CRM Technology: Implementation Project and Consulting Services As Determinants of Success

International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making
Vol. 16, No. 2 (2017) 421–441

°c World Scienti¯c Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S0219622017500067
CRM Technology: Implementation Project and Consulting

Services as Determinants of Success
Óscar Gonzalez-Benito*, Wander Trindade Venturini

Int. J. Info. Tech. Dec. Mak. 2017.16:421-441. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
and Javier Gonzalez-Benito

Multidisciplinary Institute for Enterprise (IME), University of Salamanca
by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND on 02/16/18. For personal use only.
Campus Miguel de Unamuno

Universidad de Salamanca
37007 Salamanca, Spain
*oscargb@usal.es
Published 25 January 2017
The success of a customer relationship management (CRM) strategy depends on the adequate
use of technology, including CRM software. This paper o®ers empirical evidence regarding
critical success factors for CRM software adoption, namely, implementation project manage-
ment and services provided by information technology consultants. Data analyses involving 208
business customers of an international CRM software provider show that (1) successful man-
agement of the implementation project is a fundamental prerequisite for the ¯rm to take full
advantage of CRM software; (2) perceptions of tangible o®ers, reliability, responsiveness, as-
surance, empathy, and training services provided by CRM consultants a®ect CRM success; and
(3) the successful management of an implementation project mediates the e®ects of consulting
service quality on successful CRM software adoption. These ¯ndings point to the relevance of
service in the CRM software industry from the perspectives of both the professionals involved
and the potential adopters of CRM software.
Keywords: CRM strategy; CRM software; success factors; implementation project; consultancy
service quality.
1. Introduction
Customer relationship management (CRM) and its related technology market ac-
count for substantial monetary value worldwide. According to AMR Research,1 the
CRM software market grew over 28% in the ¯rst decade of this century, such that
worldwide revenues reached $10 billion in 2011. Current growth in the CRM soft-
ware remains moderate but signi¯cant; worldwide revenues reached $23.9 billion in
2014.2 Key players such as Oracle, SAP, and Microsoft o®er new, cutting-edge CRM
technological solutions every year, and their information technology (IT) partners
earn signi¯cant pro¯ts through their consultancies and the sale of CRM software
*Corresponding author.
421
422
O. Gonzalez-Benito,
W. T. Venturini & J. Gonzalez-Benito
licenses. Moreover, CRM systems are among the ¯ve most in°uential technologies in
the world.3
The success of a CRM strategy depends on adequate uses of the relevant tech-
nology, including CRM software. Technology represents a nearly mandatory in-
vestment for ¯rms interested in deriving bene¯ts from their relationship marketing
e®orts.4 But many CRM systems simply fail to achieve their objectives5,6 just be-
cause a company buys a CRM solution and implements it does not mean it will attain
the bene¯ts automatically,7 nor does success depend solely on the amount invested in
the technology.8 When companies invest huge amounts of money in CRM software
and related consulting services but fail to attain the expected bene¯ts (e.g., better
knowledge of customers, customer loyalty and satisfaction, more sales and pro¯ts),
they demand to know why, and scholars and IT professionals echo these calls. In
response, this paper focuses on the determinants of CRM software success. Speci¯-
cally, we o®er empirical evidence regarding the critical success factors for CRM
software adoption by focusing on the management of the implementation project and
the service received from IT consultants. Thus, as our central research question, we
ask: To what extent can appropriate management of the implementation project and
service received from IT consultants lead to CRM software success and, in turn,
CRM strategy success?
To analyze the success of CRM software implementation though, we ¯rst must
de¯ne and measure success. Academicians and practitioners struggle with these
e®orts, such that various measures of CRM success, re°ecting di®erent perspectives
and contexts, appear in prior literature. As a primary contribution, this study seeks
instead to build an integrative framework of CRM success, consistent with the
bene¯ts expected from CRM software adoption.
Such success is necessarily a complex concept because CRM technology adoption
is a complex project. The software implantation process demands technological in-
novation, involving a range of in°uential variables,9 including the corporate culture,
¯nancial investments, the number of employees, and project duration. The failure to
manage a CRM software implementation project e®ectively likely impedes the op-
timal performance of the CRM software and thus the successful adoption of a CRM
strategy. Yet, previous literature provides little insight into the e®ects of the actual
management of the software implementation project on CRM success. We therefore
analyze the extent to which meeting time, budget, and quality objectives for a
CRM software implementation project contributes to CRM success, as a second
contribution.
Finally, IT consultants are critical throughout the CRM software implementation
project. Not only does their consulting service account for a substantial amount of
the total project costs, but they generally provide CRM system design and instal-
lation services, hardware adjustments, project management and speci¯cation, and
training. The quality of their consulting services thus determines the quality of
management of the implementation project and the success of the CRM software
adoption. As a third contribution, we analyze the relationship among IT consultants'
CRM Technology, Consulting Services and Success 423
service quality, the management of the CRM implementation project, and CRM
software success.
With these contributions, this research has relevant implications for ¯rms, pro-
fessionals involved in the CRM software industry, and potential adopters of CRM
software. On the one hand, CRM software providers must understand the relevance
of their implementation services for customers' ultimate satisfaction, after they im-
plement the focal software. In many cases, these services include intermediaries or
partners, so the software provider must take care to select partners that exhibit the
qualities and skills that can ensure the successful adoption of the CRM software by
the customer ¯rm. On the other hand, potential customers need to be conscious of
which service quality dimensions, as o®ered by the IT consultants they hire, will
enable the success of their own CRM software adoption. Adopting CRM software
entails not only the selection of °exible, functional, or useful software but also the
choice of an excellent provider of implementation services.
To inform these insights, we collected information from 208 ¯rms that have
implemented the CRM software o®ered by a global CRM software provider that
partnered with us for this research. The ¯ndings con¯rm the importance of careful
management of the CRM software implementation project to achieve success
through CRM software adoption. In addition, the ¯ndings highlight the positive
relationship between consulting service quality, as perceived by customer ¯rms, and
those customers' satisfaction with the CRM software implementation project, as well
as their ultimate performance. The e®ect of this service quality on CRM software
success also appears largely mediated by better management of the implementation
project.
2. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

2.1. CRM and CRM software
Previous literature provides multiple de¯nitions of CRM, ranging from the imple-
mentation of speci¯c technology solutions to a holistic approach to managing cus-
tomer relationships that creates both customer and ¯rm value. This plethora of
de¯nitions has caused some confusion, though the ¯eld has started to converge on a
common de¯nition.4 We adopt a holistic de¯nition (Ref. 6, p. 120): \CRM is a set of
business activities supported by both technology and processes that is directed by
strategy and is designed to improve business performance in an area of customer
management." For our study, CRM is primarily a strategic approach.10
In turn, CRM software is the technological application that links the front o±ce
(e.g., sales, marketing, customer service) to the back o±ce (e.g., ¯nance, operations,
logistics, human resources) at the company's \touch points".11 The most common
touch points are the Internet, e-mail, sales, direct mail, short messaging services, call
centers, faxes, pagers, stores, and kiosks. Therefore, CRM software is a tool to fa-
cilitate the implementation of a CRM strategy by helping the ¯rm manage all its
424
O. Gonzalez-Benito,
interactions with customers and exploit the knowledge about customers that it
derives from these various interactions.
This software generally relies on a standard structure, though small variations
may exist across di®erent software providers. The structure comprises operational
and analytical modules. In the operational module, the software automates selling,
marketing, and service processes to make these functions more e±cient and e®ec-
tive.12 Operational software applications include sales force automation (SFA),
product con¯guration, event-based marketing, opportunity management, campaign
management, and contact management solutions.13 The analytical module instead
comprises the technologies that aggregate customer information and provide data for
improving business decisions and actions, such as answers to questions about \What
should we o®er this customer next?" \What is this customer's propensity to churn?"
or \How can our customers be segmented for campaigning purposes?",13 as well as

\How should we communicate with our customers?" or \What are my customers'
color and size preferences?".11 It involves data mining, knowledge management, and
decision-making analytical models and tools.14,15
The primary objective of the CRM technological solution overall is to track,
capture, and analyze customers' interactions and transactions over time. Then
CRM helps convert these collected data into useful information for directing ac-
tivities, such as creating personalized marketing plans, developing new products
and services, and designing communication programs that attract, reward, and
retain customers.16
2.2. CRM software success

Broadly, CRM software success implies positive e®ects of using CRM technology on
the company's outcomes.17 After a CRM software implementation, companies expect
to perceive some bene¯ts, including improved performance indicators. However,
precisely de¯ning and measuring the desirable results of CRM remains a challenge, as
does outlining CRM software success.
Previous literature proposes a variety of potential bene¯ts and performance
indicators that might accrue from a CRM software implementation.18 From an ex-
haustive review of this literature, we identi¯ed several frequently mentioned success
indicators, as we list in Table 1. Then in Fig. 1, we group the key indicators into three
interrelated dimensions of success: operational bene¯ts, customer lifecycle bene¯ts,
and ¯rm performance bene¯ts.
The operational bene¯ts attained from CRM software relate to the gains in
productivity and operations achieved due to its e®ective management of sales
campaigns, customer service, and customer database analyses. For example, SFA
technology incorporated into CRM software usually establishes a standard for the
sales process, whereas the campaign management module supports the e®ective
planning, creation, and execution of campaign details.12 In addition to segmenting
customers, selecting sales channels, providing content suggestions, and controlling
Table 1. Review of measures for CRM sucess.

CRM success Operational benefits Benefits in customer life cycle Benefits in performance
Effectivity Adaptability Efficiency
Author/Date Sales Campagain Customer Analysis Customer Customer Customer Customer Market Sales Adaptation Launch Performanc of
manage- manage- service of cus- loyalty satisfac- share of recovery share in the ob- of prod- prod- resources
ment ment manage- tomer’s tion wallet jective ucts and ucts and applied
ment data base market services services
47
Ahearne et al. (2007) X X X X X
Ang and Buttle (2006)13 X X
Buttle (2004) 48 X X X
Chen and Chen (2004)42 X X X X X X
Chen and Popovich (2003) X X X X X X X
Croteau and Li (2003)16 X X X
Guslafason et al. (2005)49 X
Hart et al. (2004)50 X X X X X X
Jaivagi et al. (2006)51 X X X X
Jayachandran et al. (2005) X
Kim and Kim (2008)20 X X X X X X
Kim et al. (2003)52 X X X
King and Burgess (2008)43 X X X X X
Ko et al. (2008)2 X X X X X X X X X X X
Lemnn et al. (2002) X X X X
Lin et al. (2006)54 X X X X
Mckim and Hoghes (2000) X
Mcnally, R. (2007)56 X X
Mithas et al. (2005)57 X X
Park and Kim (2003)58 X X X X X
Parvallyar and Sheth (2000, 2001)59 X X
Reinartz et al. (2004)5 X
Rigby and Ledingham (2004)60 X X X X
Rigby et al. (2002)8 X
Ryais, L. (2005)61
Verbuef (2003)62 X X
Wilson et al. (2002)17
Winer (2004) X
Zikmund et al. (2003)64 X X X X
CRM Technology, Consulting Services and Success
425
426
O. Gonzalez-Benito,
Fig. 1. Dimensious of CRM software success.
campaign developments, CRM o®ers customer service support, because it records all
transactions and interactions and thus o®ers rapid, appropriate responses to cus-
tomer requests across multiple contact points. Finally, CRM software facilitates the
analysis of the customer database. It records historical customer behaviors, and
its analytical tools o®er helpful insights about customer preferences and buying
intentions.19
With regard to the customer lifecycle, CRM software produces bene¯ts by im-
proving the ¯rm's ability to capture, retain, satisfy, ensure the loyalty of, attract the
share of wallet of, and recover customers.5,16,20,21 These bene¯ts in turn contribute to
increasing customer lifetime value and customer equity, which are the primary
expected outcomes of a CRM strategy.22
Finally, the bene¯ts of CRM software can be measured according to ¯rms' per-
formance. In Ref. 23 foundational and seminal framework, such an indicator might
consist of e®ectiveness, e±ciency, and adaptability. E®ectiveness refers to success in
sales e®orts and market share gains compared with competitors. E±ciency entails a
comparative measure of e®ectiveness against the resources required to achieve that
level. Finally, adaptability represents the successful ability to respond over time to
changing conditions and new opportunities with customers.
2.3. The implementation project

Few empirical investigations consider the critical success factors for CRM software,
though Table 2 lists factors that appear in previous literature. Most studies of how
CRM software gets implemented have been relatively super¯cial, without explicit
analysis of the e®ects of satisfactory project development or e®ective service and
support by the implementation team.
Table 2. Success factors in CRM software implementation.
Authors/date Critical success factors identi¯ed
Wilson et al.17 Gain champion/sponsor

De¯ne approval procedures
Board awareness of potential
Organized around customer
Involve customers in system design
Design for °exibility
Rapid strategy/action loop
Market orientation
Need for IT convergence/coordination
Address culture change

Manage IT infrastructure
Goodhue et al.44 Top management support

Incremental approach
Vision/CRM mindset
Willingness to share data
Willingness to change processes
Croteau and Li16 Top management support
Technological readiness (generates more
knowledge management capabilities)
Knowledge management capabilities
Chen and Popovich11 Enterprise-wide strategy

Customer-centric business process
Cross-functional integration
Technology-driven processes
Chen and Chen42 System integration
Knowledge management
Champion leadership
Internal marketing
Business IT alignment
Culture/structure change
Raman et al.45 Organizational learning
Business process orientation
Customer-centric orientation
Task–technology ¯t
King and Burgess43 Top management support
Communications of CRM strategy
Knowledge management capabilities
Willingness to share data
Willingness to change processes
Technological readiness
Culture change/customer orientation
Process change capability
Systems integration capability
Saini et al.46 Top management championship practices
CRM knowledge
Employee IT skills
428
O. Gonzalez-Benito,
Yet, the complex process of CRM software implementation demands a project

approach. Most CRM implementation projects follow a regular sequence24: (1)
identify the objectives and business needs that must be supported by the software;
(2) analyze the company's present situation to identify which technological resources
and processes need to be adopted to achieve CRM implementation, which also
involves establishing a work plan to map the necessary tasks and resources to ¯nish
the project; (3) implement the technology and the process e®ectively; and (4) review
and test the implemented CRM software.
However, we ¯nd frequent confusion about the distinct concepts of project success
and project management success.25 Whereas, project success refers to the achieve-
ment of global project outcomes, project management success indicates the e®ective
management of the time, budget, and quality outcomes of the project.26 The same
distinction applies in a CRM project context: CRM software success di®ers from
success in the management of its implementation project. With this distinction, we
can further a±rm that project management success often leads to project success.
The implementation process helps de¯ne project success, whereas mistakes in project
management, such as delays and cost overruns, tend to induce project failure.27
Analogously, successful management of the CRM software implementation project
should relate to the success of the CRM software. Project management, designed to
accomplish cost, time, and quality objectives, is a meaningful element of IT projects
such as CRM software adoption. Therefore, we hypothesize:
H1: The management success of the CRM software implementation project relates
positively to CRM software success.
2.4. IT consultants' service quality

Implementing CRM software usually requires consulting support from vendors. In
many cases, this support comes from specialized partner companies, which provide
IT consulting services throughout the implementation process, from software
deployment to training. In addition to helping the customer company take advan-
tage of its investment in CRM implementation, consultants often represent a sub-
stantial share of CRM implementation costs. Accordingly, their service quality is a
crucial question. As previous literature notes, CRM success likely depends on per-
ceived consulting service quality, which refers to the global judgment of the superiority
of a service.28 Better service quality tends to improve customer performance, in the
form of reduced costs, better management quality, improved e®ectiveness, and higher
revenues.29 Consultants' experience and their ability to transfer speci¯c knowledge
enables the use of technology and thus generates more satisfaction among ¯nal users.30
Consulting support related to the use of CRM software speci¯cally should increase
°exibility, responsiveness, and adaptive behavior, as well as improve organizational
e®ectiveness, learning about customers, and problem-solving abilities.31
In contrast, poor quality consulting services create substantial problems. For
example, if consultants fail to show initiative and provide only simple consulting or
independent evaluations, the implementation project cannot advance. In an IT

adoption context, failure results when consultants do not adapt to the speci¯c needs
of the client company. In some cases, even after receiving consulting services, com-
panies may have CRM software installed but cannot understand the CRM process or
the related practices and functionalities.32 We thus predict:
H2: Consulting service quality in°uences CRM software success positively.
Previous research also supports the view that consulting service quality in°uences
the management success of a CRM software implementation project and that this
e®ect also mediates the impacts on CRM software success. Consulting service quality
stimulates the client company's commitment to the CRM software implementation
project.27 For example, training provided by consultants not only encourages soft-
ware adoption but also gives employees more con¯dence in the new system, such that
they adopt it more readily.32,33 The experience, support, and training provided by IT
consultants also facilitate management of the CRM software implementation proj-
ect. Therefore, consulting service quality determines the deployment of a satisfactory
service, which should help meet the project's time speci¯cations29 and budget
constraints.34
Failures in the CRM software implementation project instead may re°ect pro-
blems in adapting the software to the speci¯cities of the company, encouraging
employee involvement, or fully exploiting the software functionalities. These pro-
blems in turn impede the achievement of desirable CRM software outcomes. More-
over, well-managed projects tend to receive more attention and credibility,35 so CRM
software adoption should be more extensive when the implementation project suc-
ceeds. High quality consulting services are a prerequisite of successfully managing a
project implementation; this success in turn constitutes a necessary condition for
e®ective CRM software deployment and usage, and then CRM success.
H3: Perceived consulting service quality in°uences the management success of the
CRM software implementation project positively.
H4: The e®ect of perceived consulting service quality on CRM software success is
mediated by the management success of the CRM software implementation
project.
3. Methodology
3.1. Data
The CRM software market comprises many CRM technological solutions. For the
purposes of this study, we selected a single, relevant, international CRM software
provider, to avoid the biases that might accrue due to di®erences across CRM
solutions. It is a worldwide leader in the CRM and enterprise resource planning
(ERP) industries. The provider's own interest in our research objectives motivated it
to grant us access to its customers. This provider sells CRM software as a single
430
O. Gonzalez-Benito,
solution or assembled in an ERP software package; it always uses IT consulting

partners for its implementation services.
The provider's database of ERP customers in Spain provided the starting point
for the study. This database contains 4,100 customer companies throughout Spain;
of them, 130 companies had implemented a single CRM software, 1,522 had imple-
mented a large ERP software package, and 2,448 had implemented a medium-sized
ERP software package. All the ERP customers also could have implemented the
CRM software, assembled within the ERP solution. The database did not distinguish
ERP from ERP–CRM customers, so we introduced a ¯lter question into the
questionnaire.
We then sent e-mails to the managers in charge of implementation for each

company in the database, inviting them to complete an online questionnaire by
clicking a link in the message. To encourage participation, each respondent would be

entered into a ra®le. We also made more than 400 telephone calls to spread the
invitations, along with four rounds of e-mails. This collection process resulted in 763
responses, 208 of which were from ¯rms that had implemented CRM software. Of
these 208 respondents, 29 adopted a single CRM software, 58 adopted a large ERP–
CRM assembled software package, and 121 adopted the medium-sized ERP–CRM
assembled software package.
The respondents were mainly marketing, sales, or customer service executives,
typically at the level of vice president or general manager in a strategic business unit.
The ¯rms operated in business-to-business markets (55.8%), business-to-consumer
markets (4.8%), or both (39.4%). Furthermore, 77% of respondents indicated that up
to ¯ve employees in their companies were dedicated to the implementation project.
Similarly, 83% of the IT partners involved in the implementation provided up to four
full-time employees to work on it. Most CRM software implementations were com-
pleted within 12 months (78%): 38% were ¯nished within 6 months, and 40% were
¯nished within 6–12 months. An additional 17% required between one and two years,
whereas 4% were ¯nished after two to ¯ve years. Moreover, 21.6% of the respondents
represented multinational companies, and 78.4% were from local companies. The
annual revenues of the ¯rms were diverse: 14.4% less than 1.5 million €, 11.5%
between 1.5 and 3 million €, 20.2% between 3 and 6 million €, 32.7% between 6 and
30 million €, and 21.2 over 30 million €. Finally, most companies had fewer than 250
employees (77.4%).
3.2. Measures
The questionnaire included scales to measure the constructs involved in the empirical
study, which had been developed and assessed according to appropriate proce-
dures.36 We developed the ¯rst questionnaire version on the basis of a review of CRM
project management literature, as well as interviews with professionals familiar with
CRM software. Five academics and six CRM industry professionals then checked the
scale indicators for face validity and provided feedback, which we used to revise the
scales and develop a de¯nitive version of the questionnaire. All the scales consisted of
seven-point Likert-type indicators.
The measure of CRM software success followed the theoretical framework we
explained previously. The success indicators constituted three dimensions: opera-
tional bene¯ts, customer lifecycle bene¯ts, and performance bene¯ts (i.e., e±ciency,
e®ectiveness, and adaptability).
The measure of project management success encompassed success in planning,
managing, and controlling all aspects of the project, in accordance with the \iron
triangle" of budget, time, and quality at the end of the project.26 These dimensions
have been widely tested and validated. The time criterion demands accurate plan-
ning and the accomplishment of deadlines at each step of a project. Budget implies
accurate cost predictions for all resources devoted to the project. Finally, quality
refers to how the project is undertaken for its entire span.37

The service quality scale was adapted from the perceived service quality measure
proposed by Parasuraman et al.,28 which consists of ¯ve dimensions: empathy, as-
surance, responsiveness, tangibility, and reliability. The tangibility dimension relates
to physical facilities, equipment, and the personal appearance of the service provider.
Reliability refers to the ability to perform the promised service, dependably and
accurately. Responsiveness means a willingness to help customers and provide
prompt service. Assurance is the knowledge and courtesy of employees and their
ability to inspire trust and con¯dence. Empathy addresses the caring and individ-
ualized attention the ¯rm provides to its customers. This scale previously has been
adapted and tested in multiple service contexts and proven valid. Although no
existing scale adaptations relate to consulting for CRM implementation, Yoon and
Suh38 propose an adaptation for the IT consulting context. We thus added their
education dimension to the ¯ve traditional dimensions and validated it for the
purposes of this study.
Table 3 summarizes the results of the exploratory and con¯rmatory analyses of all
the scales. The chi-square statistics were signi¯cant. The other recommended
goodness-of-¯t statistics all showed acceptable levels, including reliabilities ranging
from 0.87 to 0.98, well above the recommended values. The loadings ranged from
0.50 to greater than 0.90 (and most exceeded 0.70), which suggested that the con-
struct indicators were acceptable. Furthermore, following Bagozzi's39 procedure, we
¯xed the correlations between each pair of constructs to 1 and used the di®erences in
the ratio of the chi-square to the degrees of freedom to determine if these correlations
di®ered from 1. The chi-square di®erence tests for all pairs of constructs were sig-
ni¯cant at p < 0:05. To implement Fornell and Larcker's40 procedure, we computed
the shared variance between the indicators of a construct and the construct. Overall,
the results o®ered support for the discriminant validity of the constructs.
The measure of CRM success featured a second-order construct with three
dimensions (operational bene¯ts, customer lifecycle bene¯ts, performance bene¯ts).
We examined the second-order factor structure. The model ¯t was good, in support
of the second-order factor conceptualization of CRM success (2 ¼ 3:57, degrees of
432
Table 3. Measures.
Variables/Indicators Loadings Number of Constn Composite Extracted GFI Bentler's CFI

indicators realiability reliability variance normed ¯t index

(NFI)
Constructs All CRM success variables 15 0.964 0.923 0.962 0.980
O. Gonzalez-Benito,
CRM Bene¯ts in customer Customers caption 0.879 6 0.961 0.96 0.86 0.992 0.997 0.999
software life cycle Customer Retention 0.878
success Customer Loyalty 0.891
Customer Satisfaction 0.845
Customer share of wallet 0.831
Customer recovery 0.710
Bene¯ts in E®ectivity Market share 0.860

Performance Sales in the objective market 0.856
Adaptability Adaptation of Products and services 0.842 5 0.950 0.94 0.77 0.953 0.973 0.978
Launch products and services 0.871
E±ciency Performance of resources applied 0.751

Operational bene¯ts Sales Management 0.685

Campaign Management 0.690
Customer service management 0.739 4 0.876 0.88 0.64 0.982 0.983 0.990
Analysis of customer's data base 0.808

Implementation project Time 0.854
management success
Budget 0.775 3 0.889 0.90 0.89 0.990 0.991 0.994
Satisfaction 0.829
Service Tangibles Up-to-date equipment
quality Physical facilities appealling ** 3 0.91 0.78
Good employees appearence
Reliability Performed the promissed service ** 2 0.95 0.90
No mistakes
Table 3. (Continued )
Variables/Indicators Loadings Number of Constn Composite Extracted GFI Bentler's CFI
indicators realiability reliability variance normed ¯t index
(NFI)
Responsiveness Prompt service

Willing to help ** 3 0.980 0.94 0.84 0.887 0.949 0.969
Communicative
Assurance Ability to inspire trust and
Knowledge and courtesy of ** 3 0.94 0.84
Employees well trained
Empathy Education Individual attention
Convenient work hours ** 3 0.96 0.89
Understand customer needs
Good training program ** 2 0.85 0.75
Developed customers employees
Notes: * regresion weight ¯xed as 1 in CFA due to model identi¯cation.

** lodings in this case must be veri¯ed by extracted variance. These are no indicators but subdimensions.
*** Full CRM Model: Operational bene¯ts þ Bene¯ts in customer life cycle þ Bene¯ts in performance.
433
434
O. Gonzalez-Benito,
freedom [d.f.] ¼ 105; goodness-of-¯t index ¼ 0:92, Bollen's normed index ¼ 0:98). We
also assessed and con¯rmed discriminant validity, using the procedures that
Bagozzi39 and Fornell and Larcker40 suggest.
Finally, common method variance could bias the ¯ndings, because we took the
independent and dependent measures from the same source, so we used Lindell and
Whitney's41 procedure and included a marker variable that theoretically should have
only a small correlation with the other scales. If it were correlated with the endog-
enous construct scale, it would indicate common method variance. Lindell and
Whitney41 also suggest a sensitivity analysis with 95% and 99% con¯dence intervals
for the correlations of the marker scale. As the marker scale, we used revenue, which
had a nonsigni¯cant correlation with CRM success dimensions. The procedure

showed that the partial correlations between the dependent and independent vari-
ables remained, so they were unlikely to be due solely to common method bias.
4. Analysis and Results

Table 4 contains the estimation results, we obtained from testing our proposed
hypotheses. We considered four dependent variables: the three measures of CRM
software success and the measure of management success for the implementation
project. For each dependent variable, we also estimated two models: one that in-
cluded only annual revenue and number of employees as independent variables
(Model 1) and another that also included all dimensions of perceived service quality
(Model 2). Then we estimated two additional models for the measures of CRM
software success, which added the management success of the implementation
project to Models 1 and 2, to create Models 3 and 4, respectively.
In Model 3, we found a signi¯cant positive e®ect of the management success of the
implementation project on all measures of CRM software success, in support of H1. A
successfully managed implementation project is a key prerequisite of desirable results
from CRM software.
Model 2 indicated signi¯cant positive e®ects for most of the service quality
dimensions in support of H2 and H3. Furthermore, perceptions of consulting service
quality related strongly to the management success of the CRM implementation
project and to the success of the CRM software itself.
These ¯ndings con¯rm the importance of consulting service quality as a means to
manage implementation projects and succeed in CRM initiatives. Hiring a good
implementation consultant represents a big step toward CRM software success.
Consulting e®orts also help companies absorb CRM faster and more easily. Thus,
high quality implementation services enhance the management success of the im-
plementation project.
Most dimensions of service quality provide determinant in°uences, regardless of
which measure of CRM success we use. The only exceptions were responsiveness and
education, which were not signi¯cant for any measure of success. Therefore, CRM
success strongly depends on better perceptions of physical facilities, equipment, and
Table 4. Estimation results.
CRM software success
Implementation project Operational bene¯ts Bene¯ts in customer life cycle Bene¯ts in performance
Mod. 1 Mod. 2 Mod. 1 Mod. 2 Mod. 3 Mod. 4 Mod. 1 Mod. 2 Mod. 3 Mod. 4 Mod. 1 Mod. 2 Mod. 3 Mod. 4
Constant 0.154 3.04*** 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.61 0.26 0.87 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.07 0.1
Revenue 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.85** 0.03 0.01 0.02
No de employees 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.04
0.01 0.04 0.02
Quality reliability
0.57***
0.21*** 0.09
0.29*** 0.1
0.26*** 0.04
Quality empathy
0.32***
0.19*** 0.02
0.21*** 0.11
0.22*** 0.09
Quality tangibles
0.18***
0.17*** 0.08
0.16** 0.1
0.14** 0.07
Quality assurance
0.25***
0.29*** 0.15**
0.24*** 0.16**
0.22*** 0.12*
Quality responsiveness
0.19***
0.13** 0.02
0.10* 0.04
0.1 0.03
Quality education
0.13***
0.01*** 0.07 0.14** 0.1
0.12* 0.06
Implementation project

0.53*** 0.53***
0.50*** 0.33***
0.50*** 0.40***
management success
R2 0.004 0.581*** 0.004 0.208 0.284 0.325 0.001 0.239 0.247 0.284 0.000 0.208 0.252 0.275
ANOVA F 0.37 34.51*** 0.39 6.54*** 26.92*** 10.6*** 0.72 7.80*** 22.28*** 8.74*** 0.15 6.54*** 22.96*** 8.34***
Notes: *p < 0:10; **p < 0:05; ***p < 0:01.

435
436
O. Gonzalez-Benito,
the personal appearance of the service provider, along with the service provider's
ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately, the knowledge
and courtesy of its employees, its ability to inspire trust and con¯dence, its dem-
onstrated ability to take care of and pay individualized attention to customers, and
good training for potential users.
We also found support for H4, related to the mediating role of management
success on the association between consulting service quality and CRM software
success. We examined this mediating e®ect using a standard procedure, such that we
regressed (1) the antecedent (consulting service quality) on the mediating variable
(implementation project management success), (2) the mediating variable on the
outcome variable (CRM software success), (3) the antecedents on the outcome
variable, and (4) the antecedents and mediating variable on the outcome variable.
For mediation to be established, the antecedents should be related to the mediating

variable, the mediating variable should be related to the outcome variable, and the
e®ect of the antecedents on the outcome variable should diminish in the presence of
the mediating variable. In our analysis, all these conditions were met. The results in
support of H1–H3 established the initial conditions; in Model 4, we also found that in
the presence of project management success, the in°uence of consulting service
quality on CRM software success was rendered insigni¯cant for ¯ve of the six
dimensions (cf. assurance), in support of H4.
Therefore, perceptions of consulting service quality enhance CRM success,
through the management success of the implementation project. Only the knowl-
edge, expertise, and CRM software domain o®ered by IT consulting providers goes
further to in°uence CRM success, regardless of satisfaction with cost, budget, and
quality achieved in the implementation process.
5. Conclusions
Persistent demands in marketing literature seek conclusive evidence of the causal
e®ects of CRM activities.4 In particular, though extant marketing literature has
emphasized the importance of software solutions for implementing a CRM strategy,
the success of these tools and their determinants has not received adequate attention.
This study contributes in this regard. First, we conceptualize and measure CRM
software success, de¯ned as the achievement of the expected positive consequences of
CRM. Through an exhaustive review of previous literature and exploratory research
related to the CRM software industry, we develop and propose a measure of CRM
software success that encompasses relevant perspectives related to its bene¯ts,
namely, operational, customer lifecycle, and performance bene¯ts.
Second, we focus on the role of the CRM software implementation project.
Adopting CRM software entails a complex process; this study shows that the adequate
development and management of this process is a key determinant of CRM success. In
other words, the successful management of the implementation project constitutes a
fundamental prerequisite of the ¯rm's ability to take full advantage of CRM software.
Third, this study o®ers evidence about the e®ect of consulting service quality on
the success of both the management of the CRM software implementation project
and the CRM software itself. Although IT consulting is a key element of CRM
software adoption, previous literature has largely obviated the impact of consulting
service quality on the consequences of its adoption. This study shows that percep-
tions of tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy, and training
services, as provided by CRM consultants, have relevant e®ects on CRM success.
Fourth, we note the mediating role of the management of the implementation
project as a means to convert consulting service quality into successful CRM soft-
ware adoption. This study provides evidence that good consulting services, in terms
of their tangible elements, reliability, responsiveness, empathy, and training, deter-

mine CRM software success, but mainly because they a®ect the successful man-
agement of the implementation project. Only consultants' knowledge and the CRM
software domain consistently lead to desirable consequences, regardless of the client's
satisfaction with the cost, time, and quality achievements of the implementation
project.
This study in turn o®ers some relevant managerial recommendations. For
adopters of CRM software, we highlight the need to consider not just which CRM
provider to hire, but also which implementation services to select, especially if these
services are provided by consulting partners, in which case there are multiple
alternatives from which to choose. The quality of consulting services can determine
whether customers will receive a satisfactory return on their investment. For ex-
ample, consulting support tends to facilitate the changes required for CRM software
implementation and use. Consultants' project management skills, CRM software
knowledge, ability to understand clients' needs and processes, interactions with the
client, and training of clients' employees all have e®ects on CRM software success.
The implementation project also needs to be conceived of not as a mere formality but
rather as an innovation process that determines the contribution of CRM software to
¯rm performance.
For CRM providers, this study highlights the relevance of distribution channels,
that is, the consulting partners in charge of CRM software implementation. Selecting
consulting partners is a key decision, because they determine the ¯nal credibility of
their software solutions. Considering that CRM software success depends on con-
sulting service quality and the successful management of the implementation pro-
jects, the viability of their business strongly relies on their consulting intermediaries.
Of course, a similar implication applies if the provider itself o®ers implementation
services. A service orientation among its customer-facing teams is critical for en-
hancing satisfaction among customer ¯rms.
Some limitations of this study also suggest routes for further research. This study,
based on self-reported data, could be constrained by common method bias, despite
our ¯nding that this in°uence is likely to be minimal; objective performance data
would ameliorate this potential problem. Despite the challenges of quantifying the
proposed measures with objective data, especially in the short term, studies that
438
O. Gonzalez-Benito,
include such data would help extend our ¯ndings. Furthermore, our evidence comes
from one CRM software provider, which prevents the biasing e®ects of di®erent
CRM software solutions but also may limit the generalizability of our ¯ndings. Ad-
ditional research should seek to reproduce our results with di®erent CRM solutions. A
similar recommendation applies to the geographical scope of our study; evidence from
di®erent countries would increase the potential generalization of our ¯ndings.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia, Grant ECO2011-
23381 and ECO2014-53060-R (Spain).

References
1. AMR Research, Revenue management: A key to pro¯tability for the high-tech industry,
in AMR Research Custom Executive Summary in Collaboration with Model N, (2010).
2. J. Rivera and R. Van der Meulen, Gartner says CRM will be at the heart of digital
initiatives for years to come [homepage of gartner], available at: www.crm-¯nder.ch/
¯leadmin/Daten/PDF/News/Gartner 2014CRMDigitalInitiatives.pdf (accessed 1 Octo-
ber 2014).
3. J. Luftman, B. Derksen, R. Dwivedi, M. Santana, H. S. Zadeh and E. Rigoni, In°uential
IT management trends: An international study, Journal of Information Technology 30(3)
(2015) 293–305.
4. W. Boulding, R. Staelin, M. Ehret and W. J. Johnston, A customer relationship man-
agement roadmap: What is known, potential pitfalls, and where to go, Journal of Mar-
keting 69(1) (2005) 155–166.
5. W. Reinartz, M. Kra®t and W. D. Hoyer, The customer relationship management pro-
cess: Its measurement and impact on performance, Journal of Marketing Research 41
(2004) 293.
6. K. A. Richards and E. Jones, Customer relationship management: Finding value drivers,
Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 120.
7. A. Payne and P. Frow, Customer relationship management: From strategy to imple-
mentation, Journal of Marketing Management 22(2) (2006) 135–168.
8. D. K. Rigby, F. F. Reichheld and P. Schefter, Avoid the four perils of CRM, Harvard
Business Review 80(2) (2002) 101–109.
9. R. G. Fichman and C. F. Kemerer, The assimilation of software process innovations: An
organizational learning perspective, Management Science 43(10) (1997) 1345–1363.
10. T. Bohling, D. Bowman, S. Lavalle, V. Mittal, D. Narayandas, G. Ramani and R. Var-
adarajan, CRM implementation: E®ectiveness issues and insights, Journal of Service
Research 9(2) (2006) 184–194.
11. I. J. Chen and K. Popovich, Understanding customer relationship management (CRM):
People, process and technology, Business Process Management Journal 9(10) (2003)
672–88.
12. L. Li and Y. Mao, The e®ect of CRM use on internal sales management control: An
alternative mechanism to realize CRM bene¯ts, Information & Management 49(6) (2012)
269.
13. L. Ang and F. Buttle, CRM software applications and business performance, Journal of
Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management 14 (2006) 4–16.
14. G. Kou, Y. Lu, Y. Peng and Y. Shi, Evaluation of classi¯cation algorithms using MCDM
and rank correlation, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision
Making 11(1) (2012) 197.
15. G. Kou, D. Ergu and J. Shang, Enhancing data consistency in decision matrix: Adapting
hadamard model to mitigate judgement contradiction, European Journal of Operational
Research 236 (2014) 261.
16. A.-M. Croteau and P. Li, Critical success factors of CRM technological initiatives,
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 20(3) (2003) 21.
17. H. Wilson, E. Daniel and M. McDonald, Factors for success in customer relationship
management (CRM) systems, Journal of Marketing Management 18(2) (2002) 193–219.
18. W. T. Venturini and O. Gonzalez-Benito, CRM software success: A proposed perfor-
mance measurement scale, Journal of Knowledge Management 19(4) (2015) 856–875.

19. B. Karakostas, D. Kardaras and E. Papathanassiou, The state of CRM adoption by the
¯nancial services in the UK: An empirical investigation, Information & Management
42(6) (2005) 853.

20. H.-S. Kim and Y.-G. Kim, A CRM performance measurement framework: Its develop-
ment process and application, Industrial Marketing Management 38(4) (2009) 477.
21. E. Ko, S. H. Kim, M. Kim and J. Y. Woo, Organizational characteristics and the CRM
adoption process, Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 65.
22. V. Kumar, K. N. Lemon and A. Parasuraman, Managing customers for value: An over-
view and research agenda, Journal of Service Research 9(2) (2006) 87–94.
23. O. C. Walker, Jr. and R. W. Ruekert, Marketing's role in the implementation of business
strategies: A critical review and conceptual framework, Journal of Marketing 51 (1987)
15.
24. S. C. Henneberg, An exploratory analysis of CRM implementation models, Journal of
Relationship Marketing 4(9) (2005) 87.
25. A. K. Munns and B. F Bjeirmi, The role of project management in achieving project
success, International Journal of Project Management 14 (1996) 81.
26. R. Atkinson, Project management: Cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phe-
nomenon, its time to; . . . International Journal of Project Management 17(12) (1999) 337.
27. D. Milosevic and P. Patanakul, Standardized project management may increase devel-
opment projects success, International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 181.
28. A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zeithaml and L. L. Berry, A conceptual model of service quality
and its implications for future research, Journal of Marketing 49 (1985) 41.
29. G. G. Gable, A multidimensional model of client success when engaging external con-
sultants, Management Science 42 (1996) 1175.
30. C. Pries and M. Stone, Managing CRM implementation with consultants-CRM or change
management?Journal of Change Management 4 (2004) 351.
31. E. H. Schein, A general philosophy of helping: Process consultation, Sloan Management
Review 31 (1990) 57.
32. L. McKay, The new breed of CRM consultant, Customer Relationship Management 12
(2008) 28.
33. A. J. Bush, J. B. Moore and R. Rocco, Antecedents and consequences of CRM technology
acceptance in the sales force, Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 369.
34. V. W. Mitchell, Problems and risks in the purchasing of consultancy services, Service
Industries Journal 14 (1994) 315.
35. K. Jugdev and R. Müller, A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project
success, Project Management Journal 36(12) (2005) 19–31.
36. G. A. Churchill, Jr., A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs,
Journal of Marketing Research 16 (1979) 64.
440
O. Gonzalez-Benito,
37. Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK Guide) (Newtown Square, PA, 2000).
38. S. Yoon and H. Suh, Ensuring IT consulting SERVQUAL and user satisfaction: A
modi¯ed measurement tool, Information Systems Frontiers 6 (2004) 341.
39. R. P. Bagozzi, Causal Models in Marketing (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1980).
40. C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1981) 39.
41. M. K. Lindell and D. J. Whitney, Accounting for common method variance in cross-
sectional research designs, Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (2001) 114–121.
42. Q. Chen and H.-M. Chen, Exploring the success factors of eCRM strategies in practice,
Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management 11 (2004) 333.
43. S. F. King and T. F. Burgess, Understanding success and failure in customer relationship
management, Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 421.
44. D. L. Goodhue, B. H. Wixom and H. J. Watson, Realizing business bene¯ts through
CRM: Hitting the right target in the right way, MIS Quarterly Executive 1(2) (2002) 79.
45. P. Raman, C. M. Wittmann and N. A. Rauseo, Leveraging CRM for sales: The role of
organizational capabilities in successful CRM implementation, Journal of Personal Sell-
ing & Sales Management 26 (2006) 39.
46. A. Saini, G. Rajdeep and J. Johnson, Putting market-facing technology to work: Orga-
nizational drivers of CRM performance, Marketing Letters 21(4) (2010) 365–383.
47. M. Ahearne, D. E. Hughes and N. Schillewaert, Why sales reps should welcome infor-
mation technology: Measuring the impact of CRM-based IT on sales e®ectiveness, In-
ternational Journal of Research in Marketing 24(12) (2007) 336–349.
48. F. Buttle, Customer Relationship Management: Concepts and Tools (Elsevier Butter-
worth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2004).
49. A. Gustafsson, M. D. Johnson and I. Roos, The e®ects of customer satisfaction, rela-
tionship commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer retention, Journal of Mar-
keting 69(Oct) (2005) 210.
50. S. Hart, G. Hogg and M. Banerjee, Does the level of experience have an e®ect on CRM
programs? Exploratory research ¯ndings, Industrial Marketing Management 33(Aug)
(2004) 549.
51. R. G. Javalgi, C. L. Martin and R. B. Young, Marketing research, market orientation and
customer relationship management: A framework and implications for service providers,
The Journal of Services Marketing 20(12) (2006).
52. J. Kim, E. Suh and H. Hwang, A model for evaluating the e®ectiveness of CRM using the
balanced scorecard, Journal of Interactive Marketing 17(Spring) (2003) 5.
53. K. N. Lemon, T. B. White and R. S. Winer, Dynamic customer relationship management:
Incorporating future considerations into the service retention decision, Journal of Mar-
keting 66(Jan) (2002) 1.
54. C. Lin et al., Evaluation of electronic customer relationship management: The critical
success factors, The Business Review, Cambridge 6(Dec) (2006) 206.
55. B. McKim and A. M. Hughes, How to measure customer relationship management suc-
cess, Journal of Database Marketing 8(Apr) (2001) 224.
56. R. C. McNally, An exploration of call centre agents' CRM software use, customer ori-
entation and job performance in the customer relationship maintenance phase, Journal of
Financial Services Marketing 12(Nov) (2007) 169.
57. S. Mithas, M. S. Krishnan and C. Fornell, Why do customer relationship management
applications a®ect customer satisfaction?Journal of Marketing 69(Oct) (2005) 201.
58. C.-H. Park and Y.-G. Kim, A framework of dynamic CRM: Linking marketing with
information strategy, Business Process Management Journal 9 (2003) 652.
59. A. Parvatiyar and J. N. Sheth, Customer relationship management: Emerging practice,

process, and discipline, Journal of Economic & Social Research 3(7) (2001) 1.
60. R. K. Darrel, D. K. Rigby and D. Ledingham, CRM done right, Harvard Business Review
82(Nov) (2004) 118.
61. L. Ryals, Making customer relationship management work: The measurement and
pro¯table management of customer relationships, Journal of Marketing 69(Oct) (2005)
252.
62. P. C. Verhoef, Understanding the e®ect of customer relationship management e®orts on
customer retention and customer share development, Journal of Marketing 67(Oct)
(2003) 30.
63. R. S. Winer, A framework for customer relationship management, California Manage-
ment Review 43(Summer) (2001) 89.

64. G. W. Zikmund, R. Mcleod Jr. and W. F. Gilbert, Customer Relationship Management:
Integrating Marketing Strategy and Information Technology (Wiley, 2003).

CRM Technology: Implementation Project and Consulting Services As Determinants of Success

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRM Technology: Implementation Project and Consulting Services As Determinants of Success

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making

Vol. 16, No. 2 (2017) 421–441

CRM Technology: Implementation Project and Consulting

Óscar Gonzalez-Benito*, Wander Trindade Venturini

and Javier Gonzalez-Benito

Campus Miguel de Unamuno

Published 25 January 2017

2. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

or \How can our customers be segmented for campaigning purposes?",13 as well as

2.2. CRM software success

Table 1. Review of measures for CRM sucess.

Eﬀectivity Adaptability Eﬃciency

Fig. 1. Dimensious of CRM software success.

2.3. The implementation project

Table 2. Success factors in CRM software implementation.

Authors/date Critical success factors identi¯ed

Wilson et al.17 Gain champion/sponsor

Address culture change

Goodhue et al.44 Top management support

Chen and Popovich11 Enterprise-wide strategy

Yet, the complex process of CRM software implementation demands a project

2.4. IT consultants' service quality

independent evaluations, the implementation project cannot advance. In an IT

H2: Consulting service quality in°uences CRM software success positively.

solution or assembled in an ERP software package; it always uses IT consulting

We then sent e-mails to the managers in charge of implementation for each

clicking a link in the message. To encourage participation, each respondent would be

refers to how the project is undertaken for its entire span.37

Variables/Indicators Loadings Number of Constn Composite Extracted GFI Bentler's CFI

indicators realiability reliability variance normed ¯t index

Bene¯ts in E®ectivity Market share 0.860

Operational bene¯ts Sales Management 0.685

Analysis of customer's data base 0.808

Responsiveness Prompt service

Notes: * regresion weight ¯xed as 1 in CFA due to model identi¯cation.

had a nonsigni¯cant correlation with CRM success dimensions. The procedure

4. Analysis and Results

Table 4. Estimation results.

CRM software success

Notes: *p < 0:10; **p < 0:05; ***p < 0:01.

For mediation to be established, the antecedents should be related to the mediating

of their tangible elements, reliability, responsiveness, empathy, and training, deter-

23381 and ECO2014-53060-R (Spain).

mance measurement scale, Journal of Knowledge Management 19(4) (2015) 856–875.

42(6) (2005) 853.

59. A. Parvatiyar and J. N. Sheth, Customer relationship management: Emerging practice,

ment Review 43(Summer) (2001) 89.

You might also like

Notes: p < 0:10; p < 0:05; p < 0:01.