Adrian Payne & Pennie FrowA Strategic Framework for Customer Relationship ManagementOver the past decade, there has been an explosion of interest in customer relationship management (CRM) by both academics and executives. However, despite an increasing amount of published material, most of which is practitioner oriented, there remains a lack of agreement about what CRM is and how CRM strategy should be developed. The purpose of this article is to develop a process-oriented conceptual framework that positions CRM at a strategic level by identifying the key crossfunctional processes involved in the development of CRM strategy. More specifically, the aims of this article areTo identify alternative perspectives of CRM,To emphasize the importance of a strategic approach to CRM within a holistic organizational context,To propose five key generic cross-functional processes that organizations can use to develop and deliver an effective CRM strategy, andTo develop a process-based conceptual framework for CRM strategy development and to review the role and components of each process.We organize this article in three main parts. First, we explore the role of CRM and identify three alternative perspectives of CRM. Second, we consider the need for a cross-functional process-based approach to CRM. We develop criteria for process selection and identify five key CRM processes. Third, we propose a strategic conceptual framework that is constructed of these five processes and examine the components of each process.The development of this framework is a response to a challenge by Reinartz, Krafft, and Hoyer (2004), who criticize the severe lack of CRM research that takes a broader, more strategic focus. The article does not explore people issues related to CRM implementation. Customer relationship management can fail when a limited number of employees are committed to the initiative; thus, employee engagement and change management are essential issues in CRM implementation. In our discussion, we emphasize such implementation and people issues as a priority area for further research.CRM Perspectives and DefinitionThe term “customer relationship management” emerged in the information technology (IT) vendor community and practitioner community in the mid-1990s. It is often used to describe technology-based customer solutions, such as sales force automation (SFA). In the academic community, the terms “relationship marketing” and CRM are often used interchangeably (Parvatiyar and Sheth 2001). However, CRM is more commonly used in the context of technology solutions and has been described as “information-enabled relationship marketing” (Ryals and Payne 2001, p. 3). Zablah, Beuenger, and Johnston (2003, p. 116) suggest that CRM is “a philosophically-related offspring to relationship marketing which is for the most part neglected in the literature,” and they conclude that “further exploration of CRM and its related phenomena is not only warranted but also desperately needed.” A significant problem that many organizations deciding to adopt CRM face stems from the great deal of confusion about what constitutes CRM. In interviews with executives, which formed part of our research process (we describe this process subsequently), we found a wide range of views about what CRM means. To some, it meant direct mail, a loyalty card scheme, or a database, whereas others envisioned it as a help desk or a call center. Some said that it was about populating a data warehouse or undertaking data mining; others considered CRM an e-commerce solution, such as the use of a personalization engine on the Internet or a relational database for SFA. This lack of a widely accepted and appropriate definition of CRM can contribute to the failure of a CRM project when an organization views CRM from a limited technology perspective or undertakes CRM on a fragmented basis.The definitions and descriptions of CRM that different authors and authorities use vary considerably, signifying a variety of CRM viewpoints. To identify alternative perspectives of CRM, we considered definitions and descriptions of CRM from a range of sources, which we summarize in the Appendix. We excluded other, similar definitions from this list.Grabner-Kraeuter and Moedritscher (2002) suggest that the absence of a strategic framework for CRM from which to define success is one reason for the disappointing results of many CRM initiatives. This view was supported both by the senior executives we interviewed during our research and by Gartners (2001) research. Our next challenges were to identify key generic CRM processes using the previously described selection criteria and to develop them into a conceptual framework for CRM strategy development. Our literature review found that few CRM frameworks exist; those that did were not based on a process-oriented cross-functional conceptualization of CRM. For example, Sue and Morin (2001, p. 6) outline a framework for CRM based on initiatives, expected results, and contributions, but this is not process based, and “many initiatives are not explicitly identified in the framework.” Winer (2001, p. 91) develops a “basic model, which contains a set of 7 basic components: a database of customer activity; analyses of the database; given the analyses, decisions about which customers to target; tools for targeting the customers; how to build relationships with the targeted customers; privacy issues; and metrics for measuring the success of the CRM program.” Again, this model, though useful, is not a crossfunctional process-based conceptualization. This gap in the literature suggests that there is a need for a new systematic process-based CRM strategy framework. Synthesis of the diverse concepts in the literature on CRM and relationship marketing into a single, process-based framework should provide practical insights to help companies achieve greater success with CRM strategy development and implementation.Interaction ResearchConceptual frameworks and theory are typically based on combining previous literature, common sense, and experience (Eisenhardt 1989). In this research, we integrated a synthesis of the literature with learning from field-based interactions with executives to develop and refine the CRM strategy framework. In this approach, we used what Gummesson (2002a) terms “interaction research.” This form of research originates from his view that “interaction and communication play a crucial role” in the stages of research and that testing concepts, ideas, and results through interaction with different target groups is “an integral part of the whole research process” (p. 345). The sources for these field-based insights, which include executives primarily from large enterprises in the business-tobusiness and business-to-consumer sectors, included the following:An expert panel of 34 highly experienced executives;Interviews with 20 executives working in CRM, marketing, and IT roles in companies in the financial services sector;Interviews with six executives from large CRM vendors and with five executives from three CRM and strategy consultancies;Individual and group discussions with CRM, marketing, and IT managers at workshops with 18 CRM vendors, analysts, and their clients, including Accenture, Baan, BroadVision, Chordiant, EDS, E.piphany, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Gartner, NCR Teradata, Peoplesoft, Oracle, SAP, SAS Institute, Siebel, Sybase, and Unisys;Piloting the framework as a planning tool in the financial services and automotive sectors; andUsing the framework as a planning tool in two companies: global telecommunications and global logistics. Six workshops were held in each company.Process Identification and the CRM FrameworkWe began by identifying possible generic CRM processes from the CRM and related business literature. We then discussed these tentative processes interactively with the groups of executives. The outcome of this work was a short 170 / Journal of Marketing, October 2005 list of seven processes. We then used the expert panel of experienced CRM executives who had assisted in the development of the process selection schema to nominate the CRM processes that they considered important and to agree on those that were the most relevant and generic. After an initial group workshop, each panel member independently completed a list representing his or her view of the key generic processes that met the six previously agreed-on process criteria. The data were fed back to this group, and a detailed discussion followed to help confirm our understanding of the process categories.As a result of this interactive method, five CRM processes that met the selection criteria were identified; all five were agreed on as important generic processes by more than two-thirds of the group in the first iteration. Subsequently, we received strong confirmation of these as key generic CRM processes by several of the other groups of managers. The resultant five generic processes were (1) the strategy development process, (2) the value creation process, (3) the multichannel integration process, (4) the information management process, and (5) the performance assessment process. We then incorporated these five key generic CRM processes into a preliminary conceptual framework. This initial framework and the development of subsequent versions were both informed by and further refined by our interactions with two primary executive groups: mangers from the previously noted companies and executives from three CRM consulting firms. Participants at several academic conferences on CRM and relationship marketing also assisted with comments and criticisms of previous versions. With evolving versions of the framework, we combined a synthesis of relevant literature with field-based interactions involving the groups. The framework went through a considerable number of major iterations and minor revisions; the final version appears in Figure 2.This conceptual framework illustrates the interactive set of strategic processes that commences with a detailed review of an organizations strategy (the strategy development process) and concludes with an improvement in business results and increased share value (the performance assessment process). The concept that competitive advantage stems from the creation of value for the customer and for the business and associated cocreation activities (the value creation process) is well developed in the marketing literature. For large companies, CRM activity will involve collecting and intelligently using customer and other relevant data (the information process) to build a consistently superior customer experience and enduring customer relationships (the multichannel integration process). The iterative nature of CRM strategy development is highlighted by the arrows between the processes in both directions in Figure 2; they represent interaction and feedback loops between the different processes. The circular arrows in the value creation process reflect the cocreation process. We now examine the key components we identified in each process. As with our prior work, we used the interaction research method in the identification of these process components. 客戶關(guān)系管理的戰(zhàn)略框架在過去的十年里，管理層和學(xué)術(shù)界對(duì)客戶關(guān)系管理（CRM）的興趣激增。無論如何，盡管出版物數(shù)量在增長，但大部分都是從業(yè)者導(dǎo)向性的，對(duì)于CRM是什么，如何開發(fā)CRM戰(zhàn)略仍然缺乏一個(gè)一致意見。本文的目的是開發(fā)一個(gè)流程導(dǎo)向型的CRM概念性框架，它可以將CRM定位在一個(gè)戰(zhàn)略層面藉由識(shí)別關(guān)鍵性的跨職能的流程，在涉及CRM戰(zhàn)略開發(fā)時(shí)。更具體的來說，我們這篇文章的目標(biāo)是：確定CRM的不同觀點(diǎn)。強(qiáng)調(diào)在整體組織方面的CRM的戰(zhàn)略方針的重要性。提出5個(gè)關(guān)鍵的泛型跨職能的的流程，以便組織可以用其開發(fā)和傳遞一個(gè)有效的CRM戰(zhàn)略。為CRM戰(zhàn)略開發(fā)一個(gè)基于流程的概念框架，評(píng)審每個(gè)流程的角色和組件。我們將這篇文章組織成三個(gè)主要部分。首先，我們探索CRM的角色并確認(rèn)三個(gè)不同的CRM觀點(diǎn)。其次，我們認(rèn)為需要一個(gè)跨職能，基于流程的CRM的方法。我們?yōu)榱鞒踢x擇開發(fā)了標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，并確定了5個(gè)關(guān)鍵CRM流程。第三，我們提出了一個(gè)由這5個(gè)流程構(gòu)成的戰(zhàn)略性的概念框架并檢查了每個(gè)流程的組件。這個(gè)框架的開發(fā)的是響應(yīng)一項(xiàng)由Reinartz，Krafft和Hoyer（2004年）提出的挑戰(zhàn)，他們批評(píng)了進(jìn)行更廣泛的，更具戰(zhàn)略性的重點(diǎn)的CRM研究的嚴(yán)重匱乏，這篇文章沒有探索人們關(guān)于CRM實(shí)施方面的問題，當(dāng)只有有限的員工主動(dòng)配合的時(shí)候，客戶關(guān)系管理可能會(huì)失敗。因此，員工激勵(lì)和改變管理是CRM實(shí)施的要點(diǎn)問題。在我們的討論中，我們強(qiáng)調(diào)這樣的實(shí)施和人的議題作為未來研究的優(yōu)先考慮的方面。CRM觀點(diǎn)和定義“客戶關(guān)系管理”這個(gè)概念在IT廠商群體和從業(yè)者群體中被提出來，在二十世紀(jì)90年代中期，它經(jīng)常被用于描述基于技術(shù)的客戶解決方案。例如銷售隊(duì)伍自動(dòng)化（SFA）。在學(xué)術(shù)社群中，“營銷關(guān)系”概念和客戶關(guān)系管理經(jīng)常是可以互換的（Parvatiyar and Sheth 2001）。無論如何，CRM是在技術(shù)解決方案的環(huán)境中更加通用并已經(jīng)被描述為“啟用信息的關(guān)系營銷”（Ryals and Sheth 2001）。Zablah，Beuenger和Johnston（2003，p.116）提出CRM是“一個(gè)對(duì)于關(guān)系營銷來說的哲學(xué)相關(guān)的產(chǎn)物，在文獻(xiàn)中最容易被忽視的部分，”并且他們總結(jié)了“CRM更長遠(yuǎn)的探索和它的相關(guān)現(xiàn)象不僅僅是被保證的，也是絕對(duì)需要的。”許多組織決定采用CRM所面臨的一個(gè)明顯的問題源自于對(duì)于CRM的組成存在巨大的誤解。在于對(duì)組成部分流程研究的管理層（我們隨后描述這個(gè)流程）的訪談中，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)了一個(gè)對(duì)于CRM的意義的廣泛觀點(diǎn)，對(duì)于某些人，它意味著直接的郵件，一個(gè)忠實(shí)度卡片體系，或者一個(gè)數(shù)據(jù)庫，然而其他人設(shè)想它是作為一個(gè)幫助桌面或呼叫中心，某些人稱它是關(guān)于存在于一個(gè)數(shù)據(jù)倉庫或數(shù)據(jù)挖掘；另外一些人認(rèn)為CRM是一個(gè)電子商務(wù)的解決方案，例如在Internet或SFA的關(guān)系數(shù)據(jù)庫中使用一個(gè)個(gè)性化的引擎。缺乏被廣泛接受的和適合的CRM定義可以歸功于CRM項(xiàng)目的失敗，當(dāng)一個(gè)組織從有限的技術(shù)觀點(diǎn)看CRM，或在一個(gè)破碎的基礎(chǔ)上采用CRM時(shí)，他們就會(huì)失敗。對(duì)CRM的定義和描述，不同的作者或機(jī)構(gòu)有多種觀點(diǎn)。要確定CRM的不同觀點(diǎn)，我們考慮了從我們?cè)诟戒浿锌偨Y(jié)的范圍里的CRM的定義和描述。我們從這個(gè)列表里排除了其他類似的定義。Grabner-kraeuter 和 Moedritscher（2002年）的表示，缺乏一個(gè)從成功的CRM中定義的戰(zhàn)略框架是許多CRM計(jì)劃令人失望的原因之一。這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)同時(shí)得到了我們?cè)谶M(jìn)行研究中的和Gartner Aos的高級(jí)管理人員支持。我們下一項(xiàng)挑戰(zhàn)是確定一個(gè)用前文描述的選擇標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的CRM流程，并發(fā)展成為一個(gè)CRM戰(zhàn)略發(fā)展的概念框架。我們的文獻(xiàn)回顧發(fā)現(xiàn)少數(shù)的CRM框架已經(jīng)存在。那些是我們沒有基于流程導(dǎo)向和跨職能的CRM概念。例如，Sue 和Morin(2001,第6頁)概述了基于首創(chuàng)性的CRM框架，預(yù)測(cè)的結(jié)果和貢獻(xiàn)。但是這并不是基于流程的。“而且許多首創(chuàng)的東西沒有明確的在框架中確定.”Winner（2001，第91頁）開發(fā)了一個(gè)“基本的模型，包含了7個(gè)基本組件：一個(gè)客戶活動(dòng)數(shù)據(jù)庫；數(shù)據(jù)庫分析；給出分析結(jié)果，描述要以哪個(gè)客戶為目標(biāo)。瞄準(zhǔn)客戶的工具；怎樣與目標(biāo)客戶建立關(guān)系；隱私問題和衡量CRM程序成功的度量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。”再說，這個(gè)模型，盡管很有用，也并不是一個(gè)跨職能的，基于流程的概念化。這個(gè)文獻(xiàn)中的缺陷指出需要一個(gè)新的系統(tǒng)性的基于流程的CRM戰(zhàn)略框架。將CRM和關(guān)系營銷中的各種概念綜合成一個(gè)，基于流程的框架應(yīng)該提供實(shí)用的洞察力幫助公司實(shí)現(xiàn)CRM戰(zhàn)略開發(fā)和實(shí)施上更大的成功。交互研究概念化的框架和理論是典型的基于先前的文獻(xiàn)、常識(shí)、經(jīng)驗(yàn)的整合（Eisenhardt 1989）。在這項(xiàng)研究中，我們整合成一個(gè)綜合的文獻(xiàn)，它是由基于領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的決策者們?cè)陂_發(fā)和改善CRM戰(zhàn)略框架而研究的成果。在這個(gè)方法上，我們使用Gummesson（2002a）名詞“interaction research”這種形式的研究始于他的觀點(diǎn)：在研究的這個(gè)階段中“交互和交流扮演了一個(gè)重要的角色”。并且測(cè)試了概念、想法和結(jié)果通過與不同的目標(biāo)小組交互而得出“一個(gè)完整的研究過程”。這些基于領(lǐng)域的洞察力，包括決策者們尤其是那些從大企業(yè)中的B2B和B2C部門中走出的決策者。包括以下所列出的類型：一個(gè)專家小組由34個(gè)經(jīng)驗(yàn)豐富的決策者組成；與20個(gè)在公司的金融服務(wù)部門工作的CRM，銷售和IT人員交流；與6個(gè)大型CRM銷售商的執(zhí)行者和5個(gè)來自3個(gè)CRM和戰(zhàn)略咨詢公司的決策者交；個(gè)體和小組的形式與工廠中的CRM，銷售，IT經(jīng)理們討論，他們來自于18家CRM供應(yīng)商，分析師和他們的客戶的。包括Accenture, Baan, BroadVision, Chordiant, EDS, E.piphany, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Gartner, NCR Teradata, Peoplesoft, Oracle, SAP, SAS Institute, Siebel, Sybase, and Unisys;領(lǐng)導(dǎo)一個(gè)框架作為財(cái)務(wù)和自動(dòng)化部門的計(jì)劃工具；使用這個(gè)框架在兩個(gè)公司作為計(jì)劃工具，兩個(gè)公司是：全球性的電信和全球性的物流公司，每家公司有六個(gè)工廠。流程確認(rèn)與CRM框架我們一開始開始從CRM和商業(yè)文獻(xiàn)中識(shí)別可能的泛型CRM流程。然后，我們與幾組管理人員就實(shí)驗(yàn)性的流程相互討論。這項(xiàng)工作的結(jié)果在市場(chǎng)期刊2005年10月 170期上列出了7個(gè)流程。之后我們啟用了專家組，他們都是在CRM方面富有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的管理層，這些協(xié)助開發(fā)CRM流程選擇模式以指出那些他們認(rèn)為重要的并在相關(guān)性和一般性上取得一致意見的CRM流程。在一個(gè)初始的小組研究會(huì)之后，每個(gè)專家成員獨(dú)立地完成了一個(gè)列表，可以代表他（她）關(guān)于滿足前文的6個(gè)取得一致意見的流程標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的關(guān)鍵的泛型流程的意見。數(shù)據(jù)被反饋給小組，接著一個(gè)詳細(xì)的討論以幫助確定我們對(duì)流程類別的理解。作為這種互動(dòng)方法的結(jié)果，5個(gè)滿足選擇標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的CRM流程被確認(rèn)。在第一個(gè)循環(huán)中，所有的5個(gè)流程都被三分之二的成員一致認(rèn)可，作為重要的泛型流程。隨后，對(duì)于將這些作為關(guān)鍵性的泛型CRM流程，我們收到了來自其他小組的經(jīng)理們的更強(qiáng)有力的肯定。作為結(jié)果的5個(gè)泛型流程是（1）戰(zhàn)略開發(fā)流程，（2）有價(jià)值的創(chuàng)造流程，（3）多通道的整合流程，（4）信息管理流程和（5）性能評(píng)價(jià)流程。我們之后將這5個(gè)關(guān)鍵性的泛型CRM流程合并成一個(gè)初步的概念化框架，這個(gè)初始的框架和后來開發(fā)的版本都由我們與兩個(gè)主要的管理層小組報(bào)告和進(jìn)一步改良的，他們是來自前文提到的公司的經(jīng)理和來自三個(gè)CRM咨詢公司的管理人員。幾個(gè)CRM和市場(chǎng)關(guān)系方面的學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議的參與者也幫助注釋和評(píng)論了前面的版本。伴隨框架版本的進(jìn)化，我們合成相關(guān)文獻(xiàn)通過基于領(lǐng)域的包括小組在內(nèi)的互動(dòng)。這個(gè)框架通過了相當(dāng)大數(shù)量的主要循環(huán)和少量修訂；最終版本出現(xiàn)在圖2.這個(gè)概念性的框架描繪了相互作用的戰(zhàn)略流程集，這些以一個(gè)有組織的戰(zhàn)略的詳細(xì)評(píng)審（戰(zhàn)略開發(fā)流程）為開始，并包括了一個(gè)在商業(yè)結(jié)果的重要性，提升了共享價(jià)值（性能評(píng)價(jià)流程）。這個(gè)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)源于客戶和商業(yè)價(jià)值的創(chuàng)造與相互創(chuàng)造相關(guān)的活動(dòng)（價(jià)值創(chuàng)造流程）的概念在營銷文獻(xiàn)中被良好的發(fā)展了。對(duì)于大的公司，CRM活動(dòng)包含了收集和聰明的使用客戶與其他相關(guān)數(shù)據(jù)（信息流程）以建立一個(gè)始終如一的出眾的客戶體驗(yàn)和持久的客戶關(guān)系（多通道整合流程）。CRM戰(zhàn)略開發(fā)的交互本質(zhì)是在圖2中的兩個(gè)方向的流程之間的箭頭所高亮的部分。他們代表了不同流程間的相互作用和反饋循環(huán)。這個(gè)在價(jià)值創(chuàng)造流程中的循環(huán)箭頭反映了相互創(chuàng)造流程。我們現(xiàn)在檢查我們?cè)诿總€(gè)流程里識(shí)別的關(guān)鍵組件。由于我們先前的工作，我們使用了交互研究方法在設(shè)別這些流程組件時(shí)。英文翻譯指導(dǎo)教師評(píng)閱意見指導(dǎo)教師簽字： 年 月 日