Process Mapping Techniques To Investigate The Implementation Of Customer

Relationship Programs

Marion Steel, Chris Dubelaar, Mark Gabbott, Michael Ewing, Monash University

Abstract

Within the debate about what constitutes good research in marketing is a need for data
collection tools and analytical tools that can assist researchers in identifying potential causal
links between factors in exploratory, qualitative research and to reduce bias through
methodological diversity. Process mapping is a data collection and analytical tool that has
been well established in the engineering field and is used to identify areas for improvement or
develop implementation maps for new processes. More recently it has been used in
management business processes such as Enterprise Resource Planning to better understand
implementation. Process mapping is discussed as a tool for the investigation and analysis of
customer relationship management implementation.

Introduction

The debate about what constitutes good research in marketing is of long standing (Bonoma
1985; Gummesson 1991; Lynch 1999; Yin 2003). More importantly the debate has moved
towards ways to strengthen the research through diversification of methods, use of multiple
data collection methods to reduce bias (Nakata and Huang 2003) and the selection of methods
to suit the purpose. The aim of this paper is to suggest broadening the use of tools from other
disciplines for data collection and analysis. Extending the range of tools may address the
problems of connecting observed factors emerging from exploratory research or concepts
from theory building, to constructs that can be examined empirically (Lynch 1999).
Specifically we will discuss the applicability of using process mapping as a tool to analyse the
implementation of customer relationship management (CRM).

From the 1970s process mapping has been used as a tool to assist with the development and
implementation of manufacturing processes or process lines (Muther 1973; Hunt 1996). More
recently process mapping has been a tool in the successful implementation of enterprise
resource planning (ERP) (Okrent and Vokurka 2004). Enterprise resource planning is the
most recent evolution of a progression of planning systems over the last forty years intended
to bring about change and improvement in the way organisations planned, sourced materials
and produced new products. Similar to the issues currently facing CRM, ERP has been tainted
with problems associated with implementation (Sarker and Lee 2003; Okrent and Vokurka
2004). Again similar to CRM research, researchers are still endeavouring to understand why
ERP implementations have failed so often (Sarker and Lee 2003; Okrent and Vokurka 2004).

Background

Customer relationship management has been marred by reported high rates of failure and the
general consensus among practitioners that most CRM systems have failed to live up to
expectations (Bird 2001; BRW 2001; Howarth 2002; Petty 2002; Trembly 2002; McNulty,
Leonard et al. 2003). Stories of CRM failures have become commonplace. In a North
American survey conducted by Gartner Group, 55% of the CRM projects failed to meet
expectations, 40% were considered to be somewhat successful, and just 5% of the projects
were considered to be successful (Thompson 2004).

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Marketing Research and Research Methodologies (qualitative) 33

However, there is no clear definition of success or failure with these survey results. It has
been suggested that the dissatisfaction and reports of failure have come from the
misalignment between the company expectations of enterprise wide CRM, and the
implementation of CRM programs (Myron and Ganeshram 2002; Dickie 2004; Thompson
2004). A number of authors have argued that marketing strategies have failed due to the
implementation of the strategy rather than flaws within the strategy (Bonoma 1985; Bonoma
1985; Piercy 1998).

Current research into CRM and the successful adoption or implementation of CRM follows
two distinct data collection paths, case studies or surveys. Experimental techniques, or
quantitative techniques such as surveys, use a reductionist approach by drilling down to
observe, test or capture data about a series of known functions or interactions (Gummesson
1991; Patton and Appelbaum 2003). However as noted above, the lack of clear definition
about what constitutes successful implementation hampers the understanding of the critical
incidence of factors and the causal links between factors. It is not always possible to obtain
meaningful survey samples, an issue that applies specifically to implementation research like
CRM. In business to business environments where customer numbers may be limited, or in
organisations of less than 250 people, the sample sizes may not be suitable for multivariate
analysis to establish causal links. This is particularly relevant for countries where the
predominant business size is small to medium (less than 100 employees) such as Australia
(ABS 2004).

Case study research is an empirical enquiry to investigate a phenomenon in its real life setting
or context, especially where the interaction between phenomenon and the environment is
unclear or unknown (Yin 2003). A more holistic approach is advocated where it is suspected
that the whole is not identical to the sum of the components (Gummesson 1991)(p76).
Qualitative case studies are advocated where the components have not been fully identified,
or there is still significant debate about the components of the system under review. Where
there are an indeterminate number of variables that may be of interest, some of which are data
points, some of which are contextual, the chosen research method must be able to provide the
means to capture the information (Yin 2003). However, case study research into CRM utilises
interviews and observation, which provide depth and richness of information, but it is difficult
to generalise the findings across different organisations and industries. It is also noted that a
number of the case studies are based on interviews at senior management level after the
implementation is significantly progressed, leading to a strong reliance on recall and the
perspective of one layer of the organisation (Rigby, Reichheld et al. 2002; Rigby 2004). There
are only limited case studies that examine the implementation from multiple points within an
organisation (Bull 2003; Lindgreen 2004)

An Alternative Research tool Process Mapping

It has been suggested that methodological diversification can strengthen marketing research
while reducing the problems associated with researcher bias or methodological limitations
(Nakata and Huang 2003). There is a need for tools that contribute to the identification of
potential causal links emerging from case study research and also support the triangulation of
data at the collection point, while taking the context into account.

As discussed earlier one method of capturing data on the implementation program for ERP
and the context in which it occurs is process mapping (Biazzo 2000; Okrent and Vokurka

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Marketing Research and Research Methodologies (qualitative) 34

2004). There have been few if any examples of process mapping in the investigation of CRM
implementation but the similarities between the issues found in ERP implementations and
CRM implementations suggest that this would be a useful technique.

It has been suggested that customer relationship management is a strategy (Knox, Maklan et
al. 2003), a philosophy (Conduit and Gabbot 2004) and a high order process (Hart, Hogg et al.
2004; Zablah, Bellenger et al. 2004). For any organisation implementing CRM, there is a
process of change, and a move from current activities to new activities. Therefore, although
there is considerable debate about what is CRM, the implementation is a process of change
involving, but not limited to the interaction between organisations and customers, and
interaction between different parts of an organisation. What is needed is a tool that allows
researchers to capture and analyse information about changes in interaction with customers
and the implementation of customer relationship programs.

Process maps, at the simplest level, are a visual representation of a collection of elements that
operate together to perform a function useful to the organisation, and within the context of the
organisation. These elements can be people, information, sub-processes, equipment, software,
products, materials or services, which interface or operate interdependently (Hunt 1996).
These processes can be as simple as the delivery of meals in a hospital to ensure the correct
meals are delivered to the right patient (Mitchell 1971) through to complex processes such as
the development of a new product to meet customer demand.

Process mapping developed in the manufacturing field (Hunt 1996) and as a consequence can
be less effective in capturing actions that occur from social norms (Biazzo 2002). So why use
a tool derived from engineering to examine a marketing concept? The key aspect of this tool
is that it shows both the elements and the links between the elements. Process mapping
involves the construction of a model showing the relationships between people, processes,
information, and production tools and the flow of action. This technique is useful in offering
visual representations of processes, system changes, or more recently the implementation of
specific programs (Biazzo 2002).

For example the following process map on collecting data about customers in preparation for
CRM implementation identifies that data about customers is collected in two ways, through
customer visits by sales staff, and through the order entry system but the information is not
integrated or linked.
Figure 1 Example of a process map on data collection
Collection of customer data prior CRM implementation
field staff
Sales

Sales visit Update Generate Visit

data customer file Visit profile customer
Order staff
Customer

Sales Order Notify

order Order status
entry delivery date

Check
Invoice,
special
conditions warehouse
The map shown is a sub-process of the customer information collection process, but it
highlights how information about the customer becomes separated into silo functions of

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Marketing Research and Research Methodologies (qualitative) 35

different departments, with information from the customer residing with the field staff, while
information about purchase history resides with the customer service staff.

The Elements of Process Mapping

Creating a process map begins with a series of observations and questioning of those
performing the functions, effectively observation and interviews as commonly used in case
study research. However the observations and interviews are constructed in such as way as to
gain information about each specific element of the implementation from multiple points.
This may be though multiple observations, which is the most commonly used method in
engineering (Mitchell 1971; Muther 1973) or it may be through interviews at multiple points
within an organisation that contribute overlapping knowledge about an element.

Each element is then mapped using commonly agreed symbols that have specific meanings
showing the action, the source of material, information and operating parameters. As each
element is mapped the link to the next element is shown. As the symbols are universal
(Mitchell 1971), the creation of process maps can be replicated after a time lapse, or in
another organisation. The similarities and differences provide a visual clue to the elements of
a process that can be generalised to another situation. Where change is desired, as in
implementation, multiple maps are created to show the current state and the desired state.

A typical map for business processes will show:

The hierarchy of groups of activities with high-level processes indicating the macro
activity and sub-processes representing all actions that are required to complete the
high level process (Hunt 1996; Biazzo 2000).
All elements such as inputs, outputs, controls and resources and the communication
between activities (Biazzo 2000).
Commonly the researcher will gather data from multiple interviews, observations, and
strategic plans and create a first order map. The change participants will then contribute to the
revisions, so that the researcher and participants will create a number of iterations that more
closely approximate the actual process of change.

Specific matrices can be created to examine chronological changes, single variables within a
context or critical events (Miles and Huberman 1984), however process mapping provides a
method to examine critical events and the timeline simultaneously, or multiple variables
within a context. Causal networks provide a valuable method of examining variables but does
not include the contextual factors. In the simple example shown (Figure 1 above), the manual
actions and anecdotal sources of data are shown with the direct links into the documented
order process. The warehouse invoice is used to indirectly update the final invoice, indicated
by a broken line. The absence of a feedback loop identifies that the process does not include
provision for building a customer profile beyond the order information. Building an accurate
customer profile is a key event in CRM (Winer 2001; Zikmund, McLeod et al. 2003; Buttle
2004) but the process map shows the anecdotal customer information that exists in the
organisation as a manual process, but is not included in the customer profile.

Process Mapping for CRM Implementation

A range of factors associated with failed implementation of CRM is emerging from the
literature, although there is no consistent agreement on a comprehensive list of factors.

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Marketing Research and Research Methodologies (qualitative) 36

However, there are areas of consistency between authors on the critical factors associated
with failure.
Table 1 Factors in CRM implementation failure
Factors in implementation failure Source
The lack of a strategy or vision of CRM. (Rigby, Reichheld et al. 2002;
Kotorov 2003)
Failing to set objectives, losing sight of original objectives or (Leahy 2003); (Kotorov 2003).
undertaking a partial implementation.
Information management problems associated with lack of (Rigby, Reichheld et al. 2002;
understanding the customer needs and assuming the customer Verhoef and Langerak 2002);
wants a relationship or poor quality information about customers (Leahy 2003).
or poor access.
Underestimating the scope of the project. (Kotorov 2003; Leahy 2003)
Focusing on the technology and software required before the (Rigby, Reichheld et al. 2002;
strategy and promises on software. Verhoef and Langerak 2002);
(Leahy 2003).

By using process mapping to analyse a CRM implementation it is possible to capture both the
details of a factor in its contextual setting, and also to establish where elements are not linked,
and where causal relationships may exist. The collected data is broken down into the elements
of implementation and the connections between the elements. In looking specifically at
information management, a cross functional map can be created showing all of the functions
in an organisation that input or use data about the customer, map each action of receiving,
collecting, using or verifying information and then show how each action or person is linked
to other elements. Formal direct links can be distinguished from informal or indirect links,
highlighting the communication process and whether it is consistent with the organisational
culture.

Conclusion and Limitations

As discussed, the one limitation of this tool is the ability to adequately capture and represent
information about social aspects of change, and the requirement to create a number of maps to
represent the complexity of change actions. However it is a tool that clearly shows the
structure of work and communication flows, and the links between different elements, or
more critically the lack of links between elements.

Process mapping is a modelling tool using multiple data collection methods and a series of
iterations to develop a model that approximates reality. With the use of specific symbols with
established meanings, it is possible to duplicate the data collection method and create process
maps at different points in time or in different contexts to demonstrate the changes,
similarities or differences.

It is not suggested that process mapping replace existing tools, but rather that it contributes to
the understanding of a research problem in the exploratory stage by identifying possible links
between elements and factors. It is suggested that process mapping can be useful in
examining the implementation of CRM, due to the current lack of agreement on the factors
associated with failed implementation, and the lack of knowledge on the possible causal links.
As implementation is a process, we need relevant tools to examine those processes.

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Marketing Research and Research Methodologies (qualitative) 37

Appendix Process map symbols

Symbol Meaning
Direct link between elements, each element is
dependent on the preceding linked elements
Indirect link between elements, each element
is related to the preceding linked elements but
the relationship is not codified
Decision

Process

Manual process

Computer display

Paper document

Data / information used for next process

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Marketing Research and Research Methodologies (qualitative) 38

ABS (2004). Characteristics of Small Businesses. Canberra, Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Biazzo, S. (2000). "Approaches to business process analysis: a review." Business Process
Management Journal 6(2): 99 -- 112.
Biazzo, S. (2002). "Process mapping techniques and organisational analysis: Lessons from
sociotechnical system theory." Business Process Management Journal 8(1): 42-52.
Bird, D. (2001). "CRM programmes must show a deep understanding of people." Marketing:
20.
Bonoma, T. V. (1985). "Case Research in Marketing: Opportunities, Problems, and a
Process." Journal of Marketing Research 22(May): 199-208.
Bonoma, T. V. (1985). The Marketing Edge: Making Strategies Work. New York, Free Press.
BRW (2001). Cut to the chase. Business Review Weekly: 71.
Bull, C. (2003). "Strategic issues in customer relationship management (CRM)
implementation." Business Process Management Journal 9(5): 592 -- 602.
Buttle, F. (2004). Customer Relationship Management. Oxford, Elsevier Butteworth-
Heinemann.
Conduit, J. and M. Gabbot (2004). Introduction to Marketing. Melbourne.
Dickie, J. (2004). The Message to CRM Vendors in 2004? Show Me the Money!, CRMGuru.
Gummesson, E. (1991). Qualitative Methods in Management Research. Newbury Park,
California, Sage Publications, Inc.
Hart, S., G. Hogg, et al. (2004). "Does the level of experience have an effect on CRM
programs? Exploratory research findings." Industrial Marketing Management 33(6):
549-560.
Howarth, B. (2002). The CRM Backlash. Business Review Weekly: 66.
Hunt, V. D. (1996). Process Mapping. New York, USA, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Knox, S., S. Maklan, et al. (2003). Customer Relationship Management. Perspectives from
the Market Place. Oxford, UK, Butterworth-Hienemann.
Kotorov, R. (2003). "Customer relationship management: strategic lessons and future
directions." Business Process Management Journal 9(5): 566 - 571.
Leahy, T. (2003). CRM Road Rules. Insight Magazine.
Lindgreen, A. (2004). "The design, implementation and monitoring of a CRM programme: a
case study." Marketing Intelligence and Planning 22(2): 160-186.
Lynch, J. G. J. (1999). "Theory and external validity." Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science. 27(3): 367-377.
McNulty, E., N. Leonard, et al. (2003). "They Bought In. Now They Want to Bail Out."
Harvard Business Review 81(12): 28-38.
Miles, M. B. and A. M. Huberman (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis. California, USA, Sage
Publications, Inc.
Mitchell, R. L., Ed. (1971). An Introduction to Work Study. Geneva, Switzerland,
nternational Labour Office.
Muther, R. (1973). Systematic Layout Planning. Boston, USA, Cahners Publishing Company,
Inc.
Myron, D. and R. Ganeshram (2002). The Truth About CRM Success and Failure. CRM
Magazine.
Nakata, C. and Y. Huang (2003). "Progress and promise: the last decade of international
marketing research." Journal of Business Research 58(5): 611-618.
Okrent, M. D. and R. J. Vokurka (2004). "Process mapping in successful ERP
implementations." Industrial Management & Data Systems 104(8): 637 -- 643.
Patton, E. and S. H. Appelbaum (2003). "The Case for Case Studies in Management
Research." Management Research News 26(5): 60-71.
Petty, S. (2002). CRM in trough of disillusionment? B & T Yearbook 2002/2003.

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Marketing Research and Research Methodologies (qualitative) 39

Piercy, N. F. (1998). "Barriers to implementing relationship marketing: analysing the internal
market place." Journal of Strategic Marketing 6: 209-222.
Rigby, D. K., Ledingham, Dianne (2004). "CRM Done Right." Harvard Business Review
82(11): 118-128.
Rigby, D. K., F. F. Reichheld, et al. (2002). "Avoid the four perils of CRM." Harvard
Business Review 80(2): 101-108.
Sarker, S. and A. S. Lee (2003). "using a case study to test the role of three key social
enablers in ERP implementation." Information & Management 40: 813-829.
Thompson, B. (2004). The Reports of CRM Failure Are Highly Exaggerated: An Interview
With Gartner's Ed Thompson. CRMGuru.
Trembly, A. C. (2002). Why Has CRM Failed in Insurance? National Underwriter: 45-47.
Verhoef, P. C. and F. Langerak (2002). "Eleven misconceptions about customer relationship
management." Business Strategy Review 13(4): 70-76.
Winer, R. S. (2001). "A Framework for Customer Relationship Management." California
Management Review 43(4): 89-105.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, Ca., Sage
Publications, Inc.
Zablah, A. R., D. N. Bellenger, et al. (2004). "An evaluation of divergent perspectives on
customer relationship management: Towards a common understanding of an emerging
phenomenon." Industrial Marketing Management 33: 475-489.
Zikmund, W. G., R. J. McLeod, et al. (2003). Customer Relationship Management.
Integrating Marketing Strategy and Information Technology. USA, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Marketing Research and Research Methodologies (qualitative) 40