Actor Network Theory (ANT)

Actor network theory (ANT) was also initially considered to analyze the findings of the current research. It is basically a social theory originally created by Science and Technology Studies (STS) scholars Bruno Latour and Michael Callon, the sociologist John Law, and others during the early 1980s. According to Wikipedia (2010f), Actors is considered as people, organizations or objects. Network is a relationship between these actors. Actor network theory attempts to describe how material-semiotic networks come together and how they work together as a whole. For instance, a bank is both a network and an actor that hangs together, and for certain purposes act as a single entity.

Latour (1991, p.179) discussed that “the theory differs from many other theories and it views both people and technology equally in the network. Therefore, the term actant is symmetrical; it applies indifferently to both humans and non-humans”. However, (Learning-theories.com, 2010) explains that the theory does not typically attempt to explain why a network exists; it is more interested in the infrastructure of actor-

Similarly, Rose et al., (2005) in their work discussed that a long-standing debate in the field of information systems concerning the relationship between technology and organizations. The authors emphasized on the use of ANT and Structuration theory to create balance between organizations and technology. According to these authors, ANT is an assumption of general symmetry between the technical and social worlds. Furthermore, ANT is not restricted to humans, but is attributed to technologies (machines) and to material objects. The trust of the theory is to treat human and machine (or material) agency equality.

Actor Network Theory was used by several researchers in their work; for instance, Beekhuyzen and Hellens (2006) in their research work applied ANT to investigate the use of online banking in Australia. The authors used the theory as a lens to view online banking practices in Australia. They explored the various user groups and their varying needs for interacting with the bank. According to the authors, the actor network theory was the best choice for their research because the theory allows exploring the relationship between technology and people, whilst giving insight into the changes enacted through interactions between them and the bank. The authors further explained that the adoption of actor network theory would help to investigate the sensitive balance between the technical and social aspects of online banking. Also, the theory has given them a solid basis for more detailed investigation and interpretation of the data. Figure 3.3 shows the clear description of the complex practices of online banking activities in Australia.

Figure 3.3: Actor-Network Theory in Banking (Source: Beekhuyzen and Hellens, 2006)

Although there are several advantages of the ANT; it has also been criticized by several researchers. For instance, (Learning-theories.com, 2010) stated in their website that there are several criticisms held regarding ANT, these include:

Firstly, the absurdity of assigning agency to nonhuman actors i.e. no distinction is made between humans and animals or physical objects that may be part of the network under consideration;

Secondly, ANT is considered by many critics as immoral; that is because it assumes all actors are equal within the network, no accommodations for power imbalances can be made; and

Lastly, ANT leads to useless descriptions which seems pointless to many critics.

To summarize, work system theory relates to the participation of both humans and machines to perform work together, using IT to produce products for internal as well as external customers; actor network theory attempts to describe how different actors interact in a network to work together. Although both theories were initially considered for analyzing the research findings, they were not utilized because one of the main concerns of the current research is to look at the social consequences of technology (CRM) within the banking industry. No doubt, these theories cover the participation of both humans and technology within the organization (banking) to work together on the same platform to achieve better targets. However, these theories do not focus sufficiently on the social aspects. The socio-technical theory, on the other hand, covers human, technological, and social aspects within the banking industry. Therefore, socio-technical theory has been selected to analyze the findings of this study. A detailed account of socio-technical theory has already been given in previous sections of this chapter. The ideas of the theory will be further covered in the analysis chapters to support the analysis and to answer one of the major research questions.

3.4

CRM: The Management Models

Over many years, several researchers have proposed numerous CRM models to enable organizations, especially the banking industry, to improve the current performance of CRM systems across all the functional areas, e.g. marketing, sales, service and support, and IT/IS. Each model has its own advantages for banks, where the sole purpose of these models is to support CRM to run successfully within the banking industry. In this section, we present some of these models and discuss their components.

We start with a discussion of the latest work of Payne and Frow (2004, 2005, and 2006). These authors proposed a strategic framework for customer relationship management (CRM) which helps broaden the understanding of CRM and its role in enhancing customers’ value and, as a result, shareholder value. As shown in figure 3.4, the model has two main components: core cross-functional CRM processes, and

key CRM implementation elements. The model contains five key cross-functional CRM processes: strategy development, value creation, multi-channel integration, information management, and performance assessment. It also contains four key CRM implementation elements: CRM readiness assessment, CRM change management, CRM project management, and employee engagement. The authors developed a new conceptual framework based on these processes and explored the role and function of each element in their framework.

Figure 3.4: CRM Strategy and Implementation Model (Source: Payne and Frow, 2006)

The authors discussed the five core cross-functional processes as:

C R M C h a n g e M a n a g e m en t C R M P ro je c t M a n a g e m en t P ro g ra m M A n ag em en t CRM Readiness Assessment