外文翻译--客户关系管理(CRM)的理论及应用研究

本科生毕业设计（论文）外文翻译

外文题目：A Strategic Framework for Customer Relationship Management 译文题目：客户关系管理的战略框架

学生姓名：

专业：工业工程

指导教师姓名：

评阅日期：

Adrian Payne & Pennie Frow

A Strategic Framework for Customer Relationship

Management

Over 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 are

•To 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, and

•To 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 Definition

The 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 Gartner’s (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 Research

Conceptual 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; and

•Using 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 Framework

We 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 organization’s 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.

客户关系管理的战略框架

在过去的十年里，管理层和学术界对客户关系管理（CRM）的兴趣激增。无论如何，尽管出版物数量在增长，但大部分都是从业者导向性的，对于CRM是什么，如何开发CRM战略仍然缺乏一个一致意见。本文的目的是开发一个流程导向型的CRM概念性框架，它可以将CRM定位在一个战略层面藉由识别关键性的跨职能的流程，在涉及CRM战略开发时。更具体的来说，我们这篇文章的目标是：·确定CRM的不同观点。

·强调在整体组织方面的CRM的战略方针的重要性。

·提出5个关键的泛型跨职能的的流程，以便组织可以用其开发和传递一个有效的CRM战略。

·为CRM战略开发一个基于流程的概念框架，评审每个流程的角色和组件。

我们将这篇文章组织成三个主要部分。首先，我们探索CRM的角色并确认三个不同的CRM观点。其次，我们认为需要一个跨职能，基于流程的CRM的方法。我们为流程选择开发了标准，并确定了5个关键CRM流程。第三，我们提出了一个由这5个流程构成的战略性的概念框架并检查了每个流程的组件。

这个框架的开发的是响应一项由Reinartz，Krafft和Hoyer（2004年）提出的挑战，他们批评了进行更广泛的，更具战略性的重点的CRM研究的严重匮乏，这篇文章没有探索人们关于CRM实施方面的问题，当只有有限的员工主动配合的时候，客户关系管理可能会失败。因此，员工激励和改变管理是CRM实施的要点问题。在我们的讨论中，我们强调这样的实施和人的议题作为未来研究的优先考虑的方面。

CRM观点和定义

“客户关系管理”这个概念在IT厂商群体和从业者群体中被提出来，在二十世纪90年代中期，它经常被用于描述基于技术的客户解决方案。例如销售队伍自动化（SFA）。在学术社群中，“营销关系”概念和客户关系管理经常是可以互换的（Parvatiyar and Sheth 2001）。无论如何，CRM是在技术解决方案的环境中更加通用并已经被描述为“启用信息的关系营销”（Ryals and Sheth 2001）。Zablah，Beuenger和Johnston（2003，p.116）提出CRM是“一个对于关系营销来说的哲学相关的产物，在文献中最容易被忽视的部分，”并

且他们总结了“CRM更长远的探索和它的相关现象不仅仅是被保证的，也是绝对需要的。”

许多组织决定采用CRM所面临的一个明显的问题源自于对于CRM的组成存在巨大的误解。在于对组成部分流程研究的管理层（我们随后描述这个流程）的访谈中，我们发现了一个对于CRM的意义的广泛观点，对于某些人，它意味着直接的邮件，一个忠实度卡片体系，或者一个数据库，然而其他人设想它是作为一个帮助桌面或呼叫中心，某些人称它是关于存在于一个数据仓库或数据挖掘；另外一些人认为CRM是一个电子商务的解决方案，例如

在Internet或SFA的关系数据库中使用一个个性化的引擎。缺乏被广泛接受的和适合的CRM定义可以归功于CRM项目的失败，当一个组织从有限的技术观点看CRM，或在一个破碎的基础上采用CRM时，他们就会失败。

对CRM的定义和描述，不同的作者或机构有多种观点。要确定CRM的不同观点，我们考虑了从我们在附录中总结的范围里的CRM的定义和描述。我们从这个列表里排除了其他类似的定义。

Grabner-kraeuter 和 Moedritscher（2002年）的表示，缺乏一个从成功的CRM中定义的战略框架是许多CRM计划令人失望的原因之一。这个观点同时得到了我们在进行研究中的和Gartner Aos的高级管理人员支持。我们下一项挑战是确定一个用前文描述的选择标准的CRM流程，并发展成为一个CRM战略发展的概念框架。

我们的文献回顾发现少数的CRM框架已经存在。那些是我们没有基于流程导向和跨职能的CRM概念。例如，Sue 和Morin(2001,第6页)概述了基于首创性的CRM框架，预测的结果和贡献。但是这并不是基于流程的。“而且许多首创的东西没有明确的在框架中确定.”Winner（2001，第91页）开发了一个“基本的模型，包含了7个基本组件：一个客户活动数据库；数据库分析；给出分析结果，描述要以哪个客户为目标。瞄准客户的工具；怎样与目标客户建立关系；隐私问题和衡量CRM程序成功的度量标准。”再说，这个模型，尽管很有用，也并不是一个跨职能的，基于流程的概念化。这个文献中的缺陷指出需要一个新的系统性的基于流程的CRM战略框架。将CRM和关系营销中的各种概念综合成一个，基于

流程的框架应该提供实用的洞察力帮助公司实现CRM战略开发和实施上更大的成功。

交互研究

概念化的框架和理论是典型的基于先前的文献、常识、经验的整合（Eisenhardt 1989）。在这项研究中，我们整合成一个综合的文献，它是由基于领域内的决策者们在开发和改善CRM战略框架而研究的成果。在这个方法上，我们使用Gummesson（2002a）名词“interaction research”这种形式的研究始于他的观点：在研究的这个阶段中“交互和交流扮演了一个重要的角色”。并且测试了概念、想法和结果通过与不同的目标小组交互而得出“一个完整的研究过程”。这些基于领域的洞察力，包括决策者们尤其是那些从大企业中的B2B和B2C 部门中走出的决策者。包括以下所列出的类型：

·一个专家小组由34个经验丰富的决策者组成；

·与20个在公司的金融服务部门工作的CRM，销售和IT人员交流；

·与6个大型CRM销售商的执行者和5个来自3个CRM和战略咨询公司的决策者交；

·个体和小组的形式与工厂中的CRM，销售，IT经理们讨论，他们来自于18家CRM供应商，分析师和他们的客户的。包括Accenture, Baan, BroadVision, Chordiant, EDS, E.piphany, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Gartner, NCR Teradata, Peoplesoft, Oracle, SAP, SAS Institute, Siebel, Sybase, and Unisys;

·领导一个框架作为财务和自动化部门的计划工具；

·使用这个框架在两个公司作为计划工具，两个公司是：全球性的电信和全球性的物流公司，每家公司有六个工厂。

流程确认与CRM框架

我们一开始开始从CRM和商业文献中识别可能的泛型CRM流程。然后，我们与几组管理人员就实验性的流程相互讨论。这项工作的结果在市场期刊2005年10月 170期上列出了7个流程。之后我们启用了专家组，他们都是在CRM方面富有经验的管理层，这些协助开发CRM流程选择模式以指出那些他们认为重要的并在相关性和一般性上取得一致意见的CRM流程。在一个初始的小组研究会之后，每个专家成员独立地完成了一个列表，可以代表他（她）关于满足前文的6

个取得一致意见的流程标准的关键的泛型流程的意见。数据被反馈给小组，接着一个详细的讨论以帮助确定我们对流程类别的理解。

作为这种互动方法的结果，5个满足选择标准的CRM流程被确认。在第一个循环中，所有的5个流程都被三分之二的成员一致认可，作为重要的泛型流程。随后，对于将这些作为关键性的泛型CRM流程，我们收到了来自其他小组的经理们的更强有力的肯定。作为结果的5个泛型流程是（1）战略开发流程，（2）有价值的创造流程，（3）多通道的整合流程，（4）信息管理流程和（5）性能评价流程。

我们之后将这5个关键性的泛型CRM流程合并成一个初步的概念化框架，这个初始的框架和后来开发的版本都由我们与两个主要的管理层小组报告和进一步

改良的，他们是来自前文提到的公司的经理和来自三个CRM咨询公司的管理人员。几个CRM和市场关系方面的学术会议的参与者也帮助注释和评论了前面的版本。伴随框架版本的进化，我们合成相关文献通过基于领域的包括小组在内的互动。这个框架通过了相当大数量的主要循环和少量修订；最终版本出现在图2.

这个概念性的框架描绘了相互作用的战略流程集，这些以一个有组织的战略的详细评审（战略开发流程）为开始，并包括了一个在商业结果的重要性，提升了共享价值（性能评价流程）。这个竞争优势源于客户和商业价值的创造与相互创造相关的活动（价值创造流程）的概念在营销文献中被良好的发展了。对于大的公司，CRM活动包含了收集和聪明的使用客户与其他相关数据（信息流程）以建立一个始终如一的出众的客户体验和持久的客户关系（多通道整合流程）。CRM 战略开发的交互本质是在图2中的两个方向的流程之间的箭头所高亮的部分。他们代表了不同流程间的相互作用和反馈循环。这个在价值创造流程中的循环箭头反映了相互创造流程。我们现在检查我们在每个流程里识别的关键组件。由于我们先前的工作，我们使用了交互研究方法在设别这些流程组件时。

英文翻译指导教师评阅意见