Complementing InTouch Study with CRM Study

InTouch provides a perspective that is ‘positive-based case’. InTouch has received both academic and industrial recognition which has resulted in beneficial results for both

Schlumberger and its clients. If the study is based on a positive case only, the attributes are merely from the positive perspective, i.e. from the system which was successfully operationalised and which has been well recognised.

One of the challenges in a case study is indeed the choice of cases (Yin, 1994). InTouch was chosen against theoretical criteria for a case that would reveal the answer to the research question, i.e. to find the attributes for the creation, mobilisation, and diffusion stages of the knowledge life-cycle in a technical service delivery process. However, feedback from the Executive Doctorate panel suggested that the positive case needed to be complemented with a case that has a relatively lower level of success and acceptance by its users in order to develop a more rounded set of attributes. Looking into a positive case only would miss some other attributes which may be found in a case where the system is operationalised with lesser success.

I took this comment seriously. I looked into another case that complemented the InTouch study. I decided to take another case in the same organisational setting, Schlumberger, but with a different profile. The case is Client Relationship Management (CRM) implementation in the sales process. The data collected from this case are used to complement the data from InTouch in establishing the evidence-based attributes that are responsible for implementing a system for the creation, mobilisation and diffusion of knowledge.

InTouch and CRM in Schlumberger

While InTouch supports the technical service delivery process in Schlumberger, CRM is intended to support the sales process. The main objectives for implementing CRM are as follows:

a. To capture the knowledge of the sales person in a reusable format in a system accessible to management and other sales people.

b. To have a single source of knowledge about the customers in a system that may be updated according to the sales assigned to the customers.

c. To be able to produce comprehensive sales reports and customer reports in real time.

Schlumberger started the project implementing CRM in 1997. It started with some difficulties mostly related to the technology itself. It was then stopped for six months. After the initial difficulties were overcome, the CRM implementation resumed.

At the end of 2003 Schlumberger conducted a survey for both InTouch users and CRM users. This survey is a part of the yearly evaluation on how the system implementation performs and how it is perceived by its users. However, in this particular survey, questions were included to reveal how many of the users are really committed (i.e. voluntarily use it and will miss it if it is removed), how many are feeling ‘forced’ to use it (i.e. they have to use it because it is there and they are asked to use it), and how many of the targeted workers do not use it. The rounded-figure results are described in Figure 4-6. There are no forced users in InTouch and only 2% non-users, whereas in CRM there are 40% of forced users and 30% non-users. This shows a significant contrast.

Figure 4-6: Comparison of InTouch users and CRM users

This information confirms the choice of CRM implementation in Schlumberger’s sales process as the case to explore, to further complement the findings from the InTouch case.

The Research Question for this complementary study is:

“What are the attributes of CRM that are different from those of InTouch that make CRM less recognised and produce more user resistance?”

Data collection and analysis for CRM case

The same technique, Means-End Chain approach with its laddering technique (Baker, 2002; Reynolds and Gutman, 1988), is used to conduct the semi-structured interviews. The questions posed to the interviewees were focused and around the research question, i.e. to find the different attributes that make CRM results so different from InTouch.

The unit of analysis for this complementary study is the sales process and the aspects within the process, such as people and structure. Therefore, the selected interviewees were the people directly related to CRM. Moreover, because the nature of this complementary study is a comparison of InTouch and CRM, the selected interviewees should also have enough depth of understanding about InTouch. Fortunately, this was not difficult to find because with the people mobility policy within Schlumberger, it is possible to find interviewees: 1) who are currently within the CRM environment and were in the InTouch environment, or 2) interviewees who are currently in the InTouch environment and were in the CRM environment. There are 6 interviewees within category 1 and 5 interviewees within category 2. A total of 16 people were interviewed. The other 5 interviewees are from category 3: headquarters management who are familiar with both InTouch and CRM. The interviewees are listed in Table 4-6. 98% 0% 2% Committed users Forced users No users 30% 40% 30% Committed users Forced users No users

The complementary study interviews were conducted for an average of about 15 minutes each and all except 3 were conducted by telephone. Interviews were not recorded for two reasons: 1) to allow interviewees to feel at ease to talk about why CRM is not well perceived by users, and 2) because the interviews were mostly by phone. Notes were taken during the interviews and they were typed and sent to the interviewees for verification.

The data from the CRM case were analysed in the same manner as the data from the InTouch case, based on the Abductive research strategy (Blaikie, 2000). The final construction of the implication matrix and the Hierarchical Value Map (HVM) include the complementary data from the CRM case.

Name Years Seniority

Interviewee Category

Geographical area Time of interview

BA 20 years 2 Europe, CIS,

Africa (ECA)

July 2004 12 minutes EJ

(phone)

23 years 1 ECA July 2004

20 minutes AG

(phone)

21 years 1 North and South

America (NSA)

July 2004 15 minutes BD

(phone)

20 years 2 NSA July 2004

10 minutes

PD 19 years 3 HQ - Paris August 2004

10 minutes KR

(phone)

31 years 2 Middle East and

Asia (MEA)

August 2004 20 minutes SB

(phone)

21 years 3 HQ – Houston August 2004

15 minutes AK

(phone)

16 years 2 NSA August 2004

15 minutes JD

(phone)

30 years 3 HQ - Paris August 2004

10 minutes JT

(phone)

16 years 2 NSA Sept 2004

10 minutes

LPG 15 years 3 HQ - Paris Sept 2004

20 minutes KM

(phone)

23 years 1 MEA Sept 2004

15 minutes AJ

(phone)

21 years 1 MEA Sept 2004

15 minutes CC

(phone)

26 years 1 NSA Sept 2004

15 minutes GA

(phone)

18 years 3 HQ – Houston Sept 2004

10 minutes IC

(phone)

20 years 1 MEA Sept 2004

10 minutes