Cross-Case Analysis

In this section cross-case analysis will be made to examine if possible differences and/or similarities exist in the benefits of CRM implementation, components of CRM and key CRM implementation factors and through the study of this, reach for the answer of the research problem.

Goldenberg’s (2000) definition of CRM was identified in both Länsförsäkringar and HSB- Norr. Both consider CRM as a cross-functional, customer-driven, technology-integrated business process, management strategy even though they emphasize different aspects that will be mentioned later. Some similarities found in both service companies, apart from the definition stated, are the fact that the processes took place as a result of recognition of a specific need in the organizations to reach their customers. This is in line with Peppers and Rogers (1999) that maximizing the lifetime customer value leads to customer retention and customer profitability. Also, both managers interviewed declared to have a high satisfaction level with the implementation of CRM in their companies. This contradicts the affirmation made in the theory chapter which regarded the implementation of CRM as unpopular (Rigby et al., 2002).

One discrepancy found between the companies was the timing. In Länsförsäkringar’s case, the CRM implementation process was launched, according to the manager, in the year 2000 while at HSB the process is still taking place and started about one and a half year ago. This allowed reaching the opinions of the managers at different stages of the implementation processes.

6.3.1 How can a firm’s major reasons and benefits of implementation of CRM be described?

Curry and Kkolou (2004) outlined major benefits and reasons for adoption of CRM. At Länsförsäkringar some of reasons for adoption that were mentioned by the manager were the intention of simplifying of the infrastructure, shrinking the workflow and elimination of non-productive information flow. HSB-Norr’s VD the increase in competition and changes in the expectations of the customers.

Swift (2001) and Curry and Kkolou (2004) postulated some benefits that could accrue to a firm implementing CRM. Those relating to cost and profit such as lower cost of production and the ability to cross-sell were found to be consistent with empirical data found at Länsförsäkringar. Both companies mention the improvement in sales volume and categorisation of customer based on profitability and potential. This confirms theory by Bull (2003) and Galbreath and Rogers (1999). The HSB’s VD mentioned that as a result of implementing CRM the lead time for new product development is shortened as a result of increased amount of inputs from customers into the product development. This could however not be confirmed either by theory or at Länsförsäkringar.

In terms of customer satisfaction, both companies assured to have received good input form their customers as a result of the CRM implementation effort. The all claim to be more satisfied and this is in conformity with Curry and Kkolou (2004). According to the Länsförsäkringar’s manager, their customers are satisfied due to improved and personalised attention they now receive and the fact that they can receive answers to their concerns promptly. This sentiment was shared by HSB’s customers, who according to the manager have also experienced satisfaction because they feel that their concerns are now being taken care off. Swift (2001) mentioned also retention and loyalty as benefits of CRM implementation. This topic shows a bigger gap between the companies experience. Länsförsäkringar’s manager maintains, for example, that they have experienced improvement customer loyalty. HSB-Norr is still waiting to see the results in terms of retention and loyalty but are actively perusing these benefits.

Seth et al. (1991) and Chi et al (2004) linked the benefits of CRM to customer satisfaction, which both companies stated to be striving for. Länsförsäkringar by introducing promotional tools like the Lans-bonus and better rates for insurance premiums and HSB by local presence, product quality and technology. Both companies showed evidence of providing functional value and HSB, to some extent, emotional value. None of them mentioned any evidence of having other kinds of value creation mentioned on the theory.

6.3.2 How can the components of CRM implementation (i.e. people, process and technology) be described?

Goldenberg (2002) postulated that CRM implementation requires that people, process and technology be given serious consideration as each component presents significant challenges. He further stated that it is the ability to integrate all three dimensions that

makes or breaks a CRM system. Empirical findings show that the two service companies have all the three aspects in place and were given various degree of attention.

Länsförsäkringar has fully integrated its IT systems. Both companies recognize information technology as a support tool in the process redesigning. According to the manager interviewed at Länsförsäkringar, their new CRM system bought from Siebel is driving the company into high level of performance. Even though HSB is yet to fully implement the technology aspect of CRM components, it has a firm belief that the implementation of the IT system that will take place in a 6 month period, will bring a complete change in the work processes. This assertion is supported by Davenport and Short (1990). Although HSB is still in the process of rolling out a full CRM system, the idea of putting in place a new telephony switchboard to connect all their offices, which also forms part of the company’s CRM technologies evidence its intention to leverage technology to bring the desired change at the work place.

Länsförsäkringar has fully integrated both operational and analytical CRM which makes it possible for them to have a complete view of customers. This supports Greenberg 2004). However, this could not be confirmed at HSB. Collaborative CRM noted by Trepper (2000 on the other hand was evidenced in both companies though the use of Internet technology, and other touch points. Giving customers the possibility of accessing information online, contacting agents through phone and E-Mail are some examples of this. Another commonality is that the two companies use their CRM systems to better manage their customer relationships and therefore this affirms Pepper and Rogers (2000). In both cases, the Internet was seen to have been put into effective use in building lasting customer relationships. Also, both companies admitted that the CRM system is complex because as the manager of Länsförsäkringar explains “it incorporates a lot of data” and as noted by the VD at HSB that “changing the process at HSB has not been easy to adapt”. In this area it is good to mention that both companies have purchased their CRM IT systems from a third party.

Process as a component of CRM implementation is considered to be most delicate and many cases requires redesigning and re-alignment; removal of broken and non-optimal ones (Goldenberg, 2002). In support of this theory, it was revealed at both companies that all the business processes have been affected and redesigned and re-aligned through the use of information technology as stated by Hammer and Champy (1993). It also came to light that at Länsförsäkringar that the old, stand-alone and individual data systems have become sub-systems in the new data system. However this could not be confirmed at HSB as the CRM process is ongoing. One aspect about the process component at Länsförsäkringar is the fact that the CRM software purchased from Siebel was modified and changes made to suit the company’s local working environment and this supports Goldenberg (2002) warning that companies about the risks of forcing the “not-built here” process upon users. At HSB they have also purchased the CRM system outside the company and intends to have it locally configured according to their specific needs.

Chen and Popovich (2003) argued that despite the fact that technology and business process are fundamental and important to CRM implementation success, the people aspect especially the employees should be given due consideration. They explain further that the people component is the most difficult. These sentiments in theory were discovered in the two companies. Employees in both companies were involved in the

process. Though some of them were quite uncomfortable, no remarkable level of resistance was experienced by Länsförsäkringar. But the situation was different at HSB as the whole company went through drastic changes before the CRM implementation process started. Therefore, the employees at HSB have had a harder time adapting to the overall changes and some still struggle with the idea. However, what became clear is that in both companies, through seminars, training, interaction with the staff and explaining the CRM concept, have managed to get the system in place and to receive the linked benefits. Further, empirical findings from both companies suggest that the implementation of CRM at Länsförsäkringar and HSB was started and supported by top management. It has been stated by Limayem (2004) that the right mix of CRM components (defined as the total effort required) should be: People 70%, Process 20%, Technology 10%. However, it was found that none of the companies in the study declared to have the mix as stated by Limayem (2004). At Länsförsäkringar, the effort in percentage for the three components of CRM implementation is 15% for people, 15% for Process and 70% for technology At HSB, the effort, as explained by the VD was 50% for Process, 40% for People and 10% for Technology. This is illustrated as follows.

MIX OF CRM COMPONENTS 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Limayem (2004). Länsförsäkringar HSB-Norr

people process technology

Figure 19: Comparison chart of values assessed to the CRM components.

In the figure 19 a comprehensive illustration of the differences are shown. The figure includes all three perspectives of the mix (theory and both companies).

6.3.3 How can the key factors of CRM implementation (i.e. strategy, leadership and integration) be described?

In line with Bull (2003), empirical data show CRM is a complex and holistic concept that requires strategic perspective, leadership and integration. It was found that all the companies recognized and considered the three key factors stated above. Empirical findings confirm that both of them view CRM implementation from a strategic

viewpoint. Both of them started the process as an initiative of top management to focus on the customer and give a better service, which shows their involvement, provides the support and global view required to implement CRM. Länsförsäkringar evidenced the strategic perspective also since they were in the need of coordinating with all 24 companies involved in order to make the process effective and engage all the financial support required. HSB on its side, had to restructure the whole company and find the right orientation, which was chosen to include the CRM implementation process as well as the involvement of all local offices. Moreover, the strategic perspective has resulted in targeting, categorizing, communicating and doing business with the “right” type of customers. All this based on customers’ profitability as again this fine tune with Verhoef and Donkers (2001), CRM Guru (2003).

The leadership factor as a requirement for consideration in any CRM implementation as noted by Galbreath and Rogers (1999) was very much significant issue in both companies. The rolling out of CRM systems received considerable leadership attention and both companies admit that CRM implementation was a management inspired action. The manager at Länsförsäkringar noted that for many years management had wanted a system that could provide a 360 degree view of the customer. Moreover, in line with Pinto and Slevin (1987), it was discovered that leadership plays a crucial role in authorizing the huge financial investment and setting the strategic direction of the CRM project. This view was emphasized by the VD of HSB-Norr as he stated: “overall, I am the one leading the effort, stirring the changes, and setting the direction and agenda of the whole process”. Another finding quite interesting from the empirical findings is that the VD of knowledgeable about technology as a strategic tool in customer relationship building and very determined to push ahead to full implementation status of CRM. Even though there are no traces of evidence to the contrary at Länsförsäkringar, it could not be confirmed in this respect.

Both Madu Assumpta (2003) and Chen and Popovich (2003) theory about full integration of back-end operations and front-office application is at work and fully integrated at Länsförsäkringar. It has integrated the individual and stand-alone data systems into a holistic one which provides a better view of the customer than before. However, HSB is still in the process of integrating all the functional processes and has accomplished them mostly in the organizational area but not much could be said about their level of integration within IT since it has not yet been completed.

One difference that was found between the companies is that the manager at Länsförsäkringar did not mention anything about work teams, as did the VD at HSB. At Länsförsäkringar, the manager described the organization, after the management level, as just individual workers. At HSB on the other hand, it was clearly stated that they operate with teams and team leaders.

In both companies there is no reported conflict among employees as theory suggests that the release or sharing of data to another function or department leads to a loss of power and breeds conflict. What was found at HSB is a general discomfort with the initial reorganization of the tasks, but also, in the departments where the process is fully in place, the level of satisfaction of the employees has reported to be high, according to the VD. Finally, the concept of ´localness described by Senge (1990) was found to be true in both

companies. At Länsförsäkringar since they are part of 24 others and at HSB-Norr since the office in Luleå heads all others in the Norrbotten area.

In terms of integration within the organization, there are major differences in the statements that both managers expressed even though both admit this concept to be central in the implementation of CRM, in accordance with Greenberg (2001). At Länsförsäkringar, the integration was described to happen as a direct result of the IT system, when all the information was available to all functional departments. At HSB, the integration was described as a major part of the process. Bringing together the functional and regional operations and redesigning the processes first so that they integrate the appropriate technology later.