. 442-452.

Farrell, S (2010) (ed) A Guide to Web Preservation. JISC Internet publication:

http://jiscpowr.jiscinvolve.org/wp/guide/

Fazio, R H and Zanna, M P (1981) Direct experience and attitude behavior

consistency. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 14, pp.

161-202.


http://jiscpowr.jiscinvolve.org/wp/guide/

http://www.egovmonitor.com/features/crmreport.html

http://www.4hoteliers.com/4hots_fshw.php?mwi=2764

http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2007/339

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/gradschool/crm/

Fizgerald, G and Russo, N L (2005) The Turnaround of the London

Ambulance Service Computer-aided Despatch System (LASCAD). In

European Journal of Information Systems, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp. 244-257.

Feinberg, R & Kadam, R (2002) E-CRM Web service attributes

as determinants of customer satisfaction with retail Web sites. In International

Journal of Service Industry Management, Volume 13, Number 5, pp. 432-451.

Fowler, M (2003) UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object

Modelling Language. Addison-Wesley.

Foxall, G R and Goldsmith, R E (1994) Customer Psychology for Marketing,

Routledge, London.

Fullan, M (2003) Change forces with a vengeance. Routledge.

Fusion (2007) “Doing the Business” case study. Internet publication:

http://www.west-cheshire.ac.uk/fusion/project/phase-three/doing-the-

business-c&wcc.pdf

Gefen, D, and Ridings, C M (2002) Implementation team responsiveness and

user evaluation of customer relationship management: A quasi-experimental

design study of social exchange theory. In Journal of Management

Information Systems, Volume 19, Number 1, pp. 47-69.

Giaglis, G (2001) A Taxonomy of Business Process Modelling and Information

Systems Modelling Techniques. In International Journal of Flexible Systems,

Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 209-228.

Grant, G B and Anderson, G (2002) Customer Relationship Management- A

Vision for Higher Education. In Katz, R N (ed) Web Portals and Higher

Education: Technologies to Make IT Personal. Jossey-Bass and EDUCAUSE

Internet publication: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub5006f.pdf

Grint, K and Willcocks, L (2007) Business process re-engineering in theory

and practice: business paradise regained? In New Technology, Work and


http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub5006f.pdf

http://www.west-cheshire.ac.uk/fusion/project/phase-three/doing-the-business-c&wcc.pdf

http://www.west-cheshire.ac.uk/fusion/project/phase-three/doing-the-business-c&wcc.pdf

Employment. Volume 10, Issue 2, pp. 99-109.

Hamilton, M, Lad, A, Addison, A and Brown, S (2010) Process Improvement

Pilot at Loughborough (PIPaL) Case Study. JISC Internet publication:

http://jiscpipal.wordpress.com

HEFCE (2004) Effecting change in HE. Higher Education Funding Council for

England, report number GMP 201.

HEFCE (2009) Participation in higher education continues to widen, Higher

Education Funding Council for England Key Performance Indicators. Internet

publication: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2009/pi.htm

Henneberg, S C (2006) An exploratory analysis of CRM implementation

models. In Journal of Relationship Marketing, Volume 4, Number 3, pp. 85-

104.

Heywood, M, Nixon, I, Bowden, A, Bell, R (2007) Study of Customer

Relationship Management (CRM) Issues in UK Higher Education Institutions.

JISC Internet publication:

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/themes/bce/

crmstudyfinalreport20070817.pdf

Holland, J H (1992) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. MIT Press.

Huckvale, T and Ould, M (1995) Process Modelling – Role Activity

Diagramming. In Business Process Change: Concepts, Methods and

Technologies, Grover, V and Kettinger, W J (eds), Harrisburg PA: Idea

Publishing, pp. 330-349.

Hughes, A M (2008) How to measure CRM success. Database Marketing

Institute Internet publication:http://www.dbmarketing.com/articles/Art224.htm

IA (2010) Way Back Machine results for www.crmacademy.org, Internet

Archive Internet publication:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.crmacademy.org


http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.crmacademy.org

http://www.crmacademy.org/

http://www.dbmarketing.com/articles/Art224.htm

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/themes/bce/crmstudyfinalreport20070817.pdf

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/themes/bce/crmstudyfinalreport20070817.pdf

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2009/pi.htm

http://jiscpipal.wordpress.com/

InfoNet (2003) JISC infoKit: Creating a Managed Learning Environment.

Internet publication: http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/creating-an-mle

InfoNet (2006) JISC infoKit: Change Management. Internet publication:

http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/change-management

InfoNet (2006a) JISC infoKit: System Selection. Internet publication:

http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/system-selection

InfoNet (2008) JISC infoKit: System Implementation. Internet publication:

http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/system-implementation

Jacoby, J and Chestnut, R (1978) Brand Loyalty Measurement and

Management. John Wiley and Sons.

JISC (2010) JISC Strategy 2010-2012. Online publication:

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/aboutus/strategy.aspx

JISC (2010a) What We Do. JISC website Internet publication:

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo.aspx

Jones, H and Soltren, J H (2005) Facebook: Threats to Privacy. MIT Term

Paper, Internet publication:

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/student-papers/fall05-papers/

facebook.pdf

Kahn, B M, Kalwani, M U and Morrison, D G (1988) Niching versus change-

of-pace brands: using purchase frequencies and penetration rates to infer

brand positioning. In Journal of Marketing Research, Volume 25, Number 4,

pp. 384-390.

Kaplan, R S and Norton, D P (1992) The balanced scorecard – measures that

drive performance. In Harvard Business Review, Volume 70, Number 1, pp.

71-79.

Karjoth, G, Schunter, M and Waidner, M (2002) Platform for enterprise privacy

practices: privacy-enabled management of customer data. In Proceedings of


http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/student-papers/fall05-papers/facebook.pdf

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/student-papers/fall05-papers/facebook.pdf

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo.aspx

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/aboutus/strategy.aspx

http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/system-implementation

http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/system-selection

http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/change-management

http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/creating-an-mle

the 2nd international conference on privacy enhancing technologies, pp. 69-84.

Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

Kettinger, W, Teng, J and Guha S (1997) Business Process Change: A Study

of Methodolgies, Techniques and Tools. In MIS Quarterly, Volume 21,


Khalifa, A S (2004) Customer value: a review of recent literature and an

integrative configuration. In Management Decision, Volume 42, Issue 5,

pp.645 – 666.

Kim, J, Suh, E, Hwang, H (2003) A model for evaluating the effectiveness of

CRM using the balanced scorecard. In Journal of Interactive Marketing,

Volume 17, Number 2, pp. 5-19.

King, S F (2006) Citizens as customers: Exploring the future of CRM in UK

local government. In Government Information Quarterly, Volume 24, Number

1, pp. 47-63.

Kolind, L (2006) The Second Cycle: Winning the War Against Bureaucracy.

Wharton School Publishing.

Lewin, R and Regine B (1999) The Soul at Work: Unleashing the power of

complexity science for business success. Orion Business.

Linden, G, Smith, B and York, J (2003) Amazon.com recommendations: item-

to-item collaborative filtering. In Internet Computing, Volume 7, Number 1, pp.

76-80.

Lindgreen, A (2004) The design, implementation and monitoring of a CRM

programme: a case study. In Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Volume 22,

Number 2, pp. 160-186.

Lust, P (1998) Students as consumers: would you like fries with your

Shakespeare? In Osborn, R E E (ed) Scholarship, Service and Integrity -

Benchmarks in a Changing Landscape. ACHE Proceedings, p.54.


Manduate, L and Bennebroek Gravenhorst, K M (2003) Power Dynamics and

Organisational Change: An Introduction. In Applied Psychology, Volume 52,

Number 1, pp. 1-13.

Massey, W F, Montgomery, D B and Morrison, D G (1970) Stochastic Models

of Buyer Behavior. MIT Press.

Mintzberg, H (1989) Mintzberg on Management: inside our strange world of

organizations. Chicago, Free Press.

Naraine, R and Danchev, D (2008) Stanford University data breach leaks

sensitive information of approximately 62,000 employees. Zero Day blog

posting: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/stanford-university-data-breach-

leaks-sensitive-information-of-approximately-62000-employees/1326

Ngai, E.W.T. (2005) Customer relationship management research (1992-

2002): An academic literature review and classification. In Marketing

Intelligence & Planning, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp.582 – 605. Emerald Group.

O’Reilly, T (2007) What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for

the Next Generation of Software. In International Journal of Digital

Economics, Number 65, pp. 17-37.

Olson, E E and Eoyang, G H (2001) Facilitating Organizational Change:

Lessons from Complexity Science. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

ORG (2010) UK Privacy Debacles. Open Rights Group Internet publication:

http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/UK_Privacy_Debacles

Orlikowski, W (1996) Improvising organisational transformation over time: a

situated change perspective. In Information Systems Research,Volume 7,


PAC (2003) Individual Learning Accounts - Tenth Report of Select Committee

on Public Accounts. Internet publication:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmpubacc/

544/54403.htm


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmpubacc/544/54403.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmpubacc/544/54403.htm

http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/UK_Privacy_Debacles

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/stanford-university-data-breach-leaks-sensitive-information-of-approximately-62000-employees/1326

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/stanford-university-data-breach-leaks-sensitive-information-of-approximately-62000-employees/1326

Parker, A (1999) A Study of Variables that Predict Dropout from Distance

Education. In International Journal of Educational Technology, December

1999. Internet publication: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ijet/v1n2/parker/

Payne, A (2006). Handbook of CRM: Achieving Excellence in Customer

Management, Butterworth Heinemann.

Payne, A and Frow, P (2006) Customer Relationship Management: from

Strategy to Implementation. In Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 22,

Number 1, pp. 135-168.

Pennington, G. (2003) Guidelines for Promoting and Facilitating Change.

York: Teaching and Learning Support Network – Generic Centre

Peppers, D and Rogers, M (1999) Enterprise One-to-One: Tools for

Competing in the Interactive Age. New York: Doubleday.

Peppers, D and Rogers, M (2007) Significant differences between customer

experience management (CEM) and CRM. Internet publication:

http://searchcrm.techtarget.com/answer/Significant-differences-between-

customer-experience-management-CEM-and-CRM

Perez, J C (2007) Facebook’s Beacon More Intrusive Than Previously

Thought. PC World Internet publication, December 1st 2007:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/140182/facebooks_beacon_more_intrusive_th

an_previously_thought.html

Perry, S (2009) Modelling - How do you know when to stop? JISC

Relationship Management Support and Synthesis Internet blog posting:

http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/accessibility/2009/12/15/modelling-how-do-you-know-

when-to-stop/

Pfeffer, J and Sutton, R (2000) The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart

Companies Turn Knowledge into Action. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

Publications.

Phinney, S. (2001). The role of process in CRM. In ZDNet TechRepublic blog.


http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/accessibility/2009/12/15/modelling-how-do-you-know-when-to-stop/

http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/accessibility/2009/12/15/modelling-how-do-you-know-when-to-stop/

http://www.pcworld.com/article/140182/facebooks_beacon_more_intrusive_than_previously_thought.html

http://www.pcworld.com/article/140182/facebooks_beacon_more_intrusive_than_previously_thought.html

http://searchcrm.techtarget.com/answer/Significant-differences-between-customer-experience-management-CEM-and-CRM

http://searchcrm.techtarget.com/answer/Significant-differences-between-customer-experience-management-CEM-and-CRM

http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ijet/v1n2/parker/

Internet publication: http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-

1033219.html

PRC (2010) Chronology of Data Breaches, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

Internet publication: http://www.privacyrights.org/data-breach

Proesel, J. (2001). The role of process in CRM: Putting it on paper. ZDNet

TechRepublic Internet publication: http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-10878-

0.html?forumID=14&threadID=73200&messageID=445865

PT (2004) CRM Hot Topic: Analysis of CRM National Project role & goals.

publicTechnology.net, Internet publication:

http://www.publictechnology.net/content/595

Reichheld, F F (1996) The loyalty effect. Harvard Business School Press.

Reinartz, W, Krafft, M and Hoyer, W D (2004) The customer relationship

management process: its measurement and impact on performance. In

Journal of Marketing Research, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp. 293-305.

Rodgers, K and Howlett, D (2000) What IS CRM? A White Paper by TBC

Research in association with Goldmine Software (Europe) Ltd.Internet

publication: http://www.solica.com/brochures/WhatIsCRM.pdf

Romano, N C and Fjermestad, J (2004) Electronic Customer Relationship

Management: A Research Agenda. In Information Technology and

Management, Volume 4, Numbers 2-3, pp. 233-258.

Rother, M and Shook J (2003) Learning To See. Lean Enterprise Institute.

Rowley, J (2006) An analysis of the e-service literature: towards a research

agenda". In Internet Research, Volume16, Issue 3, pp.339 – 359.

Rygielski, C, Wang, J-C and Yen, D C (2002) Data mining techniques for

customer relationship management. In Technology in Society, Volume 24,

Number 4, pp. 483-502.


http://www.solica.com/brochures/WhatIsCRM.pdf

http://www.publictechnology.net/content/595

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-10878-0.html?forumID=14&threadID=73200&messageID=445865

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-10878-0.html?forumID=14&threadID=73200&messageID=445865

http://www.privacyrights.org/data-breach

http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1033219.html

http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1033219.html

Seeman, E D and O’Hara, M (2006) Customer relationship management in

higher education: Using information systems to improve the student-school

relationship. In Campus-Wide Information Systems, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp.

24-34.

Stacey, R (1999) Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics: The

Challenge of Complexity. Prentice Hall.

Svensson, G and Wood, G (2007) Are university students really customers?

When illusion may lead to delusion for all. In International Journal of

Education Management, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp. 17-28.

Taber, D (2010) Don’t let your CRM system feed the lawsuit beast. In

ComputerWorldUK online magazine. Internet publication:

http://www.computerworlduk.com/how-to/it-business/3138/dont-let-your-crm-

system-feed-the-lawsuit-beast/

Tait, H and Entwistle, N (1996) Identifying students at risk through ineffective

study strategies. In Higher Education, Volume 31, Number 1, pp. 97-116.

Tapp, A, Hicks, K and Stone, M (2006) Direct and database marketing and

customer relationship management in recruiting students for higher education.

In International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Volume

9, Issue 4, pp. 335-345.

Tierney, W G (1999) Building the Responsive Campus: Creating High

Performance Colleges and Universities. Sage Publications.

Trembly, A (2002) Why has CRM failed in insurance? In National Underwriter,

Volume 106, Number 26, p. 25.

Uncles, M D, Dowling, G R and Hammond, K (2003) Customer loyalty and

customer loyalty programs. In Journal of Consumer Marketing, Volume 20,

Number 4, pp. 294-316.


http://www.computerworlduk.com/how-to/it-business/3138/dont-let-your-crm-system-feed-the-lawsuit-beast/

http://www.computerworlduk.com/how-to/it-business/3138/dont-let-your-crm-system-feed-the-lawsuit-beast/

UoB (2010) Key Performance Indicators for 2010, University of Birmingham

Planning Office Internet publication:

http://www.planning.bham.ac.uk/corpplan/kpi.shtml

UoN (2009) Key Performance Indicators, Newcastle University Library

Internet publication: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/library/about/standards/kpi/

Vakola, M, Rezgui, Y, Mitev, N, Thompson, J, (1998). D3100 Business

Process Re-engineering Strategy. CONDOR ESPRIT 23105 Deliverable

Verhoef, P C (2003) Understanding the Effect of Customer Relationship

Management Efforts on Customer Retention and Customer Share

Development. In Journal of Marketing, Volume 67, pp. 30-34.

Weick, K E (1993) Organizational Redesign as Improvisation. In Huber, G P

and Glick, W H (eds) Organizational Change and Redesign. Oxford University

Press, pp. 346-379.

Weick, K E and Quinn, R E (1999) Organisational change and

development. In Annual Review of Psychology, Volume 50, pp. 361-386.

Wilson, H, Daniel, E and McDonald, M (2002) Factors for Success in

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Systems. In Journal of Marketing

Management, Volume 18, Issue 1/2, pp. 193-219.

Winograd, T and Flores, F (1986) Understanding Computers and Cognition.

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Wolf, A (2008) Time to have another go at individually driven learning. In The

Guardian, Tuesday 2nd December 2008. Internet publication:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/dec/02/reintroducing-individual-

learning-accounts

W3C (2007) Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P) Project homepage.

World-Wide Web Consortium Internet publication:

http://www.w3.org/P3P/Overview.html

Womack, J P and Jones, D T (2003) Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and

Create Wealth in Your Corporation. Free Press.


http://www.w3.org/P3P/Overview.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/dec/02/reintroducing-individual-learning-accounts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/dec/02/reintroducing-individual-learning-accounts

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/library/about/standards/kpi/

http://www.planning.bham.ac.uk/corpplan/kpi.shtml

Xu, M and Walton, J (2005) Gaining customer knowledge through analytical

CRM. In Industrial Management & Data Systems, Volume 105, Number 7, pp.

955-971.

Yang, K and El-Haik, B (2009) Design for Six Sigma: A Roadmap for Product

Development. McGraw-Hill Professional.

Zimmerman, B (2001) Ralph Stacey’s Agreement and Certainty Matrix.

Internet publication:

http://www.plexusinstitute.org/edgeware/archive/think/main_aides3.html


http://www.plexusinstitute.org/edgeware/archive/think/main_aides3.html

Appendix – JISC Self-Analysis Framework for

Customer Relationship Management

Because of its length, this is provided as a separate document. The JISC

Framework can also be viewed online – see Donaghy (2008).


Documents

A Critique of the JISC Self-Analysis Framework for CRM