Journal of Business Research 89 (2018) 391–403

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Implementation effects in the relationship between CRM and its T

performance☆
⁎
Ilaria Dalla Pozzaa,b, Oliver Goetzc, Jean Michel Sahutd,
a
IPAG Business School, 184 bd St. Germain, 75006 Paris, France
b
SFA Université Lyon 1, 50 Avenue Tony Garnier, 69007 Lyon, France
c
ESB Business School, Reutlingen University, Alteburgstr. 150, 72762 Reutlingen, Germany
d
IDRAC Business School, 47 rue du Sergent Michel Berthet, 69009 Lyon, France

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Customer relationship management (CRM) is one of the most frequently adopted management tools and has
Customer relationship management received much attention in the literature. From a company-wide perspective, CRM is viewed as a complex
Performances process requiring interventions in different company areas. Previous research has already highlighted the pitfalls
Organizational alignment and failures related to a partial and incomplete view of CRM. This study advances research on CRM by in-
Implementation time
vestigating the impact of the relative implementation time according to which interventions are implemented in
different areas (customer management, CRM technology, organizational alignment, and CRM strategy) on CRM
performance. The results of the empirical study reveal that compared to other critical CRM activities, a later
implementation of organizational alignment activities has a negative impact on performance. Further, our results
show that CRM implementations do not equally address the areas of customer acquisition, growth, and loyalty,
since this clearly depends on company objectives and also on geographical differences.

1. Introduction and technologies in a customer-centric organization—and links them to

CRM performance measures (Richards & Jones, 2008).
In the current competitive landscape, in which competition is in- Based on the literature, we conceptualize CRM as a set of business
tensifying, the ability to strengthen customer relationships is viewed as activities that pertains to four different areas of intervention (four CRM
a likely source of competitive advantage (Chang, Wong, & Fang, 2014; dimensions: strategy, organization, technology, and customer man-
Santouridis & Veraki, 2017; Thakur & Workman, 2016). Companies agement) with improved customer relationships as the end goal. Kumar
have, therefore, invested significantly in the implementation of cus- and Reinartz (2006) emphasize that each CRM dimension is necessary,
tomer relationship management (CRM) during the past few years although not sufficient, to implement CRM. In order to implement CRM
(Badgett, Ballou, & LaValle, 2004; Chang, Park, & Chaiy, 2010; successfully and be competitive, a company should be on par with its
Radcliffe, 2001). According to Payne and Frow (2005), CRM is a competition across all its CRM dimensions and facilitate the positive
management approach that seeks to create, develop, and enhance re- orchestration of them. Keramati et al. (2010) point out that the har-
lationships with carefully targeted customers to maximize customer monious integration of the different CRM dimensions plays a crucial
value and corporate profitability. The academic literature and business role in CRM's ability to create value for the customer and the firm.
press recognize the difficulties of correctly implementing CRM (Bohling Many authors have investigated CRM and its ability to impact on
et al., 2006; Boulding, Staelin, Ehret, & Johnston, 2005; Ryals, 2005; performance (Chen & Wu, 2016; Krasnikov, Jayachandran, & Kumar,
Wilson, Daniel, & McDonald, 2002). Several authors (Keramati, 2009; Law, Ennew, & Mitussis, 2013). However, studies on CRM's im-
Mehrabi, & Mojir, 2010) have tried to identify the required areas of pact on performance report inconclusive findings (Ernst, Hoyer, Krafft,
interventions for a successful CRM. This is in line with recent CRM & Krieger, 2011; Reimann, Schilke, & Thomas, 2010). Recent CRM
literature that emphasizes the necessity of an integrated view of CRM literature, therefore, began to focus on factors that may influence the
projects (Payne & Frow, 2005). An integrated view considers the mul- relationship between CRM and performance (e.g., Krasnikov et al.,
tiple facets of a CRM implementation—such as customer-oriented 2009). This investigation enables managers and researchers to under-
strategies, customer management processes, organizational alignment, stand the intervening and contextual influences on the CRM-

☆
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (I. Dalla Pozza), [email protected] (O. Goetz), [email protected] (J.M. Sahut).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.02.004
Received 17 June 2017; Received in revised form 30 January 2018; Accepted 2 February 2018
0148-2963/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
I. Dalla Pozza et al. Journal of Business Research 89 (2018) 391–403

performance link (Krasnikov et al., 2009). However, the literature still entire lifecycle (Santouridis & Veraki, 2017). Recent literature ex-
lacks knowledge of the mechanism that translates the different facets of plained CRM conceptualizations according to specific implementation
CRM implementation into a company's performance. Zablah, Bellenger, dimensions (Thakur & Workman, 2016) with each dimension re-
and Johnston (2004) argue that these mechanisms, through which CRM presenting a set of business activities (Reinartz, Thomas, & Kumar,
enhances performance, are not well understood. 2005). For instance, Becker et al. (2009) insist that the technology and
Various authors have already highlighted the pitfalls and failures organization dimensions are very important for capturing the com-
related to a partial and incomplete view of CRM (Becker, Greve, & plexity of CRM implementation. Technological implementation refers
Albers, 2009; Payne & Frow, 2005). CRM projects should not be guided to systems such as databases, analytics, and software applications,
only by a technological investment. For instance, Peppers and Rogers while organizational implementation refers to the efforts of companies
(2004, p. 37) state that a clear customer-oriented strategy should guide to align the internal structures, people, and processes with the CRM
CRM implementations. Chen and Popovich (2003) emphasize the em- customer-centric perspective. Similarly, Reinartz, Krafft, and Hoyer
ployees' effort to adopt the new customer-centric philosophy. In fact, (2004) focus on customer management, technology and organizational
these authors indicate that CRM, by helping to align an organization alignment dimensions. They describe the impact of customer manage-
with its customers, can assist a company with growing its revenue and ment on CRM performance and highlight the supporting role that CRM
improving customer management conditions. The results, however, technology and organizational alignment play in, for example, appro-
could fall short of expectations if interventions in critical company priate compensation schemes that help to align the entire organization.
areas are discarded or delayed (Rigby, Reichheld, & Schefter, 2002). Peppers and Rogers (2004, p. 415) emphasize the CRM strategy di-
We, therefore, argue that a delay in the implementation of the orga- mension and claim that, unless top management supports a clear cus-
nizational alignment dimension, compared to that of the other CRM tomer-centric strategy, a CRM implementation cannot deliver good
dimensions, has negative consequences for the success of the entire results.
CRM process. Prioritized investments in these critical activities are, Several papers acknowledge the impact of the strategic, organiza-
therefore, necessary to ensure a successful CRM process. The rationale tional, customer management, and technological dimensions on CRM
for our hypothesis is the service-profit chain literature (Heskett, Jones, performance (Cao & Gruca, 2005; Day & Van den Bulte, 2002;
Loveman, Sasser Jr., & Schlesinger, 2008), which argues that a suc- Gustafsson, Johnson, & Roos, 2005; Nguyen & Mutum, 2012; Palmatier,
cessful customer-centric strategy draws its strength primarily from a Scheer, Houston, Evans, & Gopalakrishna, 2007). Chen and Popovich
strong focus on people and from an aligned organization. Only when (2003) draw attention to the technological and organizational dimen-
the internal organization has been correctly aligned, trained, and de- sions by describing CRM as a combination of people, processes, and
signed around the customer, can companies provide superior customer technology. Similarly, Verhoef and Langerak (2002) support the view
service and build strong customer relationships with profitable custo- that CRM requires an internal organization, structured around custo-
mers. mers, in which different departments and employees jointly focus on
This study contributes to a better understanding of failure rates creating superior value for these customers. Finally, Kumar and
concerning CRM projects by taking the distinct CRM dimensions and Reinartz (2006) realize a synthesis. They theoretically identify four
their relative implementation time into account. More specifically, this different CRM dimensions: organizational alignment, customer man-
paper intends to advance knowledge in the CRM field by investigating agement, technology, and CRM strategy implementation. This con-
whether (1) the relative implementation time of the four CRM dimen- ceptualization is perfectly consistent with the notion that CRM is pre-
sions matters in the performance enhancement process, and whether dicated on addressing four key areas: strategy, technology, people, and
(2) a delayed implementation of the organizational alignment activities processes (Day, 2003). Table 1 highlights the CRM dimensions em-
impacts negatively on CRM performances. Recent CRM research posited phasized by the CRM conceptualizations in the literature.
that culture and context can potentially affect the mechanism whereby Based on this literature review, we identify four CRM dimensions:
CRM is translated into performance. CRM is, therefore, implemented organizational alignment, customer management, CRM technology, and
differently in various countries, which leads to different results. The CRM strategy implementation. The CRM strategy implementation di-
majority of CRM studies have been conducted in only one country mension implies a need for defining a clear customer-oriented strategy
without comparing countries. Although comparative CRM studies, with top management support, customer-oriented performance metrics,
which take countries and cultures into account, are scarce, it is in high and a comprehensive view of the customer across the entire organiza-
demand, because it can explain how CRM can increase performance tion with central customer data processing that includes different touch
(Chang et al., 2010). Our study intends to fill this gap by investigating points (Palmatier et al., 2007). The organizational alignment dimension
CRM's impact on performance in Europe and the USA. As such, novelty captures the importance of redesigning and aligning processes to reflect
of this study lies in the data collected from several countries. To our customer centricity. Organizational alignment generally refers to in-
best knowledge, this is the first empirical study that sheds light on the centive systems, training for employees, as well as process re-
CRM-performance link by taking the relative implementation time of engineering and synchronization, all of which maximize customer value
CRM activities, as well as cultural elements, into account. (Kumar & Reinartz, 2006). According to the literature, customer re-
The structure of this paper is as follows: In the next section, we lationships can be effectively managed if the customer management
present the literature review and the development of the hypotheses. part of CRM mirrors the fundamental principle that different customers
We then explain our methodology, including the measure development should be treated differently (Reinartz et al., 2004). A company de-
and the survey-based data collection process. The last section highlights velops effective strategies for the different segments along the customer
the results of our empirical study. We conclude this paper by discussing lifecycle in order to customize its marketing activities according to
the managerial and academic implications of this research and by customer value and needs (Peppers & Rogers, 2004, p. 401). Tech-
providing directions for further research. nology encompasses the degree to which analytical, operative, and
collaborative CRM applications are implemented to collect customer
2. Literature review and research framework information across the touch points and to facilitate information dis-
semination and analysis (Buttle, 2004).
2.1. The CRM concept and its dimensions The recent CRM literature adopts a more comprehensive CRM view
that encompasses the four dimensions (Ernst et al., 2011; Nguyen &
Various authors have proposed diverse conceptualizations of CRM, Mutum, 2012). Our paper focuses on these four dimensions and their
taking the basic premise that companies should develop customer temporal integration for ensuring a successful CRM implementation.
management practices to maximize their value during the relationship's

392
I. Dalla Pozza et al. Journal of Business Research 89 (2018) 391–403

Table 1
CRM dimensions emphasized by CRM conceptualizations as reported in existing literature.

Study CRM dimension

CRM organizational alignment CRM strategy CRM technology CRM customer management

Badgett et al. (2004) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Becker et al. (2009) ✓ ✓ ✓
Ernst et al. (2011) ✓ ✓ ✓
Radcliffe (2001) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Jayachandran, Sharma, Kaufman, and Raman (2005) ✓ ✓ ✓
Kumar, Sunder, and Ramaseshan (2011) ✓
Kumar and Reinartz (2006) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Payne and Frow (2005) ✓ ✓ ✓
Peppers and Rogers (2004) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Reimann et al. (2010) ✓
Reinartz et al. (2004) ✓ ✓ ✓
Rigby et al. (2002) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Ryals (2005) ✓
Winer (2001) ✓

Note: We considered how each study conceptualizes CRM.

2.2. CRM dimensions and performance that the organization requires (Makkonen, Johnston, & Javalgi, 2016;
Reinartz et al., 2004). Furthermore, changing employees' attitude to-
Several papers acknowledge the impact of the strategic, organiza- wards customers definitely requires organizational alignment, which is
tional, customer management, and technological dimensions on CRM mentioned as an important area of change and very necessary for
performance (Cao & Gruca, 2005; Gustafsson et al., 2005; Palmatier building a customer-centric culture, as well as increasing customer
et al., 2007; Rapp, Trainor, & Agnihotri, 2010; Reinartz et al., 2004). value (Chen & Popovich, 2003). As a part of the organizational align-
Reinartz et al. (2004) define CRM as a systematic process for managing ment, employees should be motivated with incentive systems (Reinartz
and improving customer relationship initiation, maintenance, and ter- et al., 2004; Rigby et al., 2002), as well as procedural and continuous
mination across all customer contact points to maximize the value of employee training programs (Greenberg, 2004). Incentive systems help
the customer base. Similarly, Becker et al. (2009) recognize three ob- employees to build quality relationships with customers, while training
jectives of a customer relationship management process: customer ac- conveys the importance of CRM in the effort to build customer value.
quisition, maintenance, and retention. Since CRM is a cross-functional Employees should be empowered to face and solve critical customer
process aimed at improving customer relationships, we posit that CRM problems that can damage the relationship in the long run (Ernst et al.,
and its four dimensions impact positively on customer acquisition, 2011). Processes should be synchronized and reengineered to provide
growth, and loyalty. This is the basis of hypotheses H1a, H1b, H1c, and value for the customers during the relationship's entire lifecycle. Ac-
H1d (Fig. 1). cording to the above premises, we thus posit that:
Several authors recognize the necessity to align the internal orga-
H1a. Organizational alignment, as a dimension of CRM, is positively
nization for ensuring CRM success (Becker et al., 2009; Chen &
related to CRM performance (acquisition, growth, and loyalty).
Popovich, 2003). Organizational alignment, which is necessary for
customer orientation and disseminating customer knowledge within the Technologies refer to analytical, operational, and collaborative
organization (Slater & Narver, 1995) leads to the structural changes systems (Greenberg, 2004) that are used for collecting customer

Conceptual Framework

CRM dimensions CRM performance

organizational alignment acquisition

CRM technology growth

H1

customer management customer loyalty

CRM strategy
implementation

later H2
implementation of
organizational alignment
control variables
time since CRM implementation
company size
industry

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework.

393
I. Dalla Pozza et al. Journal of Business Research 89 (2018) 391–403

information, disseminating customer knowledge across the organiza- 2.3. Relative implementation time for the organizational alignment and
tion, and maximizing customer lifetime value. Analytical CRM enables performance
firms to analyze data and information, and to disseminate the resulting
knowledge throughout the organization. Collaborative CRM, which is Certain authors have reservations about the link between CRM and
used in external operations with customers, facilitates a two-way in- performance, because this link is unclear to them (Krasnikov et al.,
teractive dialogue between the company and its customers. With 2009). Zablah et al. (2004), for instance, request more research to
technology, companies can collect customer information each time that identify the mechanisms through which CRM enhances performance
it interacts with a customer. Operational CRM, which is used in internal and argue that managers do not yet have clear guidance. Similarly,
operations such as sales and marketing, aims at automating activities. Shugan (2005) asserts that the mechanisms through which CRM affects
CRM applications utilize technology innovations, particularly their performance are not well understood.
ability to collect and analyze data on customer patterns, to understand Reimann et al. (2010) point out that recent academic studies report
customer behavior, to develop predictive models, to respond with contradictory and inconclusive findings regarding CRM's effect on
timely and effective customized communications, and to provide prof- performance. Although several studies report a positive relationship
itable customers with customized product and service values. This im- between CRM and performance (Krasnikov et al., 2009; Sin, Tse, & Yim,
proved knowledge can also enhance service recovery efforts and result 2005; Verhoef, 2003), others identify a negative or insignificant re-
in customers having a greater perception of service quality, which can lationship (Reimann et al., 2010; Reinartz et al., 2004; Voss & Voss,
lead to stronger customer relationships. On the basis of the above dis- 2008). Voss and Voss (2008), for instance, found a negative correlation,
cussion, we posit that: which is measured as revenue and expenditure, between CRM and
performance. In a similar vein, Hong-kit Yim, Anderson, and
H1b. CRM technology, as a dimension of CRM, is positively related to
Swaminathan (2004), as well as Reinartz et al. (2004), report mixed
CRM performance (acquisition, growth, and loyalty).
results that depend on the performance metrics and the CRM im-
From a CRM perspective, the allocation of different resources to plementation dimensions. Moreover, the business press, which reports a
different customer tiers is a key customer management goal (Thakur & high failure rate for CRM implementations, claim that approximately
Workman, 2016). The customers' economic value or profitability de- 70% of them result in losses or no bottom line improvement (Gartner
termines their membership (Kumar, Dalla Pozza, Petersen, & Shah, Group, 2003).
2009; Segarra-Moliner & Moliner-Tena, 2016). Then, with the objective Recent research on the link between CRM and performance tried to
of customizing its marketing activities according to customer value and identify the intervening variables that may shed light on the CRM-
needs, the company develops effective strategies for the different seg- performance link. This research investigated, for instance, the med-
ments (Peppers & Rogers, 2004). Customer strategies should also target iating role of the company's main business strategy such as differ-
the different stages of the customer lifecycle (Kumar & Reinartz, 2006). entiation or cost leadership (Reimann et al., 2010) and new product
To summarize: Customer management in CRM implies the development performance, as well as the moderating role of industry characteristics
of different marketing strategies to target distinct customer segments (Sharma & Iyer, 2007).
defined according to their value, needs, and customer lifecycle stages. In this regard, Sharma and Iyer (2007) propose that regional and
An improved customer segmentation based on customer value and cultural heterogeneity are significant factors that determine the CRM
needs, helps to meet the specific demands of individual customers with success. However, their findings reveal contradictory results. Coviello,
quick delivery of customized products and services, thereby keeping an Brodie, Danaher, and Johnston (2002) do not find differences between
eye on the company's profitability goals (Ernst et al., 2011). It also al- services and goods, or between the business-to-business and business-
lows companies to target economically attractive market segments with to-consumer arenas, in the CRM-performance link. Similarly, Reimann
their products, which boosts cross-selling opportunities and customer et al. (2010) draw attention to the effect of CRM on performance in low
relationship growth. All things considered, we argue that, in a CRM and high commodity industries. The authors, however, do not find
process, a higher level of customer management is related to a higher significant differences concerning industry commoditization. Kumar
level of CRM performance across the three stages of the customer re- et al. (2011) highlight the importance of time dynamics in CRM pro-
lationship. jects. They apply the Bass diffusion model to CRM implementations to
capture the learning dynamics over a period of time. Specifically, they
H1c. Customer management, as a dimension of CRM, is positively
take the learning effects between regions into account by using a gen-
related to CRM performance (acquisition, growth, loyalty).
eralized cross-regional diffusion model of CRM technology adoption
Several authors suggest that a successful CRM should incorporate a across regions.
clear customer-oriented strategy (Peppers & Rogers, 2004) which is Our paper aims to supplement this literature by investigating the
supported by the top management. Past studies emphasized the im- intervening variables in the CRM-performance link. We focus specifi-
portance of top management involvement for implementing (Jarvenpaa cally on the relative time according to which the four CRM dimensions
& Ives, 1991; Sabherwal, Jeyaraj, & Chowa, 2006) and strategically are implemented in a company. One of the main initial reasons for the
orientating (Narver & Slater, 1990) a company's CRM. Without top high failure rate of CRM projects is the focus on technology. CRM
management support, CRM risks failure (Elmuti, Jia, & Gray, 2009). A projects tend to fail if technological investment is the only considera-
CRM strategy is necessary for setting clear key customer performance tion with no significant attention to, for instance, a clear definition of
indicators across the company and at every customer touch point the customer-oriented strategy or the employee training effort that is
(Rigby et al., 2002). In addition, it should create a unified view of the necessary to instill a new customer-centric philosophy (Kumar &
customer across the company (Kumar & Reinartz, 2006). This, together Reinartz, 2006). CRM involves the integration of processes and tech-
with customer-oriented goals, allows for a superior customer experi- nologies, and also requires that organization members support the
ence, the end goal of which is improving customer relationships across customer-oriented strategy (Chen & Popovich, 2003). Certain authors
their different phases (Chari, Tarkiainen, & Salojärvi, 2016). We, argue that a clear customer-oriented strategy should precede CRM
therefore, posit that: implementation (Peppers & Rogers, 2004). Similarly, Rigby et al.
(2002), in their well-known critical analysis of the reasons for CRM
H1d. CRM strategy, as a dimension of CRM, is positively related to CRM
project failures, warn managers that CRM can only deliver the expected
performance (acquisition, growth, and loyalty).
results after a customer acquisition and retention strategy has been
conceived and implemented, because “to implement CRM without de-
termining marketing goals would be like trying to build a house without

394
I. Dalla Pozza et al. Journal of Business Research 89 (2018) 391–403

engineering measures or an architectural plan.” produced contradictory findings (Chang et al., 2010). These findings
Based on the above premises and business evidence, we claim that necessitate the identification of mediating or moderating variables that
the relative implementation time of CRM dimensions can impact its affect the mechanism by which CRM can translate into superior busi-
performance. Companies should, therefore, not only learn how to better ness performance. Cultural elements can be one of the moderating
implement CRM, but should also understand that, for a successful CRM, factors. Since the majority of CRM-related studies are being conducted
certain CRM dimensions are necessary building blocks for other di- in Western countries (Chang et al., 2010), as Boulding et al. (2005)
mensions. Learning how to better implement CRM also implies an un- point out, there is a growing need for cross-cultural studies in CRM.
derstanding that certain company changes and CRM dimensions should, Nguyen and Mutum (2012) posit that CRM activities, depending on
as a set of business activities, be prioritized in the overall process. We when and where they are implemented, have differential effects. Chang
specifically argue that a delayed implementation of the organizational et al. (2010) argue that CRM implementations, due to cultural elements,
alignment dimension in relation to the other CRM dimensions has ne- can translate differently into performance.
gative consequences for the success of the entire CRM process. In their study of a Korean setting, Chang et al. (2010) argue that
The service-profit chain literature, which supports this argument, CRM could have a stronger impact on performance in Eastern countries
tries to identify and test the chain of effects that result in company than in Western countries, because Eastern cultures tend to value ex-
profitability, starting with internal service quality (that is, internal isting relationships with firms or contact persons more. Consequently,
quality of work, the employees' level of training, the employees' reward Eastern cultures can improve performance more effectively if CRM is
opportunities, etc.), as well as customer satisfaction and loyalty. The correctly implemented. Their study identified organizational culture as
literature argues that company profits stem from customer loyalty and a major antecedent of CRM technology use. According to Jayachandran
satisfaction, which, in turn, result from the value provided to the cus- et al. (2005), organizational culture influences the objective of firms
tomer (Heskett et al., 2008). This value depends on productivity, in- and the means to accomplish such goals, namely a firm's allocation of
ternal processes, and the employees' quality of work, which, in turn, resources.
depends on the employees' satisfaction and loyalty (Loveman, 1998) In his analysis of CRM in Saudi Arabian companies, Basahel (2016)
and also on the internal service quality (the care taken with employee examines the combined impact of leadership and culture on CRM im-
selection, training, empowerment, and compensation). Based on their plementation, and also the effect of leadership and culture on each
practical experience, Heskett, Sasser, and Schlesinger (1997) point out other. The research finds that leadership plays a very important role in
that customer value depends on process quality, which should exceed CRM implementations in Saudi Arabia, especially because leadership
customer expectations, and also on internal service quality. Companies can also influence culture—especially in high power distance societies
can only provide superior customer value and build strong customer like Saudi Arabia.
relationships with profitable customers after the internal organization Our research aims at extending CRM studies to multiple countries
has been correctly aligned, the processes have been redesigned around and cultures by studying how CRM translates into performance in
the customer, and employees have been trained, empowered, and re- several European countries and also in the USA. In our conceptual
warded for their customer-centric efforts. Therefore, in a customer- model, we compare the inner model relationships between Europe and
centric approach, the service-profit chain paradigm recognizes that the USA to capture and analyze these observed heterogeneity stemming
superior profits result from the centrality and priority of organizational from, for example, cultural differences and different value orientation.
alignment in terms of processes and employees. This comparison is an important contribution, since it also identifies
In his best-seller titled “Employees first, customers second,” Vineet possible differences in CRM implementation in Europe and the USA.
Nayar supports the importance of placing the organization and its
employees at the center of management, which sparked a revolution at 3. Research methodology
HCL, an Indian technology and IT enterprise (Nayar, 2010). By arguing
that the ownership of “change” should be transferred to the employees 3.1. Data collection and sample
in the value zone—frontline employees who are far lower on the hier-
archical pyramid, who deal with customers on a daily basis, and who We conducted a cross-sectional survey in Europe and the USA in
directly create customer value—, the author maintains that any com- order to test our framework and hypotheses on how the relative im-
pany can bring about a fundamental change in the way value is pro- plementation time of CRM dimensions impacts on performance. We
vided to customers by putting its employees first. pre-tested the questionnaire with a sample of forty senior marketing
The firm's customer value-based theory also highlights the priority managers and CRM experts, which resulted in minor changes to the
of organizational alignment in customer-centric strategies. According to wording of the items and instructions on how to answer the ques-
the customer value-based theory (Slater, 1997), which underpins CRM tionnaire.
(Ling-yee, 2011), companies can achieve superior performance if they In order to reach companies with substantial CRM experience, a
have a customer value-based organizational culture and organize letter of invitation was sent to top managers who subscribe to a CRM
themselves according to customer value delivery processes. Internal consultancy company's newsletter, asking them to participate in a CRM
marketing efforts in terms of training and education, reward systems survey on condition that, first, they had substantial experience with
and incentives, internal communication, and employee involvement CRM implementation; second, they had been involved in a top level
should be used to disseminate a customer value-based orientation CRM project; third, they had been involved in a CRM project from its
among the key staff at the organization's interface with its customers inception; and, fourth, they could consult with other people in the
(Zikmund, McLeod, & Gilbert, 2003). Based on the above discussion, we company regarding the survey questions they could not answer. We
highlight the critical role of organizational alignment in CRM processes used a personalized e-mail containing a digital questionnaire to identify
and posit that: and target 1035 potential participants. Having deleted responses with
missing data (e.g., companies with missing data in their performance
H2. A later implementation of organizational alignment within the
metrics), we were left with 350 usable responses. Our sample consists of
entire CRM implementation process is negatively related to CRM
142 responses from Europe and 208 responses from the US, with a good
performance (acquisition, growth, and loyalty).
balance between small and large companies. The industries and number
of respondents are as follows: advertising and marketing services
2.4. Cultural elements, CRM, and performance (n = 46), consulting services (n = 40), financial services and insurance
(n = 44), telecommunication and technology services (n = 60), other
Empirical research that examined the CRM-performance link has services (n = 60), retailing (n = 36), manufacturing, chemical, and

395
I. Dalla Pozza et al. Journal of Business Research 89 (2018) 391–403

pharmaceutical industries (n = 54), and others (n = 10). To assess respondents were asked to indicate the chronological order according
whether our sample differed in the industry distribution when com- to which they implemented the fifteen CRM-related activities (items).
pared to the initial sample, we conducted a χ2 homogeneity test. The These activities represent the four dimensions of the CRM process (e.g.,
results indicate no significant differences in the distribution of the two there are four items for the CRM strategy implementation dimension).
groups. “1” was assigned to the activity implemented first, “2” to the activity
We tested non response bias by comparing the indicator values in implemented second, and so on. The same number was assigned to
respect of the early and late respondents (Armstrong & Overton, 1977). activities that were simultaneously implemented. We averaged the
The data set was divided into quarters according to the number of days rank-order ratings of the items related to one CRM dimension in order
from the initial mailing until receipt of the returned questionnaire. to capture the average implementation time of that dimension. We
Since all our twenty-nine measures showed insignificant (p > .05) created the “relative time of implementation” variable for each CRM
differences between the early and late respondents, we conclude that dimension. Thus, one dimension's lower score of ‘relative time of im-
non response bias is not an issue in our data. We also used Harman's plementation’ indicates an earlier implementation within the im-
single factor test to conduct a statistical check for common method plementation process. In this way, each company was assigned a set of
variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). If common four numbers (see Appendix B).
method bias were a serious issue, a single factor would emerge, or one We measured CRM performance by adapting scale items from the
general factor would account for most of the variance. A principal study by Becker et al. (2009). In order to measure performance, we
component analysis of all the measures yielded eight factors with ei- asked the companies' respondents to estimate the improvement in
genvalues > 1.0. The largest factor accounted for < 25% of the var- customer acquisition, growth, and loyalty since the start of CRM im-
iance. This indicates that common method variance is unlikely to be a plementation. Customer acquisition was measured by two formative in-
major concern in our research model. dicators expressing the improvement in the number of new customers
and regained lost customers (Buttle, 2004). Customer growth comprised
3.2. Measure development and analysis three reflective indicators and encompassed improvements in customer
revenue, customer profits, and customer lifetime value (Kumar &
To test our hypotheses, we developed a structured survey instru- Reinartz, 2006). Finally, customer loyalty was measured by two re-
ment for the companies. We developed our scales based on a literature flective indicators expressing the improvement in customer retention
review and on interviews with CRM experts from academia and prac- and satisfaction. All our performance measures were rated on a five-
tice. Since we were only partially able to rely on existing scales that point scale ranging from “much worse” to “much better.”
cover the intricacies of the CRM context, we had to develop new scales We added an industry composite by using dummy variables to
to account for the range of activities that cover the CRM implementa- control for variances across the different industries. This allowed us to
tion. We conceptualized CRM at the companywide level according to its incorporate the mean differences in the performance measures. We also
four dimensions (Kumar & Reinartz, 2006): organizational alignment, controlled for company size and the period of time since the CRM im-
customer management, technology, and CRM strategy implementation. plementation. Company size was operationalized by two reflective in-
To measure these CRM dimensions, we identified a total of fifteen dicators measuring the number of employees and annual revenues. The
items, which reflect activities necessary for a firm to be considered as period of time since the CRM implementation was measured in years
implementing CRM on a company-wide level. We measured the CRM that have passed since commencement of the implementation.
strategy implementation dimension by using four reflective items that We conducted principal component analyses and tested for com-
capture top management involvement, performance management, the posite reliability to check the reliability and validity of the reflective
implementation of a comprehensive view of the customer across the constructs. Principal component analyses confirmed that our factor
company, and customers' experience. This dimension accounts for the structure and composite reliability, ranging from 0.78 to 0.97, corro-
extent to which the CRM strategy is incorporated into the management borate the appropriateness all the reflective constructs. Since our for-
of the company. It particularly reflects top management involvement in mative measurement model is based on linear equation systems, we had
the customer strategy definition (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990). This di- to ensure that the collinearity between the formative indicators did not
mension also implies that customer-oriented metrics are defined at the affect the stability of the indicator coefficient. As a result, our calcu-
outset of the CRM project (Newell, 2003), that a comprehensive view of lation of the variance inflation factors was well below the common cut-
the customer is created across the entire organization, and that a off figure of three, thus indicating no harmful collinearity between the
company focuses on its customers' experiences (Meyer & Schwager, indicators. Finally, we assessed the discriminant validity based on the
2007). criterion proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The results indicate
The organizational alignment dimension consists of four reflective that discriminant validity is not an issue. Table 2 shows the means and
items and involves people and processes (Chen & Popovich, 2003). The average variance extracted (AVE) from the constructs, as well as the
processes should be specifically redesigned and aligned with the cus- correlations between them. The variance inflation factors (VIF ≤ 2.32
tomer-centric philosophy. People should be appropriately trained for all exogenous measurement models) show no signs of multi-
(Ruekert, 1992) and empowerment should be considered. Incentives collinearity issue. Appendix A lists our scale items, as well as the re-
and rewards should be redesigned and aligned with the CRM strategy levant figures proving that they meet the quality requirements.
(Deshpande & Webster Jr., 1989; Ruekert, 1992).
Customer management was measured by using four reflective items, 3.3. PLS path modeling
which reflect customer differentiation according to their value (Niraj,
Gupta, & Narasimhan, 2001) and needs, and also according to the im- In order to test H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d and H2, we used partial least
plementation of different actions for different customers during the squares (PLS) path modeling by means of SmartPLS 2.0 (Grewal, Cote,
customer lifecycle (Peppers & Rogers, 2004). Our technology dimension & Baumgartner, 2004; Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2005). This analysis aims
consists of three reflective items and encompasses the degree to which at simultaneously testing the direct impact that the four CRM dimen-
analytical, operative, and collaborative CRM applications are im- sion implementation levels, as well as the relative implementation time
plemented (Buttle, 2004; Jayachandran et al., 2005). A principal of the organizational alignment within the implementation process,
component analysis confirms the four factor structure. Appendix A have on CRM performance (Hendricks, Singhal, & Stratman, 2007).
provides a list of our fifteen items. In order to capture the different objectives of CRM implementations,
A later implementation of the CRM dimensions within the CRM we measured CRM performance with three measurement models: (1)
process was measured by using a rank-order rating scale. The customer acquisition, (2) customer growth, and (3) customer loyalty.

396
I. Dalla Pozza et al. Journal of Business Research 89 (2018) 391–403

Table 2
Descriptive statistics: means, correlations, and AVEs.

Mean AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Organizational alignment 2.64 0.63

2. CRM technology 2.85 0.62 0.53⁎⁎
3. Customer management 2.86 0.57 0.67⁎⁎ 0.65⁎⁎
4. CRM strategy implementation 3.03 0.54 0.61⁎⁎ 0.55⁎⁎ 0.64⁎⁎
5. Later implementation of organizational alignment (1) 4.11 – −0.03 −0.04 −0.06 0.05
6. Company size 4.04 0.95 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.07
7. Time 2.41 – 0.30⁎⁎ 0.26⁎⁎ 0.41⁎⁎ 0.05 −0.05
8. Acquisition 3.86 – 0.28⁎⁎ 0.19⁎ 0.22⁎⁎ 0.19⁎ −0.03 −0.07 0.13
9. Growth 3.75 0.76 0.17⁎⁎ 0.21⁎⁎ 0.13 0.25⁎⁎⁎ −0.14 −0.02 0.12 0.41⁎⁎
10. Customer loyalty 3.77 0.64 0.29⁎⁎⁎ 0.37⁎⁎⁎ 0.33⁎⁎⁎ 0.32⁎⁎⁎ −0.07 −0.11 0.11 0.53⁎⁎ 0.59⁎⁎

Notes: (1) ‘relative time of implementation’ for each CRM dimension.

⁎⁎⁎
p < .01.
⁎⁎
p < .05.
⁎
p < .10.

PLS estimation was chosen for a number of reasons. First, one of our technology and customer acquisition (β = 0.19, p < .1), growth
performance measurements (customer acquisition) is a formative (β = 0.30, p < .05), and customer loyalty (β = 0.30, p < .01), and
measurement. Second, PLS shows estimates for multiple individual item between CRM technology and customer loyalty (β = 0.23, p < .1) in
loadings and weights, not in isolation, but in the context of a theore- the USA. Our date does not corroborate H1c, because we do not find
tically specified model (White, Varadarajan, & Dacin, 2003). Third, if significant positive relationships between customer management and
the sample size is relatively small, as in our study, PLS is preferred to our performance measures. However, we find partial support for H1d,
maximum likelihood estimation approaches. In our opinion, PLS is, in which we posit that CRM strategy implementation has a positive
therefore, an appropriate estimation technique for our purposes. We impact on performance. In the USA, the effect of CRM strategy im-
also capture the observed heterogeneity between Europe and the USA plementation on performance is significant and positive concerning
for the inner model, while keeping the outer model relationships (i.e., growth (β = 0.35, p < .01) and loyalty (β = 0.34, p < .01).
measurement models) for the two groups constant to perform a multi- Analyzing the relative implementation time of the CRM dimensions
group analysis. aimed at verifying H2. We find that a later implementation of the or-
ganizational alignment dimension has a significant and negative effect
4. Analysis and results on customer acquisition (β = −0.26, p < .01) and customer loyalty
(β = −0.14, p < .1) in Europe, and on customer growth (β = −0.22,
Table 3 shows the beta coefficients, as well as the significance of the p < .05) in the USA, but not to the same extent.
structural model, in conjunction with the coefficient of determination Our results show significant differences in the impact of CRM im-
R2 of our three CRM performances as indicated by the PLS analysis for plementation on performance in Europe and the USA. We, therefore,
Europe and the USA. We used a bootstrapping routine to determine the did a multi-group analysis with PLS for the inner model relationships by
stability and significance of the parameter estimates and we calculated keeping all indicator loadings and weights constant for both groups. We
the t-values based on 500 bootstrapping runs. Our R2 values range from used the bootstrapping routine based on 500 bootstrapping runs to
0.12 for customer growth to 0.26 for customer loyalty in Europe, and calculate the t-values for the differences in the structural relationships.
from 0.11 for customer acquisition, to 0.30 for customer loyalty in the Table 3 shows that the positive relationship between organizational
USA. The predictive relevance of the model was tested by means of the alignment and customer loyalty is much stronger in Europe than in the
Stone-Geisser test (Q2). The Q2 values of the three performance mea- USA. These differences highlight the importance—only in Europe—of
sures are positive (Europe: 0.23 for customer acquisition, 0.13 for customer-focused behavior and processes to maximize customer value,
customer growth, and 0.26 for customer loyalty; USA: 0.10 for cus- increase customer satisfaction, and keep customers loyal to the com-
tomer acquisition, 0.24 for customer growth, and 0.30 for customer pany. Although CRM strategy implementation is the strongest driver of
loyalty) and indicate a sufficient level of predictive relevance (Fornell & CRM performance in the USA, we do not find any significant relation-
Bookstein, 1982). We also included control variables for the type of ship in Europe. A possible explanation for this finding is, that American
industry, the period of time since the CRM implementation, and the companies have deeper insight into customer needs and wants and
company size. We find significant relationships between the industry constantly better CRM technology in place to share a unified view of the
composite and acquisition in Europe (β = −0.20, p < .1), and be- customer across the entire company. As a result, these companies have
tween the industry composite and acquisition (β = −0.11, p < .1), better systems in place and benefit from top management involvement,
growth (β = −0.26, p < .01), and customer loyalty (β = −0.28, which highlights how important CRM activities and achieving customer
p < .01) in the USA. No significant effects are found for the period of metrics are to them. Finally, a later implementation of the organiza-
time since the CRM implementation and the performance measures. We tional alignment dimension has a more significant negative impact on
also find that company size has a significant negative effect on acqui- customer acquisition in Europe than in the USA. This highlights that the
sition (β = −0.20, p < .05) and customer loyalty (β = −0.25, interplay between the implementation of different CRM dimensions is
p < .05) in Europe. much more important for acquiring new or regaining lost customers in
H1a proposes, in more detail, that there is a positive relationship Europe than in the USA.
between organizational alignment and acquisition, growth as well as Since we find that organizational alignment does not have a sig-
loyalty. The hypothesis is partially supported, because we find a sig- nificant direct relationship with growth, but that growth has a sig-
nificant positive effect related to customer acquisition (β = 0.31, nificant relationship with the relative implementation time of organi-
p < .05) and customer loyalty (β = 0.25, p < .1) in Europe, and zational alignment, we examine the mean values of the implementation
customer acquisition (β = 0.28, p < .05) in the USA. Concerning the time. Based on this examination, we conclude that the organizational
positive effect of CRM technology on performance (H1b) as postulated, alignment activities in our full sample are, on average, implemented
we find significant and positive relationships in Europe between CRM later (mean value: 4.11) than the other critical CRM dimensions (such

397
I. Dalla Pozza et al. Journal of Business Research 89 (2018) 391–403

Table 3
Results of hypotheses tests.

Hypothesized path Hypothesis Proposed Standardized path coefficient Standardized path coefficient t-Values of multi group
direction for Europe for the USA comparison

Organizational alignment → acquisition H1a + 0.31⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎ 0.14

Organizational alignment → growth H1a + 0.20 0.00 0.82
Organizational alignment → customer loyalty H1a + 0.25⁎ −0.09 1.71
CRM technology → acquisition H1b + 0.19⁎ 0.02 0.68
CRM technology → growth H1b + 0.30⁎⁎ 0.05 1.13
CRM technology → customer loyalty H1b + 0.30⁎⁎ 0.23⁎ 1.71
Customer management → acquisition H1c + −0.11 −0.18 0.23
Customer management → growth H1c + −0.33⁎⁎ −0.13 0.71
Customer management → customer loyalty H1c + −0.03 0.00 0.10
CRM strategy implementation → acquisition H1d + −0.12 0.13 1.02
CRM strategy implementation → growth H1d + 0.05 0.35⁎⁎⁎ 1.46
CRM strategy implementation → customer loyalty H1d + −0.04 0.34⁎⁎⁎ 2.01
Later implementation of organizational H2 − −0.26⁎⁎⁎ 0.09 0.14
alignment → acquisition
Later implementation of organizational H2 − −0.12 −0.22⁎⁎ 0.82
alignment → growth
Later implementation of organizational H2 − −0.14⁎ −0.04 1.71
alignment → customer loyalty

Control variables
Industries
Industries → acquisition −0.20⁎ −0.11⁎ 0.65
Industries → growth −0.05 −0.26⁎⁎⁎ 1.50
Industries → customer loyalty −0.13 −0.28⁎⁎⁎ 1.18
Period of time since CRM implementation
Period of time since CRM implementation → 0.09 0.08 0.06
acquisition
Period of time since CRM implementation → 0.03 0.09 0.44
growth
Period of time since CRM implementation → −0.12 0.07 1.27
customer loyalty
Company size
Company size → acquisition −0.20⁎⁎ 0.04 1.58
Company size → growth −0.11 0.11 1.42
Company size → customer loyalty −0.25⁎⁎ 0.00 1.75
R2 (CRM performance: acquisition) 0.24 0.11
R2 (CRM performance: growth) 0.12 0.21
R2 (CRM performance: customer loyalty) 0.26 0.30

n (Europe) = 142 and n (USA) = 208. Note: We calculated the standard error estimates and t-values by means of a bootstrapping routine with 500 samples.
⁎⁎⁎
p < .01.
⁎⁎
p < .05.
⁎
p < .10 (one-tailed).

as customer management (mean value: 3.58) and CRM strategy im- has an effect on CRM performance. We do not find significant re-
plementation (mean value: 3.12)). We acknowledge that the customer lationships between a later implementation of the remaining three CRM
management activities were implemented, on average, before the or- dimensions and CRM performance. This proves that, of all the CRM
ganizational alignment activities. This could mean that the employees dimensions, the organizational alignment dimension is of utmost im-
had to implement customer management actions without appropriate portance in the overall CRM process.
training or an incentive system, and that they lacked the necessary We also estimated a full model, which includes the effects of later
motivation to obtain the required results. Since companies have dif- implementations of all four CRM dimensions, to further validate if our
ferent development approaches for quantitative models aimed at nested model results—of how a later implementation of organizational
managing customer acquisition, growth, and loyalty, and since these alignment affects CRM performance—are robust when controlling for
different activities are often managed by different departments and the other CRM dimensions' time of implementation. Our results show
divisions in the organization, coordination problems, which do not that the estimates and their significance are robust in all analyses. We
create customer value, can arise. Similarly, companies may not have the can, thus, argue that organizational alignment is particularly critical in
right skills, due to a lack of training, to process large amounts of cus- a CRM process and that it requires a higher priority.
tomer data, which can be used to increase profits.
In view of our objective, which is to study how the implementation
time of the organizational alignment dimension relates to the other 5. Discussion
CRM dimensions and CRM performance, we performed additional
analyses to investigate the robustness of our results. The primary ob- This paper contributes to existing research on the link between CRM
jective of these further analyses are to deepen our knowledge about and performance. It explains how to interpret CRM performance with
how a later implementation of organizational alignment affects CRM reference to the relative time of implementation of CRM dimensions.
performance compared to implementation effects of the other CRM Rigby et al. (2002) provide recommendations for prioritizing several
dimensions. We therefore investigated, in separate models, if a later CRM activities, but we maintain that special attention should be paid
implementation of the CRM customer management dimension, CRM and priority given to the development and integration of activities that
strategy implementation dimension, and CRM technology dimension are related to the organizational alignment dimension, the delayed
implementation of which—compared to the implementation of the

398
I. Dalla Pozza et al. Journal of Business Research 89 (2018) 391–403

other CRM dimensions—has a negative effect on performance. The Our most interesting and relevant findings result from the study of a
current literature describes the practice that CRM processes are pre- delay in the implementation of the organizational alignment dimension.
sently often implemented in steps and in subsequent activity groups. Our results show that, compared to the other CRM dimensions, a later
Building on this consideration, our paper emphasizes the importance of implementation of the organizational alignment dimension has a ne-
prioritizing organizational activities to boost CRM performance. When gative effect on our three performance measures. A dominant focus on
companies decide in which area they should invest first in order to technology and especially a delayed implementation of the activities
build a successful CRM process, they should, taking budget constraints that are necessary to align processes and people according to the CRM
into consideration, prioritize the organizational alignment dimension. objectives, are some of the main reasons for CRM project failure. These
Our findings are aligned with those of Reinartz et al. (2004) and Becker activities require time to deliver positive results—hence, the necessity
et al. (2009), who claim that it does not suffice to implement CRM to consider these activities in the early stages of CRM implementation.
activities and to merely hope they will directly affect performance. The importance of organizational alignment aligns with the current
Companies should pay attention to their integration over a period of literature, which emphasizes the “employees first, customers second”
time. paradigm (Nayar, 2010) for a successful customer-oriented strategy.
Our paper gives several managerial insights. First, and in line with The role of the relative implementation time may help to explain the
Becker et al. (2009), our results show that CRM implementations do not ambiguity of CRM effects on performance as stated in the current lit-
equally address the areas of customer acquisition, growth, and loyalty, erature. For instance, Reinartz et al. (2004) find that CRM-compatible
since this clearly depends on company objectives and also on geo- organizational alignment has no direct effect on performance and that
graphical, environmental, and cultural differences. technology has a negative direct effect. We speculate that the incorrect
Regarding customer acquisition, we find that only organizational prioritization of implementation activities, with technology im-
alignment and CRM technology are crucial for acquiring new customers plementation favored above organizational alignment, may explain this
and regaining lost ones. The weak significance of this performance unexpected finding. This was a common mistake in earlier CRM im-
measure is consistent with the answers from our sample, which show plementation, according to Reinartz et al. (2004).
that companies mainly implement CRM to increase their revenue and
stimulate customer growth (30% of the sample), and also to improve
customer loyalty (29%). A smaller percentage (only 17% of the sample) 6. Limitations and conclusion
alleges that they implement CRM to improve customer acquisition. This
finding is consistent with Ko, Kim, Kim, and Woo (2008) who find that Our study is limited in several respects and, therefore, further
the encouragement of repurchase is one of the most frequently men- avenues for research are possible. First, we use single informant reports
tioned benefits of CRM. Thus, although the literature stated that it is a to identify the independent and dependent variables. Although our
mistake to treat CRM and customer acquisition as separate activities results do not reveal any common method bias issues, future research
(Verhoef & Langerak, 2002), our sample clearly shows that companies should validate our findings by using multiple data sources. Second, we
prefer to focus on growth and loyalty in their CRM implementations. relied on cross-sectional data to analyze the impact of the im-
Moreover, concerning the different impacts on performance in plementation sequence on performance outcomes. Future research
Europe and the USA, we find that the organizational alignment di- should focus on analyzing this issue from a longitudinal perspective.
mension (including the time of its implementation in relation to the Third, although our interviews with CRM experts do not indicate en-
other CRM dimensions), the customer management dimension, and the dogeneity issues concerning the relationship between a later im-
CRM technology dimension are the main drivers of CRM performance plementation of organizational alignment and CRM performance, fur-
in Europe, whereas the CRM strategy implementation and organiza- ther studies need to investigate the time dynamics and contingencies of
tional alignment (including the time of its implementation in relation to these variables. Despite these limitations, our study makes an important
the other CRM dimensions) are the key factors in the USA. Based on contribution to the literature regarding the role that the CRM dimen-
post hoc interviews with CRM experts, as well as ex post rationaliza- sions' relative time implementation plays in CRM performance. This
tions, we can give a reasonable explanation for these unexpected study specifically contributes to the literature (1) by confirming that
findings. On the one hand, a review of our responding firms shows that CRM dimensions do not contribute equally to customer acquisition,
European companies have little experiences with CRM processes and growth, and customer loyalty; and (2) by demonstrating that, compared
technologies. They have just started to shift their emphasis towards a to other CRM dimensions, a later implementation of organizational
more pronounced market-oriented perspective. We speculate that cus- alignment lessens performance significantly. The insignificant effect of
tomer managements' negative impact on CRM performance in such the customer management dimension on CRM performance specifically
companies is simply an effect of firms in transition—particularly in requires further investigation. Future research on the adoption and
three ways: from function to process, from an isolated to a cross-func- implementation of customer management activities in different de-
tional activity, and from an operational to a strategic activity partments with customer contact (e.g., the sales or the research and
(Storbacka, Ryals, Davies, & Nenonen, 2009). On the other hand, our development departments) would be valuable. Finally, our findings
interviewees reveal that an earlier implementation of CRM technology, support the notion that distinct CRM dimensions should not be seen in
such as the USA in our dataset, can help companies to set their cus- isolation, but in their overall orchestration: The relative time of im-
tomer-oriented metrics more accurately for CRM projects and to better plementing CRM activities can, therefore, affect CRM performance. In
understand their customers' needs from different functional perspec- this regard, our study suggests that future research should consider the
tives. We, therefore, speculate, that companies in the USA are better at temporal integration of complex process dimensions to investigate the
defining and implementing a CRM strategy. synergies in their order over a period of time.

399
I. Dalla Pozza et al. Journal of Business Research 89 (2018) 391–403

Appendix A

Constructs measurement items

Construct Loading/ Composite

weights reliability
• Measure
CRM strategy implementation (5 = strongly agree, 0 = strongly disagree) 0.82
• The top management is involved in the definition of the customer-oriented strategy at the company level, but 0.82***
not at the departmental level (top management involvement)
• The company created objectives and set customer-oriented metrics for the CRM project, such as retention, 0.80***
acquisition rate, customer satisfaction (performance management)
• The company created a unified view of the customer across the enterprise with the creation of a shared data 0.74***
warehouse (data strategy)
• The company focuses on the customer's experience 0.54***
Organizational alignment (5 = strongly agree, 0 = strongly disagree) 0.87
• Processes have been synchronized to maximize value for the customer (process synchronization) 0.60***
• Processes have been reengineered and aligned with the customer-based objectives (process reengineering) 0.77***
• Employees have been trained and coached to maximize value for the customer (training) 0.90***
• Incentives and rewards have been defined to empower customer- focused behavior (empowerment) 0.86***
Customer management (5 = strongly agree, 0 = strongly disagree) 84
• Customers have been tiered according to their value for the enterprise (differentiation by value) 0.79***
• Customers have been grouped according to their needs (differentiation by needs) 0.74***
• We have introduced customer portfolio (segment) managers (customer portfolio managers) 0.76***
• We have implemented different strategies for the different stages of the customer lifecycle (acquisition, 0.72***
growth and retention) (lifecycle management)

Construct Loading/ Composite

weights reliability
• Measure
CRM technology (5 = strongly agree, 0 = strongly disagree) 0.83
• We have implemented applications such as data warehousing, analytics, knowledge management, and 0.77***
business intelligence, OLAP (Analytical CRM)
• We have implemented applications such as campaign management, sales force automation, call center 0.82***
optimization, and incentive management (Operational CRM)
• We have implemented applications such as content management, personalization, mobile CRM solutions, web 0.78***
site implementation (Collaborational CRM)
Acquisition (5 = much better, 1 = much worse), scale items adapted from Becker et al. (2009) –
• Number of new customers 0.66*
• Number of regained customers 0.62*
Growth (5 = much better, 1 = much worse), scale items adapted from Becker et al. (2009) 0.91
• Lifetime value 0.86***
• Profitability 0.88***
• Revenue per customer 0.88***
Customer loyalty (5 = much better, 1 = much worse),scale items adapted from Becker et al. (2009) 0.78
• Retention 0.81***
• Satisfaction 0.79***
Company size (ordinal scales with intervals) 0.97
• Number of employees 0.98***
• Annual revenues 0.97***
Note: *** p < .01 (one-tailed)

Appendix B

The variable “later implementation of organizational alignment”

Here we describe how the variable “later implementation of organizational alignment” was developed. The respondents to our questionnaire
received a list, in table form, of the items that make up the CRM dimensions (for the full list of items, please refer to the fifteen items listed in
Appendix A that make up the four CRM dimensions: CRM strategy implementation, organizational alignment, customer management, CRM tech-
nology). Each item corresponds to a CRM activity.

1. The respondents were asked to indicate the chronological order in which they implemented each CRM activity (item). “1” was assigned to the
activity implemented first, ‘2’ to the activity implemented second, and so on. Since we have fifteen items (activities), it was possible to assign

400
I. Dalla Pozza et al. Journal of Business Research 89 (2018) 391–403

numbers from ‘1’ to ‘15’. The same number was assigned to activities implemented simultaneously. See Table 4 for an example with some
extracted items

Table 4
Respondents assign order to CRM activities (items).

Item Rank order assigned by

respondent

Processes have been synchronized to maximize value for the customer (process synchronization) 5
Processes have been reengineered and aligned with the customer-based objectives (process reengineering) 4
Employees have been trained and coached to maximize value for the customer (training) 6
Incentives and rewards have been defined to empower customer-focused behavior (empowerment) 3
We have implemented applications such as data warehousing, analytics, knowledge management, and business 1
intelligence, OLAP (Analytical CRM)
We have implemented applications such as campaign management, sales force automation, call center 1
optimization, and incentive management (Operational CRM)
We have implemented applications such as content management, personalization, mobile CRM solutions, web site 2
implementation (Collaborational CRM)
…

2. From Table 4, we extracted the items that correspond to each CRM dimension.
3. We averaged the rank-order ratings of the items related to each CRM dimension in order to capture the average time of that dimension's
implementation. We created the variable ‘relative time of implementation’ for each CRM dimension. See Table 5 for an example.

Table 5
Creation of the ‘relative time of implementation’ variable.

CRM dimension Item Average time of implementation

variable

Organizational Processes have been synchronized to maximize value for the customer (process 4,51
alignment synchronization)
Processes have been reengineered and aligned with the customer-based objectives
(process reengineering) Value of the ‘later implementation of
Employees have been trained and coached to maximize value for the customer organizational alignment’ variable
(training)
Incentives and rewards have been defined to empower customer focused behavior
(empowerment)
CRM technology We have implemented applications such as data warehousing, analytics, knowledge 2,33
management, and business intelligence, OLAP (Analytical CRM)
We have implemented applications such as campaign management, sales force
automation, call center optimization, and incentive management (Operational
CRM)
We have implemented applications such as content management, personalization,
mobile CRM solutions, web site implementation (Collaborational CRM)
Customer … 3.58
management
CRM strategy … 3.93
implementa-
tion

4. From Table 5, it is possible to see that for this company, on the average, the dimension ‘CRM technology’ was implemented earlier that the
‘organizational alignment’ dimension.

References Varadarajan, R. (2006). CRM implementation: Effectiveness issues and insights.

Journal of Service Research, 9(2), 184–194.
Boulding, W., Staelin, R., Ehret, M., & Johnston, W. J. (2005). A customer relationship
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. management roadmap: What is known, potential pitfalls, and where to go. Journal of
Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402. Marketing, 69(October), 155–166.
Badgett, M., Ballou, S., & LaValle, S. (2004). Doing CRM right: What it takes to be successful Buttle, F. (2004). Customer relationship management: Concepts and tools. Oxford: Elsevier.
with CRM. Somers, NY: IBM Business Consulting Services. Cao, Y., & Gruca, T. S. (2005). Reducing adverse selection through customer relationship
Basahel, S. (2016). The effect of organisational culture and leadership on CRM implementation management. Journal of Marketing, 69(October), 219–229.
in Saudi Arabian organisations (Doctoral dissertation)Brunel University London. Chang, W., Park, J. E., & Chaiy, S. (2010). How does CRM technology transform into
Becker, J. U., Greve, G., & Albers, S. (2009). The impact of technological and organiza- organizational performance? A mediating role of marketing capability. Journal of
tional implementation of CRM on customer acquisition, maintenance, and retention. Business Research, 63(8), 849–855.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(3), 207–215. Chang, H. H., Wong, K. H., & Fang, P. W. (2014). The effects of customer relationship
Bohling, T., Bowman, D., LaValle, S., Mittal, V., Narayandas, D., Ramani, G., & management relational information processes on customer-based performance.

401
I. Dalla Pozza et al. Journal of Business Research 89 (2018) 391–403

Decision Support Systems, 66, 146–159. Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business
Chari, S., Tarkiainen, A., & Salojärvi, H. (2016). Alternative pathways to utilizing cus- profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(October), 20–35.
tomer knowledge: A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Business Nayar, V. (2010). Employees first, customers second: Turning conventional management upside
Research, 69(11), 5494–5499. down. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Chen, I. J., & Popovich, K. (2003). Understanding customer relationship management Newell, F. (2003). Why CRM doesn't work: How to win by letting customers manage the
(CRM): People, process and technology. Business Process Management Journal, 9(5), relationship. Princeton: Bloomberg Press.
672–688. Nguyen, B., & Mutum, D. S. (2012). A review of customer relationship management:
Chen, J. H., & Wu, S. I. (2016). The impact of customer relationship management and Successes, advances, pitfalls and futures. Business Process Management Journal, 18(3),
internal marketing on business performance: A comparison of lodging industries. 400–419.
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 27(1–2), 17–33. Niraj, R., Gupta, M., & Narasimhan, C. (2001). Customer profitability in a supply chain.
Coviello, N. E., Brodie, R. J., Danaher, P. J., & Johnston, W. J. (2002). How firms relate to Journal of Marketing, 65(3), 1–16.
their markets: An empirical examination of contemporary marketing practices. Palmatier, R. W., Scheer, L. K., Houston, M. B., Evans, K. R., & Gopalakrishna, S. (2007).
Journal of Marketing, 66(July), 33–46. Use of relationship marketing programs in building customer–salesperson and cus-
Day, G. S. (2003). Creating a superior customer-relating capability. MIT Sloan tomer–firm relationships: Differential influences on financial outcomes. International
Management Review, 44(3), 77–82. Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 210–223.
Day, G. S., & Van den Bulte, C. (2002). Superiority in customer relationship management: Payne, A., & Frow, P. (2005). A strategic framework for customer relationship manage-
Consequences for competitive advantage and performance. Cambridge MA: Marketing ment. Journal of Marketing, 69(October), 167–176.
Science Institute. Peppers, D., & Rogers, M. (2004). Managing customer relationships. A strategic framework.
Deshpande, R., & Webster, F. E., Jr. (1989). Organizational culture and marketing: New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons (516 pp.).
Defining the research agenda. Journal of Marketing, 53(January), 3–15. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
Elmuti, D., Jia, H., & Gray, D. (2009). Customer relationship management strategic ap- biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
plication and organizational effectiveness: An empirical investigation. Journal of remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Strategic Marketing, 17(1), 75–96. Radcliffe, J. (2001). Eight building blocks of CRM: A framework for success. Gartner
Ernst, H., Hoyer, W. D., Krafft, M., & Krieger, K. (2011). Customer relationship man- Research, 13, 1–4.
agement and company performance - The mediating role of new product perfor- Rapp, A., Trainor, K. J., & Agnihotri, R. (2010). Performance implications of customer-
mance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 290–306. linking capabilities: Examining the complementary role of customer orientation and
Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS CRM technology. Journal of Business Research, 63(11), 1229–1236.
applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440–452. Reimann, M., Schilke, O., & Thomas, J. S. (2010). Customer relationship management and
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un- firm performance: The mediating role of business strategy. Journal of the Academy of
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), Marketing Science, 38(3), 326–346.
39–50. Reinartz, W., Krafft, M., & Hoyer, W. D. (2004). The customer relationship management
Gartner Group (2003). CRM success is in strategy and implementation. Not Software. process: Its measurement and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing Research,
Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com. 41(3), 293–305.
Greenberg, P. (2004). CRM at the speed of light: Essential customer strategies for the 21st Reinartz, W., Thomas, J. S., & Kumar, V. (2005). Balancing acquisition and retention
century (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. resources to maximize customer profitability. Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 63–79.
Grewal, R., Cote, J. A., & Baumgartner, H. (2004). Multicollinearity and measurement Richards, K. A., & Jones, E. (2008). Customer relationship management: Finding value
error in structural equation models: Implications for theory testing. Marketing Science, drivers. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(2), 120–130.
23(4), 519–529. Rigby, D. K., Reichheld, F. F., & Schefter, P. (2002). Avoid the four perils of CRM. Harvard
Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M. D., & Roos, I. (2005). The effects of customer satisfaction, Business Review, 80(2), 101–109.
relationship commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer retention. Journal of Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0. Hamburg. Germany: SmartPLS.
Marketing, 69(October), 210–218. Ruekert, R. W. (1992). Developing a market orientation: An organizational strategy
Hendricks, K. B., Singhal, V. R., & Stratman, J. K. (2007). The impact of enterprise sys- perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 9(3), 225–245.
tems on corporate performance: A study of ERP, SCM, and CRM system im- Ryals, L. (2005). Making customer relationship management work: The measurement and
plementations. Journal of Operations Management, 25(1), 65–82. profitable management of customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 69(October),
Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Loveman, G. W., Sasser, W. E., Jr., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). 252–261.
Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 118–129. Sabherwal, R., Jeyaraj, A., & Chowa, C. (2006). Information system success: Individual
Heskett, J. L., Sasser, W. E., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1997). The service profit chain: How and organizational determinants. Management Science, 52(12), 1849–1864.
leading companies link profit and growth to loyalty, satisfaction and value. New York: Santouridis, I., & Veraki, A. (2017). Customer relationship management and customer
Free Press. satisfaction: The mediating role of relationship quality. Total Quality Management and
Hong-kit Yim, F., Anderson, R. E., & Swaminathan, S. (2004). Customer relationship Business Excellence, 28(9–10), 1122–1132.
management: Its dimensions and effect on customer outcomes. Journal of Personal Segarra-Moliner, J. R., & Moliner-Tena, M.Á. (2016). Customer equity and CLV in Spanish
Selling & Sales Management, 24(4), 263–278. telecommunication services. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4694–4705.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Ives, B. (1991). Executive involvement and participation in the Sharma, A., & Iyer, G. R. (2007). Country effects on CRM success. Journal of Relationship
management of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 15(2), 205–227. Marketing, 5(4), 63–78.
Jayachandran, S., Sharma, S., Kaufman, P., & Raman, P. (2005). The role of relational Shugan, S. M. (2005). Brand loyalty programs: Are they shams? Marketing Science, 24(2),
information processes and technology use in customer relationship management. 185–193.
Journal of Marketing, 69(October), 177–192. Sin, L. Y., Tse, A. C., & Yim, F. H. (2005). CRM: Conceptualization and scale development.
Keramati, A., Mehrabi, H., & Mojir, N. (2010). A process-oriented perspective on cus- European Journal of Marketing, 39(11/12), 1264–1290.
tomer relationship management and organizational performance: An empirical in- Slater, S. F. (1997). Developing a customer value-based theory of the firm. Journal of the
vestigation. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(7), 1170–1185. Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 162–167.
Ko, E., Kim, S. H., Kim, M., & Woo, J. Y. (2008). Organizational characteristics and the Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization.
CRM adoption process. Journal of Business Research, 61(1), 65–74. Journal of Marketing, 59(July), 63–74.
Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research pro- Storbacka, K., Ryals, L., Davies, I. A., & Nenonen, S. (2009). The changing role of sales:
positions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(April), 1–18. Viewing sales as a strategic, cross-functional process. European Journal of Marketing,
Krasnikov, A., Jayachandran, S., & Kumar, V. (2009). The impact of customer relationship 43(7/8), 890–906.
management implementation on cost and profit efficiencies: Evidence from the U.S. Thakur, R., & Workman, L. (2016). Customer portfolio management (CPM) for improved
commercial banking industry. Journal of Marketing, 73(November), 61–76. customer relationship management (CRM): Are your customers platinum, gold,
Kumar, V., Dalla Pozza, I., Petersen, J. A., & Shah, D. (2009). Reversing the logic: The silver, or bronze? Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4095–4102.
path to profitability through relationship marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, Verhoef, P. C. (2003). Understanding the effect of customer relationship management
23(2), 147–156. efforts on customer retention and customer share development. Journal of Marketing,
Kumar, V., & Reinartz, W. J. (2006). Customer relationship management: A databased ap- 67(October), 30–45.
proach. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Verhoef, P. C., & Langerak, F. (2002). Eleven misconceptions about customer relationship
Kumar, V., Sunder, S., & Ramaseshan, B. (2011). Analyzing the diffusion of global cus- management. Business Strategy Review, 13(4), 70–76.
tomer relationship management: A cross-regional modeling framework. Journal of Voss, G. B., & Voss, Z. G. (2008). Competitive density and the customer acquisition–re-
International Marketing, 19(1), 23–39. tention trade-off. Journal of Marketing, 72(6), 3–18.
Law, A. K. Y., Ennew, C. T., & Mitussis, D. (2013). Adoption of customer relationship White, J. C., Varadarajan, P. R., & Dacin, P. A. (2003). Market situation interpretation and
management in the service sector and its impact on performance. Journal of response: The role of cognitive style, organizational culture, and information use.
Relationship Marketing, 12(4), 301–330. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 63–79.
Ling-yee, L. (2011). Marketing metrics' usage: Its predictors and implications for customer Wilson, H., Daniel, E., & McDonald, M. (2002). Factors for success in customer re-
relationship management. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(1), 139–148. lationship management (CRM) systems. Journal of Marketing Management, 18(1–2),
Loveman, G. W. (1998). Employee satisfaction, customer loyalty, and financial perfor- 193–219.
mance. Journal of Service Research, 1(1), 18–31. Winer, R. S. (2001). A framework for customer relationship management. California
Makkonen, H., Johnston, W. J., & Javalgi, R. R. G. (2016). A behavioral approach to Management Review, 43(4), 89–105.
organizational innovation adoption. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2480–2489. Zablah, A. R., Bellenger, D. N., & Johnston, W. J. (2004). An evaluation of divergent
Meyer, C., & Schwager, A. (2007). Understanding customer experience. Harvard Business perspectives on customer relationship management: Towards a common understanding
Review, 85(2), 116–126. of an emerging phenomenon. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(6), 475–489.

402
I. Dalla Pozza et al. Journal of Business Research 89 (2018) 391–403

Zikmund, W. G., McLeod, R., & Gilbert, F. W. (2003). Customer relationship management: University of Kaiserslautern. His fields of expertise are Market-oriented Management,
Integrating marketing strategy and information technology. Wiley & Sons. Customer Relationship Management, and Sales Management. His research has been
published in the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Service Research,
International Journal of Innovation Management, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Ilaria Dalla Pozza is Professor of Marketing and Head of research activities for marketing Management, as well as national management journals, edited books, and trade journals.
in the Insurance industry at IPAG Business School (France). She holds a doctoral degree
from Politecnico di Milano, Italy. Her research interests focus on relationship and digital
marketing. Her work has been published in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Jean-Michel Sahut is Professor at IDRAC Business School Lyon (France). He teaches
Journal of Retailing, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Corporate Finance, Entrepreneurial finance, Entrepreneurship and Serious Game for en-
International Journal of Bank Marketing, among others, as well as national management gineering and management students. Previously, he was Professor at Geneva School of
journals. Business Administration, University of Applied Sciences (Ch), Associate Dean for
Research at Amiens School of Management (Fr), Professor of Finance at Telecom &
Management Paris Sud (Fr) and the director of the RESFIN Laboratory. He has published
Oliver Goetz is Professor of International Business-to-Business Marketing and Sales more than 90 articles about finance, influence of information technology, and en-
Management and Vice Dean Marketing and Corporate Relations at the ESB Business trepreneurship in international peer review journals and five books. He has already been
School, Reutlingen University. guest editor of Small Business Economics, Economic Modelling, and Technological
He holds a doctoral degree from the Otto Beisheim School of Management (WHU) and a Forecasting and Social Change.
diploma degree in Business Administration and Mechanical Engineering from the

403