Customer Relationship Management
BCE CRM process improvement
CaRM Project
Project Director:
Chris Awre (c.awre@hull.ac.uk)
Project Manager:
Vicky Mays (v.mays@hull.ac.uk)
Project Officer:
Vladimir Kislicins (v.kislicins@hull.ac.uk)
Project Summary:
The CaRM project is a case study analysis of the implementation of the CRM Self-Analysis Framework
and the outcomes from it. The work is undertaken from a peripheral-tactical perspective aiming for a
long-term strategic implementation. The project is considering the cross-boundary issues, focusing
on the relationships between the University and external businesses.
The CaRM project has been undertaken in the context of existing preliminary work to implement a
CRM system within two key departments at the University, the Business School (including the
Logistics Institute) and the Knowledge Exchange, to assist them in their interactions with external
businesses. The project is developing this initial work to provide a basis upon which the Self-Analysis
Framework will be used to identify a process for wider cross-institutional CRM implementation,
maximising the value of using CRM overall.
Date: 7 October 2009
Version: 0.96
WP2, Pt. 1: Existing CRM outputs
Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer
Project Plan
WP1: Project management
WP2, Part 1: Existing CRM outputs within the University
WP2, Part 2: CRM and HE sector
WP3: User requirement survey analysis
WP4: Self-analysis framework assessment
Executive Summary: WP2, Part 1: Existing CRM outputs within the University
The first part of the Work Package (WP) 2 is focusing on the existing CRM outputs within the
University. The purpose of this report is to summarise the findings established from a range of
interviews with key stakeholders who are at the frontline of relationships between the University
and the External Business Community (EBC). The introduction to the report is focused on identifying
a unified definition of CRM to avoid any confusion in the following work and introducing the
stakeholders subsequently interviewed. The main body of the report highlights the most important
and common findings between the interviewed stakeholders, raising the awareness of some preexisting issues and overall attitude and understanding of CRM. The summary of this report concludes
the main findings and creates the foundation material for further research.
The purpose of the report is to describe the existing situation in an unbiased way and therefore will
not include the personal opinion of the author. Although recommendations on the findings will not
be introduced in this report, it is envisaged that the described findings will help further research and
assist in relevant future decision making processes.
2
WP2, Pt. 1: Existing CRM outputs
Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer
Index
1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................3
1.1 Defining CRM ...........................................................................................................................4
1.2 CRM: Stages of Maturity ..........................................................................................................5
1.3 Sampling ...................................................................................................................................5
2.0 Findings & Analysis .......................................................................................................................6
2.1 CRM and the University ...........................................................................................................6
2.1.1 What does CRM mean for the University? .....................................................................6
2.1.1.1 CRM and Customer ..................................................................................................6
2.1.1.2 CRM and Leadership ................................................................................................7
2.1.1.3 CRM and Implementation ........................................................................................7
2.1.2 How is CRM used within the University? ........................................................................8
2.1.3 Benefits of CRM ..............................................................................................................9
2.1.4 CRM: Policies and Procedures ......................................................................................10
2.1.5 Approach to CRM implementation: Devolved or Centralised? ....................................11
2.1.5.1 Combined approach to CRM implementation .......................................................12
3.0 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................12
Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................................13
3
WP2, Pt. 1: Existing CRM outputs
Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Defining CRM
When considering the development of a CRM programme in your institution, a
critical first step is to make an honest asse ssment of your current position.
(JISC, 2009)
To begin understanding how the University of Hull is managing its customer relationships and
whether CRM is relevant and potentially useful for the institution, it is important to set out a
definition of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) that would be used throughout the report.
The initial research within the University has indicated that the key stakeholders driving the
implementation of CRM within the institution understand the concept of CRM in different ways.
Most commonly it was encountered that the interviewed stakeholders understood CRM to mean
software systems supporting CRM activities rather than a philosophical concept. This is somewhat
understandable as CRM originated from software vendors that used the definition to describe their
products which automated the marketing, selling and service functions of businesses (Buttle, 2004).
On the other hand, it is argued that CRM is much more than software and technology. According to
Finnegan & Willcocks (2007) CRM is more of a business philosophy and culture that supports
effective marketing, sales and services through positioning the customer in the centre of the
business activities. Other studies show that CRM implementation often failed because the focus was
on IT and software rather than the business activities (Pivotal CRM, 2009). It can be concluded that in
its essence CRM is about maximising the customer value through the customer lifecycle by focusing
on people, processes and technology within the organisation and around the customer needs and
requirements.
Approaching CRM as a philosophy or a concept allows us to define the key composites of CRM as the
following:
1) People as CRM Users – employees who are interacting with external businesses on a daily
basis as a part of their work activities;
2) Processes as CRM Activities – processes, procedures and activities in support of Customer
Relationship Management;
4
WP2, Pt. 1: Existing CRM outputs
Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer
3) Technology as CRM Software – software systems enabling and supporting users to follow the
agreed processes and procedures enhancing the interaction with the customer.
1.2 CRM: Stages of Maturity
Although it is relatively common to encounter CRM within the private sector, the KSA Partnership
study of CRM issues in UK Higher and Further Education concluded that CRM implementation in
Business and Community Engagement (BCE) within HE institutions is still underdeveloped (The KSA
Partnership, 2007). The research highlights that there are three different stages of maturity in CRM
practice in HEIs: Peripheral, Tactical and Strategic. Peripheral stage is defined by isolated instances of
CRM usage mainly to manage contacts and with no integration with other institutional systems (e.g.
MS Excel spreadsheet), the Tactical stage highlights multiple CRM usage to inform service delivery
and improvement, with some integration with other systems across the institution. The last stage of
CRM practice in HEI is Strategic, this is when CRM is used institution-wide across all business units to
inform strategic management of relationships and is fully integrated with other institutional systems.
To position the University of Hull CRM BCE in one of the above stages, a range of interviews with the
key stakeholders were conducted.
1.3 Sampling
Although CRM BCE activities are relevant for most parts of the University, it has been highlighted
that two parts of the institution are particularly heavily involved with external businesses and have
established some types of CRM systems to support their activities. Those departments, Hull
University Business School (HUBS) and Knowledge Exchange (KE), interact with External Business
Community (EBC) on a daily basis and host most of the CRM initiatives across the institution.
A sample of CRM users across all levels within these areas was selected. In order to represent
different opinions on the subject, the sample included higher management of the relevant
departments, middle management (team leaders, business developers) as well as the junior level
(administrators). In total, 10 interviews were conducted, following the same pattern and using
identical questions (please see Appendix 1 for the interview questions and the summary of the
interview results).
5
WP2, Pt. 1: Existing CRM outputs
Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer
2.0 Findings & Analysis
2.1 CRM and the University
In order to understand how CRM is used across the institution, it is essential to identify how the
users understand CRM.
2.1.1 What does CRM mean for the University?
As previously mentioned in paragraph 1.1 Defining CRM – the majority of the respondents
understand CRM as a contact database and, sometimes, as a marketing tool but not as a business
philosophy.
A number of reasons were identified that are possibly responsible for the existing situation with CRM
across the University. The identified reasons could be grouped into three areas:
1) CRM and Customer: an uncertain definition of the customer was identified, making it
difficult to position business activities around the customer as is required by the CRM
concept;
2) CRM and Leadership: little clearly defined resonance of CRM within the strategic aims and
visions of the University and, therefore, limited attention given to the introduction of the
new business concept;
3) CRM and Implementation: CRM was introduced within the University as a system (database)
to support records management rather than a business concept.
By looking at each of the areas individually, it should be possible to understand why the CRM users
understand CRM as a contact database rather than a business philosophy.
2.1.1.1 CRM and Customer
Although there are many different types of customers across the institution (full-time students, short
courses students, external business partners, internal businesses, etc) the CaRM project is focusing
on how the University manages relationships with the EBC, therefore it was a criteria for sampling
that the interviewed stakeholders had a degree of contact with external businesses. The conducted
interviews revealed that the respondents defined their customers in a different way. Some of the
respondents had no understood definition of their customer at all and acknowledged using CRM
systems for storing data on a range of customer types.
6
WP2, Pt. 1: Existing CRM outputs
Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer
It came to light overall that the University has no centralised view on who should be considered as
the customer. According to some of the respondents, a decision was made by the management of
the University to exclude students from the customer definition. On the other hand, the interviewed
departments admit that students might also be their customers under specific circumstances (e.g.
the student is renting an office in the Enterprise Centre to start up a business). It is recognised that
students are customers as students, paying for their education, but this lies beyond the boundaries
of the current investigation.
As there is limited agreement between the departments on the centralised definition of the
customer, some departments are recording only external businesses on their CRM system, when
others are also including academics and/or students, making the datasets inconsistent. This
potentially could lead to data duplication between CRM systems and other internal databases.
2.1.1.2 CRM and Leadership
The reasons for CRM not being a clearly defined part of the University strategic aims were identified
as following:
1) Although acknowledging the importance, CRM was not defined as a high priority issue and,
although supported, was not actively promoted and pushed from the top level of the
institution;
2) Limited perceived leadership and commitment to CRM from the senior management
resulting from low evidence of CRM need and potential of success across the institution.
According to the interviewed stakeholders, senior level management at the University had a
restricted overview of CRM potential in the HE environment, in part because the benefits from the
CRM implementation were not clearly demonstrated. This resulted in no strong support from the
institution with the CRM implementation and no integration of a centralised CRM concept.
2.1.1.3 CRM and Implementation
With CRM being excluded from top priorities and not directly supported by the strategic aims of the
University, it is understandable how CRM degraded from being understood as a business concept to
a definition of a database. With low support from the institution, there were few resources available
for explaining the CRM concept, integrating CRM to existing work culture and changing employees’
attitude towards it. A lack of resource availability has also negatively affected the technical quality of
the CRM system that was installed by Academic Services across HUBS, KE and Engineering Institute
(EI) in the first instance. Over time, and notwithstanding the limited resources available, the system
has been gradually improved and has now reached a stable and usable level.
7
WP2, Pt. 1: Existing CRM outputs
Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer
Due to the period of implementation, several CRM implementation barriers have developed:
1) A strong focus on software system rather than the business need – CRM activities were
drawn from the system capabilities and not the business needs supported by a system;
2) Cultural issues and incorrect understanding of CRM. Fear of the work activities being
exposed to the management and concern at being assessed on that basis;
3) Limited understanding of CRM benefit and user resistance based on the frustration with the
extra activities relating to administration and population of a CRM system that were seen as
unnecessary;
4) Lack of staff with expertise in CRM systems and very limited training resources;
5) Very limited resources available for technical implementation of a CRM system, which
resulted in a lengthy process of system development until reaching a more stable stage,
although some technical limitations has impacted on implementing available functionality.
Considering all of the above, it is easy to understand why CRM is used more as a record database
rather than a business concept focused on improvement of business relationships.
2.1.2 How is CRM used within the University?
For the reasons described in the previous paragraph, the majority of the CRM users are using their
CRM system as a contact management database. By storing customer contact details on a CRM
system, CRM users benefit from having all their contacts in one place and ready for further use.
How the CRM users engage the contact details stored on their CRM systems differs significantly. The
following table should help to understand how the CRM systems are used across the University (for
the detailed description of a specific use of CRM system, please see Appendix 2:
Use of CRM System
Contact Management
Marketing
Knowledge Exchange
HUBS
X
X
0.5X
Engineering Institute
X
Logistics Institute
X
X
X
Workload Prioritisation and Planning
X
X
Event Management
X
X
Information and File Sharing
X
Communication with Clients
X
ECIF Project Support
MI Reports
X
X
0.5X
Relationship Management
Other Unique Activities
X
X
X
X
X
X – Good level of use
0.5X – Undeveloped level of use
Table 1 – Use of CRM systems
8
WP2, Pt. 1: Existing CRM outputs
Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer
Although it might not be adequate to compare how HUBS and the rest of the stakeholders are using
their CRM systems due to different systems being in place across the departments, Table 1 indicates
that KE, EI and the Logistics Institute (LI) are all missing out on some of the possible uses of CRM
within their shared system. According to the stakeholders interviewed, certain ways of utilising the
CRM system are not possible for them due to the insufficient support and training on the Microsoft
Dynamics CRM available across the institution, which is reflected in the replies for the question
about the potential use of CRM system within the departments:
Use of CRM System
Knowledge Exchange
HUBS
Contact Management
Engineering Institute
Logistics Institute
X+
Marketing
X
X
Workload Prioritisation and Planning
X
X
Event Management
X
Information and File Sharing
X
X
X+
X
Communication with Clients
ECIF Project Support
MI Reports
X
Relationship Management
X+
Administrate Finances
X
X
X
X
X+
X
X
X
Other Unique Activities
X – Good level of use
X+ – Improved level of use
Table 2 – Potential of CRM systems
From Table 2 it is clearly seen that the only uniquely new potential use of CRM that all of the
departments are interested in, is the integration of financial details within a CRM system that would
help to administrate financial aspects of the clients’ accounts (e.g. produce invoices, mark the
invoices and paid/outstanding, etc). The rest of the potential CRM uses are already implemented in
departments which were interviewed, although the knowledge is not shared.
2.1.3 Benefits of CRM
Not all of the departments could identify benefits from using CRM. Most of the stakeholders agreed
that there were no processes in place for monitoring CRM benefits which, according to Relavis
Corporation (2009), could be seen as a fundamental mistake for identifying Return on Investment
(ROI). Those that could, highlighted the following benefits:
9
WP2, Pt. 1: Existing CRM outputs
Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer
1) The CRM system has been used as a main tool for ECIF project support. The interviewed
stakeholders all individually agreed that without a CRM system the ECIF project would not be
possible to manage;
2) Time-saving benefit. CRM streamlines and automates a number of processes which helps the
staff to significantly save time on repetitive activities (for examples, please see CRM Business
Case, Logistics Institute, 2007);
3) Progress management. CRM systems allow the managers to monitor progress of any
relationships between the client and the University, progress of marketing campaigns or
events as well as the general team workload;
4) Better relationships with customers. Some of the interviewed stakeholders mentioned that
CRM helped them to enhance their relationships with certain customers;
5) Some financial benefit has been established. Through cross-selling and target marketing,
stakeholders managed to generate more income (although no specific data is available).
Such benefits as cross-selling and market intelligence as well as project status management have also
been mentioned by other institutions in the HE industry and reflected in the KSA Partnership Report
on CRM (2007). This concludes that CRM is a valuable philosophy for BCE and that there are
potential real benefits rather than accidental coincidences.
Those departments that could not identify any existing benefits from using CRM were mainly using
neither a CRM approach nor a CRM system but understood the potential if they were to adopt.
2.1.4 CRM: Policies and Procedures
In line with the fact that there is a lack of processes in place for monitoring CRM benefits in order to
report on ROI, limited policies and procedures around CRM exist and few are followed and used on a
daily basis. According to the conducted interviews, only LI has developed policies and procedures
around CRM (predominantly, on the use of Microsoft Dynamics CRM). The HUBS is currently in the
process of developing and updating their existing policies and procedures to support their CRM
activities, KE and EI have confirmed that they have limited CRM policies or procedures in place or in
development, mostly focusing on the system use. The interviewed stakeholders all seemed to agree
that policies and procedures relating to CRM need to be developed further although the opinions
differed on who should develop them and how should they be implemented. It has also been
mentioned that there is a possibility of CRM policies and procedures not being followed unless they
become mandatory and monitored by the line manager.
10
WP2, Pt. 1: Existing CRM outputs
Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer
2.1.5 Approach to CRM implementation: Devolved or Centralised?
The question regarding the approach to CRM implementation received the most contentious
reaction. There was a 50/50 split in agreement by respondents towards the devolved and centralised
approach. It was identified that different opinions exist between the management and the ‘frontline’ members of staff.
It emerged that a greater number of senior members of staff tended to have a more strategic view
on CRM implementation. Taking into consideration the complexity of the institution, a majority of
senior members of staff felt that a devolved approach to CRM implementation was more favourable.
Whilst acknowledging that the current devolved approach to CRM implementation seems to have its
issues, a centralised approach is not seen as feasible within the current structure of the University.
Most junior members of staff seem to believe the opposite. Their arguments are in favour of a
centralised approach in view of that fact that the University has already tried the devolved approach
for several years with little positive result. These respondents would prefer to have clear leadership
and follow a set of centralised policies rather than an option to implement CRM as they see fit.
Such a split might be coincidental or could possibly be explained in several ways:
Junior Stakeholders
1) Frustration with the situation as they are dealing with CRM on a daily basis and there has
been little progress in the last few years;
2) Few believe that University departments are capable of evolving from stagnation and
introducing a devolved adaptation of CRM;
3) Specifics of the role within the organisation – no holistic view of the University, preference
to take actions rather than to develop a strategic approach.
Senior Stakeholders
1) Specifics of the role within the organisation – more holistic and strategic view of the
University, therefore preferences towards a more realistic approach, taking into
consideration the complex structure of the University;
2) Preference to implement new concepts within their departments at their own pace rather
than centrally-enforced;
3) Less ‘hands-on’ interaction with CRM, therefore not as much frustration with the current
situation.
11
WP2, Pt. 1: Existing CRM outputs
Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer
The above assumptions are only a number of possible ways of explaining why the opinions on CRM
implementation differ between junior and senior members of staff.
2.1.5.1 Combined approach to CRM implementation
It has been mentioned by some of the respondents that a combination of centralised and devolved
approaches is required to implement CRM successfully across the University. Such an approach,
although implemented in a devolved way, would be centrally coordinated by the senior management
of the University. There should be a clear CRM implementation plan and a consistent leadership to
support the implementation.
12
WP2, Pt. 1: Existing CRM outputs
Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer
3.0 Conclusion
Summarising the findings of this research, the following issues seem to be responsible for the current
situation with CRM across the institution:
1) Limited understanding of the CRM concept affecting the use of CRM systems across
departments;
2) Limited support from the institution due to limited evidence of the CRM success, affecting
the importance and prioritisation of the CRM across the institution;
3) Cultural issues affecting the difficulties in accepting changes and resistance to CRM
implementation.
It has also been identified that the issue of data and information sharing across the University is not
an end problem on its own as the reasons for unwillingness to share contacts with other
departments are the combination of the above issues.
The results from the conducted interviews have established that all of the stakeholders feel that
there is a strong need for CRM to support BCE and that the current situation is not as efficient as it
could be. The findings described in this report make it possible to conclude that the University is
currently in a Peripheral stage of maturity in CRM practice and further research needs to identify
whether the University would like to move from this stage to Tactical and/or Strategic. The CRM
Implementation Framework developed by the JISC seems to be a good starting point for any further
investigation.
13
WP2, Pt. 1: Existing CRM outputs
Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer
Appendix 1
Interview Questions – the initial meeting:
1) What is your experience of CRM so far?
2) How are you/your department using CRM at the moment?
3) What are you personally using CRM for?
4) How else do you think CRM might be used within your department? Within the whole
institution?
5) Does your CRM system integrates with other similar systems across the institution? Would
you prefer to keep it that way?
6) How do you feel about sharing your data/information about your clients across the
institution? Why? Are there specific clients that you are not comfortable sharing? Are there
specific departments you are not comfortable sharing your data with?
7) What are your policies and procedures on CRM? How do you go about creating a new
contact?
8) Would you prefer using a centralised approach to CRM implementation or a devolved one?
9) What are, in your opinion, barriers to successful CRM implementation within the University?
10) Can you identify whether you’ve gained some tangible benefits from implementation of
CRM? How would you go about it?
11) Who are your customers? Are you comfortable with that or do you see any room for
improvement/extending the customer base?
Interview Responds Analysis:
The Interview Responds Analysis table is available on the next page. Colour code is designed to group
similar answers from different respondents to the same question, therefore the matching colours
between different questions are unrelated.
14
Question subject
Experience with CRM
CRM usage
Engineering Institute
Respondent 1
Hull University Business School (excluding LI)
Respondent 2
Respondent 3
Respondent 4
Knowledge Exchange
Respondent 5
Respondent 6
Logistic Institute
Respondent 7
Very concerned, frustrated and tiered
of waiting
Unhappy with the experience, system
is not used properly and is not reaching Good experience working with SAGE
its full potential
and MS Dynamics systems
Positive experience, confidence is
strong drive for the University to
implement a centralised CRM
approach
Very impressed with what CRM
Dynamics is capable of although
frustrated that her colleagues are not
using the system
Very frustrated with how the
Negative experience with CRM. Easy to University approached the CRM
neglect the institutional benefit due to implementation. Not using CRM (MS
habits
Dynamics) at the moment.
Contacts management
Contacts management
Contacts management
Contacts management
Relationship management
Marketing (poorly developed)
File storing and file sharing
Supporting ECIF project
Contacts management
Recording communication and
activities related to the client
ECIF activities (reporting, recording
meetings, creating follow up activities Contacts management
Specific data entering in relation to
Intellectual Property
Workload planning and prioritisation
Marketing (poorly developed)
Producing reports for ECIF
Administrating marketing campaigns
and events
Communication with clients through
emails
Respondent 8
Difficult experience, although cannot
see LI not using a CRM system
Respondent 9
Positive experience, although some
frustration over technical aspects of
an existing CRM system
Contacts management
Academic Services
Respondent 10
Introduction of CRM Dynamics to the
University, development of policies
and procedures, training and tech
support activities
CRM support activities
Recording communication and activities related to the client
Creating marketing lists for e-shots and e-marketing;
Assisting with ECIF reports
Reporting (undeveloped)
Event management (inc. recording any feedback available from the event);
Managing office space allocation
Mail-shots and e-Marketing, track &
trace progress
Workload management, planning and prioritisation (including reminders and
alarms)
Management of ‘Logistics Institute’ memberships;
Improving customer satisfaction levels
Information
institution
sharing
across
the
Financial integration, producing quotes Workload management (on SAGE)
Producing wider range of reports
Events management
BDU coordination (workload
management, monitoring results,
coordinating sales activities)
Better relationship management
Reporting activities
Better relationship management
Mail-shots and e-Marketing
Mail-shots and e-Marketing
Mail-shots and e-Marketing
Events management and marketing
campaigns management
University/Client relationship
management
Reduce complexity of data sharing
processes
Integrate financial side to CRM
(produce invoices)
Partly integrated with LI and EI
Partly integrated with LI and EI
No issues with data sharing
No issues with data sharing. Major
issues accessing data due to obstacles
other people introduce to limit the
No issue with sharing his own data
data sharing across the department
although strong believe in poor data
and the institution
sharing across the institution
CRM potential
Target marketing & cross selling
Improve customer experience
offering extra support
Target marketing & cross selling
by Better contacts management through
minimising duplications
Mail-shots and e-Marketing
Extend the e-Marketing capabilities,
improve records management and
communication tracking through being
able to generate emails from the CRM
system;
Staff directory
Integration with the Finance
department, facilities to manage
payments and understand accounts
Producing reports
No integration
Partly integrated with KE and EI
Limited due to the specifics of
Intellectual Property
No issues with data sharing within LI
department. Happy to share data with
others although encountering
No issues with sharing information
unwillingness to share data from other and no understanding why others are
(e.g. HUBS)
not willing to share their contacts
No policies or procedures identified
Policies and procedures exist and are
documented
Policies and procedures exist but are
not followed
A clear top-down approach with
centralised procedures and
centralised training
Top-down devolved approach with
clear leadership and implementation
plan
Centralised approach. Devolved gives
too much flexibility which affects the
speed of the implementation, quality
and consistency across the institution
Devolved approach as the process can
be run simultaneously across several
departments (assuming there is
sufficient resources available to
support the process
Poor resources available from the
University
Poor commitment and prioritisation
from the University
No leadership to follow up CRM
implementation;
Resistance to change and fear of being
exposed
Poor understanding of the CRM
concept and the potential benefits
High implementation costs and low
resources available;
CRM is not seen as a priority within the
institution;
Events management
Administrate finances
Financial reporting
CRM systems integration
Information sharing
Partly integrated with LI and KE
No issues rather
information sharing
than
No integration
financial
No issues rather than data ownership
No integration
Believes that academics might be
unwilling to share data, especially
relating to research
Partly integrated with LI and EI
Partly integrated with KE and EI
Fear of job loss and risk of exposure
Cultural issues - mindset of the private
industry
Pressure to perform and report the
results
Actively promoting data sharing
Encounters unwillingness to share
data although not understanding the
reasoning behind that (even when the
data is requested by law)
Academics not willing to share data
Policies & procedures
No policies or procedures identified
Under development
Under development (part of processes
documented)
No policies or procedures identified
Centralised. Devolved only if piloting
Devolved is fine within the current
circumstances. Ideally would prefer
centralised although acknowledge
complexity of the internal structure of
the institution and the current priority
list
Devolved. No faith in centralised
approach. Happy that something is
working. Unhappy with not having
integration with LI and KE
Centralised or devolved approach
Poor information management
Managers have poor understanding of
Poor leadership and commitment from CRM, benefits not clear and high
the higher management
resistance
CRM is seen as a software system and
CRM is not identified as a priority
not as business philosophy
Barriers to implementation
No clear deliverables from CRM
Academics not following CRM
procedures (time excuse)
Centralised approach
No policies or procedures identified.
Limited procedures related to ECIF
No policies or procedures identified
Top-down, centralised approach is
Devolved approach as there is no faith needed. University has been trying a
in centralised approach
devolved approach for too long now
No understanding of CRM and the
No understanding of CRM. CRM seen as drivers and deliverables that should
a records database rather than
exist. The benefit for the staff is not
philosophy
obvious.
Poor staff IT skills
Cultural issue, communication
Relaxed atmosphere and careless
Cultural issue and habit of doing things problem
culture of the University
Academics as they have other
priorities and disagree on the CRM
benefits
Emphasis on software systems instead
of business needs
Fear of change
At early stages CRM is too timeconsuming
Fear of change
Poor resources to buy/develop a CRM
system;
Technical software limitations
No explanation what the CRM system
should be used for and why people
should use it. Benefits from the CRM At early stages CRM is too timenot defined.
consuming
Poor
commitment
management
from
senior
Poor understanding of the CRM
concept and the potential benefits
Lack of skilled staff (IT skills are not
sufficient
to
operate
complex
databases)
No clear CRM processes
No strategic approach to relationships
with external businesses
No current benefit identified as the
system is not used correctly
Time-saving
Benefits
Overall - no clear monitoring of CRM
benefits
Automating processes and saving time
on admin work
ECIF project
Progress management - helps to
remember to follow up things (e.g.
Invoices)
ECIF project
Time-saving
ECIF project
Progress management - helps to
remember to follow up things (e.g.
Invoices)
Better relationship with the customer
Avoidance of data duplication
ECIF project
ECIF project
IP activities (although different CRM
system)
Time-saving
Generating more income and crossselling activities
Improvement in customer
relationships
Internal and external businesses
Defining customer
No clear definition of a customer
No clear definition of a customer. A lot
of grey area
Business partners, academics and
students. For managing all three
customer groups, a set of independent
systems is used. This often causes
confusion, data duplication, extends
margin for errors and takes
significantly more time to manage.
No clear definition of a customer
Business & Academics. Recording both No clear definition - anyone(internal
and external) who receives the service
Businesses, Graduates and Academics types of customers on a CRM system
Environmental benefit - no need to file
much paper
ECIF project
Time-saving
Progress management - helps to
remember to follow up things (e.g.
Invoices)
ECIF project
Internal and external customers
(businesses and individuals). Lapsed
clients also seen as customers
Internal customers only - no benefit
from using CRM
Appendix 2
List and description of how a CRM system uses:
Contact Management: creating, updating and storing contact details on a CRM system, accessing
contact details when required.
Marketing: marketing activities, targeted on the contacts stored within a CRM system, including mail
shots, e-marketing activities, target marketing campaigns, cross-selling activities.
Workload Prioritisation and Planning: tactical/strategic management of the workload through
workload distribution of CRM related activities via CRM system, project progress monitoring.
Event Management: arranging, administrating and managing a range of activities and events
(booking events, rooms and food, planning itinerary, organising reminders, liaising with event
partners and other event planning activities).
Information and File Sharing: sharing the project/client related information through a CRM system,
attaching related files to clients and activities.
Communication with Clients: record CRM activities and any ongoing communication with the client
on a CRM system, generate emails from a CRM system.
ECIF Project Support: activities related with the support of the government initiative to tackle the
economic downturn through the availability of the Economic Challenge Investment Fund (ECIF).
MI Reports: producing Management Information Reports from a CRM system, providing managers
with most recent information and data to assist the decision making and progress/performance
monitoring processes.
Relationship Management: improving customer satisfaction level through creating follow up
activities to providing additional customer service.
Other Unique Activities: unique and uncategorised activities, e.g. management of the Intellectual
Property, management of ‘Logistics Institute’ memberships, etc.
WP2, Pt. 1: Existing CRM outputs
Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer
List of References
Buttle, F., (2004), Customer Relationship Management: Concepts and Tools, Oxford, Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Finnegan, J.D. and Wilcocks, L.P., (2007), Implementing CRM, Chichester, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
KSA Partnership, (2007), ‘Study of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) issues in UK Higher
Education Institutions’,
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/themes/bce/crmstudyfinalreport20070817.pdf, accessed
08/10/09.
Pivotal CRM, (2009), ‘The Top 3 Reasons CRM Initiatives (Still) Fail - And How To Avoid Them’, 9th
June,
http://ra.techtarget.com/leads/magnifierResponded.do?email=c.awre@hull.ac.uk&resourceId=1244
603771_296&leadFollowupPathId=1897986&asrc=EM_RMU_20090903&site=bpmd, accessed
08/10/09.
Relavis Corporation, (2009), ‘A Guide To CRM ROI ‘, 13th August,
http://www.bitpipe.com/data/document.do?res_id=1250693412_791&asrc=EM_RMU_20090903,
accessed 08/10/09.
The JISC, (2009), ‘CRM Self Analysis Framework’, http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/gradschool/crm/,
accessed 08/09/2009.
17