Proceedings of World Business and Social Science Research Conference
24-25 October, 2013, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-33-7
Acceptance and Use of SFA of Life Insurance Agents in Thailand:
A Concept Paper
Saranyapong Thiangtam*, Pongpun Anuntavoranich**and Wilert Puriwat***
Acceptance and use of sales force automation (SFA) for life insurance
agents can certainly increase sales productivity, assist in responding to
customers’ requests promptly and correctly and also effect on efficiencies
of sales-supporting functions in companies in positive ways. In Thailand,
there are nearly one million life insurance agents mostly working on
commission-based systems, with poor motivation and applying something
new without due consideration will normally be unsuccessful. Currently, in
order to increase sales productivity, many insurance companies have
applied sales force automation and introduced the systems to the agents,
but adoption rate of the systems is still low and slow. This research
proposes a novel conceptual framework developed from the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM), Task-Technology Fit (TTF), the Unified Theory
of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), and Social CRM Concepts
focusing on customer experience value and co-creation. The proven model
will lead to an innovative application of sales force automation combined
with Social CRM systems usable through mobile devices for Thai life
insurance agents.
Field of Research: Innovation, Marketing
1. Introduction
In order to increase the sales productivity, a number of organizations have developed and
information system and tools to support the sales operation. The set of of these tools
altogether is called “Sale Force Automation (SFA)”, used to increase efficiency of sales agents
in contacting making appointments with customers, sales presentation, and communications
such as e-mail correspondence or sales transaction processing system. The system can be
applied on wireless system such as laptop computers, tablets or smart phones which
accommodates and increases the sales productivity, and also create a professional image for
the sales agents and the organization.
Nevertheless, major issue for applying sales force automation is that sales agents do not
apply the technology to their works. Cho (2008) proposed a model that indicated sales
agents’ resistance to innovation. Furthermore, on January 2 nd, 2013, the author searched the
“Science Direct” electronic academic database, using the key words “Sales Force Automation”
and “Mobile Technology Acceptance”, for research published during the past ten years (20032013) and found 262 articles. Out of these, over forty research published during 2012-2013
studied various factors considered to be impediments to the adoption of the sales force
automation. The research also studied academic models related to the adoption of the sales
force automation. This clearly indicates the significance of this research issue.
______________________________________________________________
*Saranyapong Thiangtam, Technopreneurship and Innovation Management, Chulalongkorn University. Bangkok,
Thailand. Email: saranyapong.t@bu.ac.th
**Asst.Prof. Dr. Pongpun Anuntavoranich. Email: p.idchula@gmail.com
***Dr. Wilert Puriwat. Technopreneurship and Innovation Management Program,Chulalongkorn University,
Thailand. Email: drwilert@yahoo.co.uk
Proceedings of World Business and Social Science Research Conference
24-25 October, 2013, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-33-7
Furthermore, the study by Honeycutt Jr. et al. (2005) which reviewed the past sixteen
researches concluded what caused the failure of the sales force automation’s adoption. All of
this indicated the issue of sales agents’ resistance to innovation, both in the business of
selling industrial goods and consumer goods, especially in the direct sales segment where
salesmen are independent businessmen, not personnel under direct supervision of
companies. Therefore, in practice, it did not concur with the concept of Cho (2008) that
restrictive measures will positively result in the sales agents’ acceptance of innovation.
Negative outcomes of sales team’s rejection to technology adoption are under-utilized sales
productivity and inappropriately services customers. Besides, this also created a continuous,
negative impact on other interconnected sales support operations.
Positive impact of the sales force automation use: the study of Schafer (1997) (cited in Cascio
et al., 2010) evaluated that the sales force automation tools and system could result in the
sales increase up to 15-35 percent.
The above mentioned has led to major questions of the study, namely, which factors are
educational gaps that affect the sales agents’ technology adoption? In addition to the factors
studied and shown in the technology adoption models such as Perceived Ease of Use and
Perceived Usefulness, according to the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis et al., 1986 and
1989, cited in Yen et. al., 2010) and the Task-Technology Fit Model (Goodhue and Thomson,
1995 cited in Yen et al., 2010 or the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
Model (Venkatesh, 2003), will and how experience value of customers, widely accepted as a
critical factor to business management nowadays and in the future, has any influence on sales
agents’ technology adoption?
1.1 The Objective of the Research
To study perceived customer experience value and information-task fit, evaluated from
customer information, pragmatic information, performance expectancy and effort expectancy
which has an influence on sales personnel’s behavioral intention in their acceptance and
adoption of the technology.
1.2 Scope of the Research
This research is a quantitative study of which data were collected from 400 life insurance
agents in Bangkok and other regions of Thailand during October-December 2013, focusing on
the acceptance and adoption of sales force automation via smart phones and tablets. Scope
of the study on variables is as follows:
(1) Perceived Customer Experience Value (Gentile et al., 2007), (Nambisan,2010)
(2) Information Task-Fit (Goodhue and Thomson, 1995 cited in Yen et al., 2010), Customer
Information and Pragmatic Information
(3) Performance Expectancy (Technology Acceptance Model: TAM (Davis, 1989); Unified
Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology [UTAUT]) (Venkatesh, 2003)
(4) Effort Expectancy (Technology Acceptance Model: TAM (Davis, 1989); Unified Theory
of Acceptance and Use of Technology [UTAUT]) (Venkatesh, 2003)
(5) “Behavioral Intention” in “Acceptance and Use” (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use
of Technology [UTAUT]) (Venkatesh, 2003)
Proceedings of World Business and Social Science Research Conference
24-25 October, 2013, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-33-7
2. Literature Review
2.1 Sales Force Automation
Sales Force Automation (SFA) means tools and information system that support the sales
function which involve one or more of following duties:
(1) Increase of sales agent’s individual efficiency such as making appointment with
customers, correspondence with customers, data presentation, etc.
(2) Communication such as e-mail correspondence with customers
(3) Sales support and sales data processing
Regarding relevant technologies, sales force automation can operate via laptop computers,
tablets or smart phones which can be connected via information and communications
technology and wireless network.
Sales force automation means applying technology to increase the sales activities’
effectiveness of (Honeycutt et al., 2005) such as arranging appointments with customers and
arranging travel routes to meet clients, sales presentation, administrative works, retrieving of
information about customers and products, etc. (Widmier, Jackson, & McCabe, 2002 cited in
Honeycutt et al., 2005).
As for the adoption of sales force automation, Blodgett (1995) (cited in Honeycutt, et al., 2005)
indicated that 55-57 percent of the projects adopting sales force automation failed due to
insufficient planning, communications issues, as well as disaccord between the system and
sales agents’ needs and objectives, as shown in the following study results:
 The study on sales agents’ technology adoption by Robinson et al., 2005 concluded
that major issue for sales agents’ technology adoption resulted from the fact that it
took too much efforts to learn or use the technology.
 The study on “Antecedents and consequences of CRM technology acceptance in the
sales force” (Avlonitis & Panagopoulos, 2005) concluded that the issue for sales
agents’ technology adoption resulted from over-expectation of the organization, too
much effort required to learn or use the technology and the sales agents’ perception
that they did not gain any benefit from the technology.
 The study on “Sales technology within the salesperson's relationships: a research
agenda” by Tanner & Shipp, 2005, concluded that major hindrance for sales agents’
technology adoption were the conflicting roles of sales agents.
 The study on “Sales force technology usage reasons, barriers, and support: An
exploratory investigation” by Buehrer et al., 2005 concluded that the problem of sales
agents’ technology adoption resulted from too little technological support from the
organization, no training and too much effort to learn and adopt the technology
required.
In summary, review of the previous 16 relevant studies by Honeycutt et al., (2005) found that
the most important obstacle for sales agents’ technology adoption was that it required too
much effort to learn and adopt the technology. Second, the sales agents felt that they did not
get any benefits from the technology. According to the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis,
1989; Jones et al., 2002), perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness have influence on
technology adoption. Furthermore, the sales agents were worried that
Proceedings of World Business and Social Science Research Conference
24-25 October, 2013, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-33-7
after using the technology, their performance would be too closely followed up or there would
be a higher sales target.
The studies on needs and goals of sales agent (Honeycutt et al., 2005) summarized sales
agents’ opinions about expectations of benefits from the sales force automation, as follows:
(1) Efficiency or worth for investment means reduced time spent on generating sales
revenue or higher sales revenue when compared to the time spent
(2) Competitiveness means the system enable a sales agent to gain a technological
edge over others.
(3) Accurate data access means conveniently and accurately accessing to information
about products, competitors and target customers.
(4) Improved work system means reduced routine works, especially administrative
works that are not directly related to sales function.
(5) Better customer service means better image or better customer perception
(6) Beneficial system for sales function means understanding for sales agent’s work
system and effective sales techniques
Sales agents’ views on obstacles for the adoption of sales force automation are as follows:
(1) Time spent to learn sales force automation tools means opportunity cost for making
sales
(2) The change may require self-adaptation and loss of independence because after
using the technology, sales agents will be closely monitored
(3) Technological risk means waste of time that may result from technological
innovations in the future
(4) Other factors such as loss of negotiation power after passing information about
customers to the company, loss of teamwork if unable to adjust themselves to new
technology or higher expectation of results after adopting new technology
The above literature review about sales force automation can be applied in setting features
and functions of the system by taking into account expectations of sales agents who are direct
users, expectations of sales supervisors or sales managers who need to monitor the sales
agents’ performance. Furthermore, the information also explained major issues why sales
agent did not adopt the technology, namely, too much effort required to learn, lack of
education to assure them that the sales force automation will give benefits to them and
alleviate their concerns that they will be too much monitored and lose power after passing the
information about customers to the companies.
2.2 CRM Technology
“Modern CRM” is the idea that an organization collect and analyze data via high-tech
information communications technology system (Buttle, 2008 as referred to by Yousif, 2012);
there are four important dimensions (1) Strategic CRM which is customer-centered
organizational culture (2) Operational CRM which means collaboration of corporate
departments who deal with customers, namely, marketing automation and sales force
automation that operate via call centers or Internet (3) Collaborative CRM such as interactive
system in which customers choose to buy products or services by themselves
and (4) Analytical CRM is the system that analyzes customers’ purchase, evaluates what
other products the customers will purchase, reporting and distributing customer database to
create value for both customer and business.
Proceedings of World Business and Social Science Research Conference
24-25 October, 2013, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-33-7
If we evaluate the success of the CRM system by “customer value” obtained from sales
figures and profits, it can be concluded that many CRM applications with high-valued
investment failed (Bolton & Tarasi, 2006, cited in Yousif, 2012). Gardner Butler Forrester
mentioned that during 2001-2009, there was a high failure rate of CRM system due to
misunderstanding about CRM system that after investing in the system and software, nothing
else needs to be done. The CRM system, therefore, overlooked human factor, change
management, work procedure improvement and organizational management (Bolton, 2004
cited in Ozcanli, 2012) including the operator’s rejection to the technology.
People paid a lot of attention to CRM again when Greenberg (2011) proposed that CRM is
collaboration, not a one-sided communications from company and also proposed the idea of
utilizing the social media. Coupled with Web 2.0 technology, users can create content for
real-time communication and interactions; thus, many organizations managed their
relationships with customers via online social media, so called social network CRM or social
CRM.
2.3 Social Network and CRM
Social network means “group of stakeholders” as well as “relationships” that connect them
together. Stakeholders can be a number of individuals separately or together within business
units such as department or organization in which stakeholders exchange resources such as
data, information, products or services, support and help. Relationships within the social
network can be weak or strong, depending on the size and number of participants, frequency
of usage, intimacy and exchanged resources (Marsden & Campbell, 1984 cited in Hossain
and Silva, 2009).
As for the study on CRM via social network, several research (Lei and Yang (2010); Askool
and Nakata (2010); Ang (2011); Green and Starkey (2011); Sigala (2011) cited in Yousif,
2012) studied CRM via social network and concluded that CRM via social network could
increase the interactions between the organization and customers, could deeply access to
customers and create innovations that place high value on customers and evaluated that
participation of customers in social network has an influence on sales agents’ adoption of
technology.
CRM via social media is similar to customer self-service in that the enterprise must set up a
customer-centered business system and every system must be created for the convenience of
customers. In addition, multi-channel services can also help company to save costs.
Customer loyalty can be expected from customers’ positive experiences (Bonde, 2010).
2.4 Theories and Studies Related to Co-Creation
Co-creation means joint value creation between company and customers, not the one-sided
company’s effort to satisfy customers. In every procedure from identifying problems to finding
solutions, there must be collaboration. Companies will focus on creating experiences and
product presentation will aim to give experience for each customer. This can be called
experience-driven innovation (Prahalad, 2004).
Prahalad (2004) presented the changing relationship between consumers and company under
the concept of joint creation, namely, it was a two-way communication, not one-way mass
communication like in the past and the communication will move towards customers to
company and between customers. Consumers make their own choices and consumers jointly
Proceedings of World Business and Social Science Research Conference
24-25 October, 2013, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-33-7
create their own experiences under favorable circumstances whereas the “market” will
become a space for joint creation of experiences. Ultimately, experience is “brand” which is
gradually developed from customer experiences.
This theory is beneficial for this study; it help people understood the value that customers and
company obtain when customers participate in company systems including the sales force
automation in which there should be a joint value creation between sales agent and
customers.
2.5 Customer Experience
“Experience” cannot happen by itself. Creating experience is memory creation. Experience
is subjective and internal factor, responding to external factors (Schmitt, 2009).
“Customer experience” is a set of interactions between customers and products, services,
organizations or companies that arouse reactions. These experiences are individual relations,
in respect to rational, emotional, physical and mental aspects (LaSalle and Britton, 2003;
Shaw and Ivens, 2005 cited in by Chiara et. al., 2007).
Customers’ purchase of products is the purchase of experience or hedonic experiences,
believing that the particular product will bring happiness (Van Boven and Gilovich, 2003).
Customer experience starts at the touch points or contact points, so called “moments of truth”
(Carlzon, 1991 cited in Joseph, 1996) between customers and company or what company
proposed and all of the experiences are linked to customer engagement (Schmitt and Brakus,
2009).
In conclusion, in marketing, “experience” was the new idea proposed to be a product after
presentation of commodity, goods and services became obsolete. Experiences (Prahalad and
Ramaswamy, 2004) delivered to customers not only created memory for a particular moment,
but must create a continuous great experience of customer with the company (Pine and
Gilmore, 1998). Therefore, this was linked with CRM. In this regard, creating a unique
experience for customer is not presented by a company, but a joint creation between
customer and company via favorable circumstances (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004;
Schmitt, 2009). Therefore, role of the enterprise has changed from product presenter to
experience deliverer and to the era in which company jointly create value with customers and
the enterprise is responsible for creating favorable environment for customers to create their
own valuable experience.
2.6 Innovation Adoption
Venkatesh et al. (2003) evaluated and compared existing models of technology adoptions in
various aspects including dimension, measurement, sample group, industries sectors, result of
studies, hypothesis, significance of technology adoption and relevant variables such as
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Motivational Model,
Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), Combined Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of
Planned Behavior and Model of Personal Computer Utilization, Innovation Diffusion Theory
and Social Cognitive Theory [Sheppard et al. (1988); Davis et al. (1989); Mathieson (1991);
Vallerand (1997); Davis et al. (1992),
Venkatesh and Speier (1999); Thompson (1991); Moore and Benbasat (1991); Rogers (1995);
Taylor and Todd (1995); Agarwal and Prasad (1997); Karahanna et al. (1999); Plouffe et al.
(2001); Higgins (1995); Morris and Venkatesh (2000) cited in Venkatesh et al. (2003)]. After
that Venkatesh et al. (2003) used empirical data to analyze and trace
Proceedings of World Business and Social Science Research Conference
24-25 October, 2013, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-33-7
back to theories to ensure accuracy of different dimensions. Then, Venkatesh et al. (2003)
brought together all dimensions and variables to create a new model called Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Variable structure that had an influence on
technology adoption included social influence, performance expectancy, effort expectancy,
behavioral intention and facilitating conditions.
However, in the “performance expectancy” variable structure, there was a measurement of
individual perception that the system would help he or she to work better and the “effort
expectancy” variable of Venkratesh (2003) was the evaluation of level of difficulty of
technology adoption or namely “perceived usefulness” and “perceived ease of use” of Davis
(1989).
This study not only sets major variables from experience value, but also sets the variable
framework from the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) which placed a high
importance on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Avlonitis & Panagopoulos,
2005) and included the Information Task-Fit (Goodhue and Thomson, 1995 as referred to by
Yen et al., 2010) into the conceptual framework.
As for the study related to industry found that commission-based life insurance agents will
adopt the technology due to three reasons: perceived usefulness of new system, attitude
towards new system and compatability between the new system and the existing system
(Jones et al., 2002 cited in Buehrer, 2005).
The literature review has led to the development of conceptual framework which aims to study
variables that affect on life insurance agents’ adoption or rejection of technology, as seen in
the details to be discussed further.
3. Research Framework and Hypotheses
3.1 The Model Framework
According to relevant concepts, theories, academic documents and studies, the researcher
has created a conceptual framework that displays the relationships of variables and research
assumptions, as follows:
Proceedings of World Business and Social Science Research Conference
24-25 October, 2013, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-33-7
Research Hypotheses
1. Perceived value of customer experience positively affect performance expectancy.
2. Perceived value of joint experience creation positively impact behavioral intention of
technology adoption.
3. Performance expectancy positively affects behavioral intention of technology adoption.
4. Effort expectation affects behavioral intention of technology adoption.
4. Summary
Acceptance and use of sales force automation for life insurance agents can certainly increase
sales productivity, assist in responding to customers’ requests promptly and correctly and also
effect on efficiencies of sales-supporting functions in companies in positive ways. In Thailand,
there are nearly one million life insurance agents mostly working on commission-based
systems, with poor motivation and applying something new without due consideration will
normally be unsuccessful. Currently, in order to increase sales productivity, many insurance
companies have applied sales force automation and introduced the systems to the agents, but
adoption rate of the systems is still low and slow. This research proposes a novel conceptual
framework developed from the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Task-Technology Fit
(TTF), the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), and Social CRM
Concepts focusing on customer experience value and co-creation. The proven model will lead
to an innovative application of sales force automation combined with Social CRM systems
usable through mobile devices for Thai life insurance agents.
References
Avlonitis, G. J., & Panagopoulos, N. G. 2005. Antecedents and consequences of CRM
technology acceptance in the sales force. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(4),
355-368.
Askool, S., & Nakata, K. 2010. Scoping study to identify factors influencing the
acceptance of social CRM. Paper presented at the Management of Innovation and
Technology (ICMIT), 2010 IEEE International Conference on.
Askool, S., & Nakata, K. 2011. A conceptual model for acceptance of social CRM
systems based on a scoping study. AI & society, 26(3), 205-220.
Bonde, A. 2010. Why Collective Intelligence is Essential to Social CRM.
Buehrer, R. E., Senecal, S., & Bolman Pullins, E. 2005. Sales force technology usage—
reasons, barriers, and support: An exploratory investigation. Industrial Marketing
Management, 34(4), 389-398.
Cascio, R., Mariadoss, B. J., & Mouri, N. 2010. The impact of management commitment
alignment on salespersons' adoption of sales force automation technologies: An
empirical investigation. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(7), 1088-1096. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2009.12.010
Cho, S. D., & Chang, D. R. 2008. Salesperson's innovation resistance and job
satisfaction in intra-organizational diffusion of sales force automation technologies:
The case of South Korea. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(7), 841-847. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.04.004
Davis, F. D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
Gentile, C., Spiller, N., & Noci, G. 2007. How to Sustain the Customer Experience: An
Overview of Experience Components that Co-create Value With the Customer.
Proceedings of World Business and Social Science Research Conference
24-25 October, 2013, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-33-7
European Management Journal, 25(5), 395-410.
Greenberg, P. 2010. The impact of CRM 2.0 on customer insight. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 25(6), 410-419.
Honeycutt Jr, E. D. 2005. Technology improves sales performance—doesn't it?: An
introduction to the special issue on selling and sales technology. Industrial
Marketing Management, 34(4), 301-304.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2004.12.002
Hossain, L., & de Silva, A. 2009. Exploring user acceptance of technology using social
networks. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 20(1), 1-18. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2009.02.005
Joseph, W. B. 1996. Internal marketing builds service quality. Journal of Health Care
Marketing, 16(1), 54-59.
Nambisan, P., & Watt, J. H. 2011. Managing customer experiences in online product
communities.
Journal
of
Business
Research,
64(8),
889-895.
doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.09.006
Ngai, E. 2005. Customer relationship management research (1992-2002): An academic
literature review and classification. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23(6), 582605.
Özcanli, C. 2012. A proposed Framework for CRM On-Demand System Evaluation:
Evaluation Salesforce. com CRM and Microsoft Dynamics Online. KTH.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard
business review, 76, 97-105.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. 2004. Co-creating unique value with customers.
Strategy & Leadership, 32(3), 4-9.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. 2004. Co-creation experiences: The next practice in
value creation. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(3), 5-14.
Robinson Jr, L., Marshall, G. W., & Stamps, M. B. 2005. Sales force use of technology:
antecedents to technology acceptance. Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 16231631. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.07.010
Schmitt, B., Zarantonello, L., & Brakus, J. 2009. Brand experience: what is it? How is it
measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52-68.
Tanner Jr, J. F., & Shipp, S. 2005. Sales technology within the salesperson's
relationships: a research agenda. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(4), 305312.
Van Boven, L., & Gilevich, T. 2003. To do or to have? That is the question. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 85(6), 1193-1202.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. 2003. User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
Venkatesh, V., Speier, C., & Morris, M. G. 2007. User acceptance enablers in individual
decision making about technology: Toward an integrated model. Decision
Sciences, 33(2), 297-316.
Xu, Y., Yen, D. C., Lin, B., & Chou, D. C. 2002. Adopting customer relationship
management technology. Industrial management & data systems, 102(8), 442-452.
Yen, D. C., Wu, C.-S., Cheng, F.-F., & Huang, Y.-W. 2010. Determinants of users’
intention to adopt wireless technology: An empirical study by integrating TTF with TAM.
Computers in
Human Behavior, 26(5), 906-915. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.005
Yousif, A. 2012. Towards understanding the added value of social CRM: a systematic
analysis and a customer value map.