ارتباط و درهم ریختگی عملکرد متقابل در پروژه های مدیریت ارتباط با مشتری CRM: آیا بازاریابی از زهره و سیستم های اطلاعاتی مریخ می باشد؟

Because of the inherently cross-functional nature of customer relationship management, the use of cross-functional teams in CRM project implementations is virtually mandatory to achieve critical marketing and sales objectives. This study examines the effects of functional membership as well as team and individual performance evaluations on project members' perceptions of disruption and cooperation during CRM project implementations. The results show that IS project members are more likely to perceive internal volatility and manifest interfunctional conflict and less likely to perceive interfunctional cooperation than project members from either sales/marketing or general management. We also find that team performance evaluations are negatively associated with disruption and positively associated with cooperation, while individual evaluations are negatively associated with internal volatility.

Customer relationship management (CRM) is a critical research domain. CRM strategies should result in improved customer service through improved value, coordination, and selling efficiency (Landry et al., 2005). Consequently, members of an organization's sales and marketing departments are especially motivated to initiate technological solutions for CRM that ultimately involve information systems (IS) personnel. Whereas IS may support the initiative, conflict often emerges in the process of implementing the CRM system to the specifications and expectations of sales and marketing. At the root of the oft-reported failures of CRM implementation is the lack of prior planning and the inability to effectively integrate technology with sales processes (see Dickie, 2005 and Zablah et al., 2004). Customer relationship management (CRM) is a strategic, customer-centered initiative that depends upon cross-functional team use and integration (Dyché, 2002 and Kincaid, 2003). CRM initiatives focus on important goals for sales and marketing–such as loyalty programs, call center management, and sales force automation–which necessitate the involvement of not only sales and marketing, but also technology from IS and strategic planning from general management (Greenberg, 2001). Naturally, some level of conflict ensues, as work responsibilities are disrupted and individuals with divergent personal goals and backgrounds are required to work together for a successful implementation (cf., Raman et al., 2006). This study has two objectives. First, we measure differences in perceptions between marketing/sales, information systems and management personnel regarding interfunctional cooperation as well as two important sources of CRM implementation disruption—internal volatility and manifest interfunctional conflict. Secondly, we focus on one specific managerial control mechanism: employee performance evaluations. We examine the extent to which team vs. individual performance evaluations (1) reduce internal volatility and manifest interfunctional conflict and (2) enhance CRM interfunctional cooperation. Fig. 1 illustrates the relationships examined.

As CRM processes become fundamental to successful marketing and sales strategies, organizations must be able to effectively manage cross-functional project teams. This study sheds light on the marketing/sales interface with IS personnel in CRM projects. We identify three key issues that must be understood from a theoretical standpoint and managed from a practical standpoint to achieve successful CRM implementation. 5.1. Marketing/sales and IS interface Project managers must plan for and diffuse disruptions caused by the differences in functional perspectives among team members. To date, much work in marketing has focused solely on the perspective of marketing personnel (e.g., Jayachandran et al., 2005 and Reinartz et al., 2004). Similarly, IS studies investigating factors that contribute to CRM and team success overlook the perspectives and functions of marketing and sales (e.g., Kohli and Hoadley, 2006 and Seddon et al., 2002 ) or else see marketing and sales as “users” who must be managed in large organizations (cf., Gefen and Ridings, 2002). Our findings that IS personnel involved in cross-functional teams as a group tend to have more negative attitudes toward the process suggests the need for planned integration processing during project implementation. Marketing/sales and management personnel may dismiss the effects of disruptions and be overly optimistic relative to the realities of instituting new technical specifications for CRM installations and upgrades, but our findings suggest teams will function better if members are empathetic or “emotionally literate” (cf., Welch, 2003) regarding the challenges confronting other team members and functional areas. Indeed, Rapisarda (2002) finds that team cohesiveness and performance increases as members' “emotional intelligence”–the ability to perceive, express, understand, use, and manage emotions–increases. 5.2. Reward systems and disruptions/cooperation One way to minimize disruption and encourage cooperation is to provide appropriate controls or incentives. Prior research has not examined the interrelationships between reward systems (team vs. individual) and the effects on project disruptions (volatility and conflict) and cooperation within teams. The results of this study indicate that the use of team evaluations is important for increasing interfunctional cooperation and reducing manifest interfunctional conflict. These findings are critical to our understanding of effectively managing CRM project teams because cooperation and conflict directly influence team performance and goal completion (cf., Griffin and Hauser, 1996 and Pinto et al., 1993). Evidence suggests that team or project managers may not be rewarded for efforts to develop healthy teams—and that the area in which team members is least satisfied is reward structure (Robertson and Tippett, 2002). We found that 56% of respondents make relatively high use of team performance evaluations (i.e., mean scale scores greater than 3.0 on 5.0 scale), but 44% make only moderate or little use of team performance evaluations in monitoring performance of cross-functional teams. Low use of team performance evaluations results in higher levels of manifest interfunctional conflict and less interfunctional cooperation, thus contributing to project disruption. Although the use of team performance evaluations seems imperative for organizations seeking to control the CRM implementation, this message is not universally accepted or adopted. This research provides strong support for the importance of team evaluations in the design and implementation of CRM systems. Interestingly, the use of team performance evaluations does little to reduce perceptions regarding internal volatility during CRM implementation. This finding is likely due to the fact that some of the realities of internal volatility (viz., frequent reorganizing, changing parameters, etc.) may be more external to the team and not under their control. 5.3. Reward structure signals Our findings concur with psychological theory that ambiguous signals regarding reward structures reduce cooperation within teams. Roberts' (1998) found that 15 out of 18 interviewees believed that individual performance evaluations do not inhibit teamwork or generate conflict. The belief is that individuals involved in teamwork desire clear feedback that lets them understand where they stand as well as the purpose and method of performance evaluation. Interestingly, our findings also show that the greatest cooperation is found among those organizations that made the greatest use of individual reward structures in evaluating CRM implementation (see Table 4). The least amount of cooperation was found among those organizations whose employees reported moderate levels of individual performance evaluations. This research supports extensive use of individual evaluations in conjunction with team evaluations to ensure that the individual knows the contribution he/she is expected to make and the impact on individual rewards as well as overall implementation success. Fig. 2 provides a linear and quadratic transformation of this relationship. Given the depth of literature regarding the need for team performance measures for team-implemented projects, we did not speculate that a non-monotonic (or curvilinear) relationship would persist between team performance evaluations and interfunctional cooperation. However, post-hoc analysis reveals that the cooperative benefits of team performance evaluations increase at an increasing rate (F2,178 = 10.21, p < 0.01; see Fig. 3). Hence, in either case, the message to management from these findings is to send clear, unambiguous signals to employees regarding the reward system structure to achieve optimal results. 5.4. Limitations and implications for future research This study presents empirical evidence confirming the notion that IS personnel perceive interactions with members of other functional areas less positively than do marketing/sales or general management personnel. Thus, the findings provide an impetus for investigating solutions to diminish negative effects and to present operational guidelines that improve alignment during critical change initiatives. The study also sheds light on the problem associated with balancing team and individual performance evaluations, showing the necessity of sending clear and unambiguous signals to participants. This study confines the context to CRM implementations, although it is an open question as to whether the same types and degree of volatility and conflict exist between IS and other functions for other change initiatives. Research in additional contexts provides an important avenue for future studies. This study hypothesizes about why IS practitioners perceive more volatility and conflict and less cooperation than do marketing/sales and general management during CRM projects. Further experimental investigation is warranted as to the reasons for these different perspectives. Other fruitful areas for future research include: • A better understanding of why certain control mechanisms may work better than others. • The extent to which emotional literacy or intelligence enhances cross-functional team performance in project implementation and the extent to which it varies across functional areas. • The factors that influence managerial choice regarding rewards systems to understand why management often ignores the benefits of team-based structures. • The methods team members use to reduce volatility or practice effective change management within their realm of influence.