sustainability

Article
Design of a CRM Level and Performance
Measurement Model
Anna Krizanova, Lubica Gajanova * and Margareta Nadanyiova
The Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications, Department of Economics,
University of Zilina, Univerzitna 1, 010 26 Zilina, Slovakia; anna.krizanova@fpedas.uniza.sk (A.K.);
margareta.nadanyiova@fpedas.uniza.sk (M.N.)
* Correspondence: lubica.gajanova@fpedas.uniza.sk; Tel.: +421-904-266-041




Received: 26 June 2018; Accepted: 17 July 2018; Published: 23 July 2018


Abstract: The main objective of the contribution is to create the CRM (Customer Relationship
Management) level and performance measurement model. It is almost impossible to create an
absolutely universal model. On the other hand, we can develop a model in a particular sector
based on the most advanced CRACK method with nine key areas such as Brand management, Offer
management, Classic marketing, Sales activities, Service and support activities, Logistics operations,
Compliance with promised terms, Internet activities, Customer Support, and Complex indicators.
The monitored criteria in the key areas were determined on the basis of an objective questionnaire
survey conducted by the pharmaceutical industry on the B2B market in the Slovak Republic. One
of the primary requirements for the construction of the model was to obtain information to help
predict the future development of performance because only in this way can the company correct
CRM activities. Based on the data acquisition methodology, we can evaluate the CRM level and
performance measurement model not only as a current state indicator but also as a foresight with
insight based on hindsight because companies that choose to get info from customers will want to
get closer to the desired optimal values of the customers.

Keywords: customer relationship management; measurement model; questionnaire survey

1. Introduction
The business environment is changing year by year. There is not only an increase in supply
that largely exceeds demand, but also globalization of the competitive environment [1,2]. Each
business entity is more or less influenced by its surroundings and, therefore, it is very important
to be distinguished from others by not only focusing on product quality but also on the quality
of customer relationship. At present, customer satisfaction is a prerequisite for prosperity in the
business [3]. It can be achieved by being able to predict correctly and in a timely manner the
trends and risks in the industry in which they are doing business and at the same time adapting
to customer requirements. The most important factor in achieving and sustaining the success of an
enterprise is through effectively solicitude and maintaining close customer relationships through
customer relationship management [4,5]. Recent empirical studies have also demonstrated that there
is a positive relationship between CRM practices and firm performance [6]. Business management
identifies a CRM strategy for several years and actively uses it in conjunction with a technological
background. The theoretical framework of CRM strategies is documented in many publications,
yet not all businesses are able to fully exploit the CRM strategy and related systems and evaluate
the success of this strategy or propose measures to improve and refine these strategies. According to
surveys conducted in the Slovak republic, most businesses know the concept of customer relationship
management, but only a very small percentage can well distinguish the difference between strategy

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2567; doi:10.3390/su10072567 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2567 2 of 17

and software. Survey results have also shown that only a very small percentage of Slovak businesses
are engaged in measuring and evaluating CRM performance, which significantly affects the proper
functioning of CRM in enterprises and may lead to under-utilization of the potential hidden in CRM [7].
In order to continuously improve our CRM strategy and improve customer relationships in companies,
and thereby contribute to improving their business goals, we have decided to create the CRM level and
performance measurement model. If we want to create a generalized model, we need to build on the
content of the concept of CRM that is business strategy oriented. It is almost impossible to create an
absolutely universal model that could be used in every situation and in every business. On the other
hand, it is possible to CRM level and performance measurement model for companies in a particular
sector that share certain specific features. The main objective of the contribution was to create the
CRM level and performance measurement model in companies in the pharmaceutical sector in the
B2B market in the Slovak Republic.

2. Literature Review
In general, there is no uniform CRM definition. Each author defines CRM in a different way,
as follows. Customer Relationship Management is an interactive process designed to achieve an
optimal balance between corporate investment and customer satisfaction. The optimum balance is
determined by the maximum profit of both parties [8–10]. CRM is a set of tools that promote marketing,
sales, and customer service in the company [11,12]. A prerequisite for supporting these features is the
perfect customer knowledge that guarantees delivery of the product or service at the right time in
the right place [13]. Customer Relationship Management includes employees, business processes and
technologies (information systems and information and communication technologies) to maximize
customer loyalty and, as a result, business profitability. It is part of the corporate strategy and becomes
part of corporate culture [14]. Hung et al. treated CRM as a managerial strategy that helps organizations
collect, analyze, and manage customer related information through the use of information technology
tools and techniques in order to satisfy customer needs and establish a long-term and mutually
beneficial relationship [15]. According to Reinartz et al., CRM is the systematic process to manage
customer relationship initiation, maintenance, and termination across all customer contact points to
maximize the value of the relationship portfolio [16]. CRM is a comprehensive business and marketing
strategy that integrates technology, process, and all business activities around the customer [17]. Brown
points out that CRM as the key competitive strategy you need to stay focused on the needs of your
customers and to integrate a customer-facing approach throughout your organization [18].
In the current era of the digital world, the information technology has a great impact on business
and the creation of a competitive advantage. CRM is currently widely supported by the development of
information technology [19]. e-CRM is a strategic technology-centric relationship marketing business
model, combining traditional CRM with e-business marketplace applications [20]. But enterprises,
especially SMEs, are generally inclined to use traditional technologies instead of the updated ones,
which are also cheap and easy to use [21]. They do not use the full potential of the new digital tools,
and so are not deriving benefit from the opportunities they provide [22]. Kennedy according to
Dzopalic notes that the internet can provide a platform for e-CRM initiatives that will help companies
to develop and better manage customer relationships and improve and facilitate customer supplier
relationships, as well [23]. Firms that have implemented fundamental e-CRM practices are reaping
numerous benefits, ranging from superior customer service, improved profitability, sales, reduced
operational costs, enlarged customer base and a broader market share [20].
Based on the above, we can state that Customer Relationship Management is an interactive
process that aims primarily to create long-lasting and as far as possible mutually beneficial and
valuable customer relationships. CRM is a process based on four interrelated and complementary
elements, such as people, processes, technologies, and content.
Interaction by feedback, which informs us about functionality and performance, is an important
part of CRM. At present, a large number of methods are used to measure the level of CRM and
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2567 3 of 17

the associated satisfaction of customer needs. They are mostly based on questionnaire structures
and final objective evaluation. The most well-known and most used ones are: CRM Maturity
model, CRM ScoreCard, Model for evaluating the effectiveness of CRM by Kim, Suh, Hwang,
Methodology of CRM measurement by Storback a Lehtinen, CRM BodyCheck method, and CRACK
method [8,24–29]. Chlebovsky states that there are six key reasons to explain the merits of CRM
performance quantification:

• Measurement leads to a better strategy refinement and increased trust in the strategy between
employees. The strategy should be redrafted not only at the level of CRM but also at a whole level.
• Measurement allows unification of communication about strategy and key CRM factors.
• Measurement increases employee loyalty and identification with enterprise strategy and goals.
• Measurement increases the share of successful changes. There are various business changes that
are more likely to succeed after successful CRM implementation.
• Measurement increases possibilities and capabilities to predict problems.
• Measurement simplifies to monitor the continuous impact of changes on individual business
segments [28].

At the microeconomic level, there are a large number of traditional measurement methods in
the area of financial indicators [30,31]. Negatives of such models are their monitoring of past events
without the possibility of looking ahead. It is also important to note that when measuring the level
of CRM, an enterprise can not only focus on customer behavior and attitudes but must also focus
on internal processes and activities that are completing and related to customer behavior [32–34].
The design of the CRM level and performance measurement model must always be based on the
corporate structure and take into account its baseline characteristics. As well as creating a CRM
strategy, the CRM level model must also be based on good knowledge of the current state of the
business. If we have sufficient CRM data, we can create a specific model.

3. Materials and Methods

In order to meet the goal of the work, we conducted a marketing survey in selected B2B market in
the Slovak Republic, which was realized in the period April to November 2016. In the first phase of the
research, a method of selecting a suitable sample, sample size, appropriate methods and survey tools
was then established. The choice of the target group of respondents is an important step for successful
marketing research. It is necessary to decide who will be the ultimate target entity. We defined the
target group of respondents as business owners, business management, or marketing department
representatives who have the information needed for the survey. The population size was based
on data obtained from the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic. The population consisted of
economic entities classified according to the SK NACE Classification of Economic Activities into
the following groups: 21100—Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products, 21200—Manufacture
of pharmaceutical preparations and 46460—Wholesale of pharmaceutical goods. We consider
all companies in these groups as pharmaceutical companies. From the point of view of their
product portfolio, they correspond to the basic attributes of businesses operating on the B2B market.
The population size was 410 companies. The size of the research sample is determined on the basis of a
formula that defined Chraska according to Nowak [35]. The confidence level was set at 95% confidence
interval at 5%, According to Durica and Svabova, a confidence level of 95% is sufficient for a conjoint
analysis, because it belongs to the set of multivariate methods and also combines data on preferences
in a deeper context than the standard methods on preference detection do [36]. The confidence interval
determines the margin of error we tolerate within the marketing research and the rate is based on
current trends in marketing research [37]. So that the needed sample size is 199 companies. The choice
of method for data collection depends on the information needs, as well as the budget, availability
of resources and timetable. For the purposes of this research, we chose the method of collecting
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2567 4 of 17

data through a questionnaire, even though we are aware of its shortcomings as time-consuming and
low returns.
The questionnaire was divided into three parts. The first part focuses on defining the size of the
business in terms of average annual turnover, and also depending on the number of employees and
the lifetime of the company. The population is comprised of pharmaceutical B2B businesses in the
Slovak Republic, so we did not consider any further identification data as necessary. The final question
of the first part of the questionnaire was decisive for the next procedure in the questionnaire.
If companies responded positively to the question about using CRM in the company, they were
only concerned with the second part of the questionnaire. This was comprised of questions to determine
the level of CRM usage in enterprises, and the answers of which were important for compiling a
CRM level and performance measurement model. If companies responded negatively, a third part
of the questionnaire followed, which consisted of the questions needed to build a CRM level and
performance measurement model as well.

4. Results
The monitored criteria for the CRM level and performance measurement model were determined
on the basis of an objective questionnaire survey conducted in the pharmaceutical industry on the B2B
market in the Slovak Republic. We defined six criteria (options) in each of nine key area and the last
option was always appropriate for those businesses that do not consider any criterion to be relevant.
Criteria and key areas are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Defining Criteria of CRM level and performance measurement model.

Key Area Name of Criteria Criterion within the Key Area

F1 Brand associations
F2 Brand awareness
Brand management F3 Brand loyalty
F4 Perceived brand quality
F5 Brand value in financial terms
F1 Customer loyalty
F2 Customer satisfaction
Offer management F3 Value of products for customers
F4 Brand value
F5 Skepticism towards quality
F1 Reaction percent
F2 Campaign reach
Classic marketing F3 Conversion rate
F4 Cost of getting a new customer
F5 Average order size
F1 Likelihood of success
F2 Sales costs
Sales activities F3 Rating of current customers
F4 Sales results
F5 New customer statistics
F1 Reaction time
F2 Time of service operation
F3 Customer satisfaction with service
Service and support activities
F4 The total time of service intervention
Communication with customers during
F5
the warranty period
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2567 5 of 17

Table 1. Cont.

Key Area Name of Criteria Criterion within the Key Area

F1 Order execution rate
F2 Compliance with the required terms
Logistics operations F3 Compliance with promised terms
F4 Percentage of unfulfilled orders
F5 Reliability of the process
F1 The popularity of the page bookmark
F2 Number of total visitors
Internet activities F3 Number of unique visitors
F4 Number of registered users
F5 Average time spent on a website
F1 Average call costs
F2 Number of calls
Customer Support/Call Center F3 Average waiting time
F4 Call center performance
F5 Summary time
F1 Perspective of long-term relationships
F2 Overall satisfaction with the business
Complex indicators F3 Detection of customer satisfaction
F4 Return on sales
F5 Return on investment

199 respondents answered questions about the criteria that the selected businesses monitor or
consider important to monitor. Respondents could identify more than one criterion, or they could
indicate that none of the criteria considered important. The choice of criteria was based on the widely
used CRACK model, which, as Chlebovsky states, is generally considered important in terms of
customer relationship management [28]. In addition to looking at the frequency of responses to the
criteria (Table 2), we also identified the importance of individual key areas in order to objectify the
weights of each criterion. In the final model, we have selected seven areas that have a high abundance
compared to Brand Management and Customer Support/Call Center. These areas have a very low
frequency compared to the other, which means that the respondents considered them as very little
relevant to their business.

Table 2. Number of responses per area.

Key Area Number of Responses

Brand management 33
Offer management 135
Classic marketing 98
Sales activities 156
Service and support activities 72
Logistics operations 97
Internet activities 83
Customer Support/Call Center 21
Complex indicators 120

Subsequent to the detection of the number of occurrences of the individual criteria, we selected
three the most numerous criteria from each of the seven areas. Selected criteria are in the Table 3.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2567 6 of 17

Table 3. Number of responses of selected criterion in monitored key areas.

Key Area Name of Criteria Criterion within the Key Area

F1 Customer loyalty
Offer management F2 Customer satisfaction
F3 Value of products for customers
F2 Campaign reach
Classic marketing F4 Cost of getting a new customer
F5 Average order size
F1 Likelihood of success
Sales activities F2 Sales costs
F4 Sales results
F2 Time of service operation
F3 Customer satisfaction with service
Service and support activities
Communication with customers during
F5
the warranty period
F2 Compliance with the required terms
Logistics operations F3 Compliance with promised terms
F5 Reliability of the process
F2 Number of total visitors
Internet activities F4 Number of registered users
F5 Average time spent on a website
F1 Perspective of long-term relationships
Complex indicators F2 Overall satisfaction with the business
F3 Detection of customer satisfaction

Qualitative calculation of the weights of the selected variables is an important step in the creation
of a specific model of the CRM level measurement. For the purpose of excluding subjectivity in the
weighting process, we determined the number of these variables on a sample of 199 enterprises, which
ensured the objectification of values. There are several approaches to model the preferences between
the criteria. According to Kliestik, the method of quantitative pairing of criteria is one of the most
widely used [38].
In the case of pairing of criteria S = (sij), i, j = 1, 2, 3,..., n we use the scale, in which 1 means
equivalent criteria i and j; 3 means slightly preferred criterion i before j; 5 means strongly preferred
criterion i before j; 7 means very strongly preferred criterion i before j and 9 means absolutely preferred
criterion i before j. Values 2, 4, 6, 8 are intermediate. The elements of the matrix sij are interpreted as
estimates of the weight ratio of the i-th and j-th criteria [38].

sij ≈ vi /vj i,j = 1,2,3, . . . ,n, (1)

this matrix is referred to as Saaty matrix, the following applies to its elements:

sii = 1 i = 1,2,3, . . . ,n, (2)

sji = 1/sij i,j = 1,2,3, . . . ,n, (3)

Saaty suggested using a custom vector corresponding to the largest custom number of the matrix to
estimate the weight, while the solution is the normalized geometric mean of matrix. Based on the
following relationship, we can calculate the weight of the i-th criterion.
h i1/n
∏nj=1 sij
vi = h i1/n i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n, (4)
∑ni=1 ∏nj=1 sij
Sustainability 2017, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2567 7 of 17
For the Offer management area, we have selected these three criteria F1 Customer loyalty with
multiplicity 89, F2ofCustomer
the values the Saaty matrixsatisfaction with multiplicity
were obtained on the basis of132 and F3 Value
a questionnaire of products
survey, from which forwe customers
with multiplicity
obtained the79. Based
number of on the theoretical
occurrences of answers knowledge the criterion
for each criterion. Based on theseF1 isfrequencies,
slightly preferredwe have before
Sustainability
Sustainability 2017,
2017, 9,
9, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 77 of
of 16
16
F3 (s1,3 = defined
3), criterionpreferences
F2 is between
absolutelycriteria.
preferred before F3 (s2,3 = 9). When comparing the criteria F1 and
F2, it is a very For the Offer management
preferred area, we have selected these to three criteria F1 Customer loyaltyand with thus the
Forstrongly
For the
the Offer
Offer management
management criterion,
area,
area, we
we havebut
have we have
selected
selected these
these threecompare
three criteria them
criteria F1 opposite,
F1 Customer
Customer loyalty
loyalty withwith
multiplicity 89, F2 Customer satisfaction with multiplicity 132 and F3 Value of products for customers
situation multiplicity
arises
multiplicitythat89, criterion
89, F2
F2 Customer F2 issatisfaction
Customer very strongly
satisfaction with preferred132
with multiplicity
multiplicity 132before
and
and F3F3F1 (s1,2of
Value
Value of=products
1/7 andfor
products s2,1customers
for = 7). Similarly,
customers
with multiplicity 79. Based on the theoretical knowledge the criterion F1 is slightly preferred before
with
with multiplicity
the preference multiplicity 79.
79. Based
Based onon the
the theoretical
theoretical knowledge
knowledge the
the criterion
criterion F1
F1 isis slightly
slightly preferred
preferred before
before criteria
F3 (s1,3 =was also given
3), criterion F2 isto other
absolutely criteria
preferred within
beforethe F3 surveyed
(s2,3 = 9). Whenareas. Preference
comparing for other
the criteria F1
F3
F3 (s 1,3 =
(s1,3 = 3),
3), criterion
criterion F2 F2 is
is absolutely
absolutely preferred
preferred before
before F3 F3 (s 2,3 =
(s2,3 = 9).
9). When
When comparing
comparing the the criteria
criteria F1F1 and
and
within the monitored areas was determined in a similar way.
and F2, it is a very strongly preferred criterion, but we have to compare them opposite, and thus the
F2,
F2, itit is
is aa very
very strongly
strongly preferred
preferred criterion,
criterion, but
but wewe have
have to to compare
compare themthem opposite,
opposite, and and thus
thus thethe
After situation
determiningarises thatthe criterion F2 is verywe
preferences, strongly preferred
can create before matrix
a Saaty F1 (s1,2 =for 1/7the s = 7).
andOffer Similarly,
situation
situation arises
arises that
that criterion
criterion F2
F2 is
is very
very strongly
strongly preferred
preferred before
before F1F1 (s 1,2 =
(s1,2 = 1/7 and2,1
1/7 and ss2,1
2,1 ==Management
7). Similarly, area.
7). Similarly,
To simplifythe preference
the weight was also given to otherwecriteria within it the surveyed
three areas. Preference
parts. for other criteria
the
the preference
preference wascalculation,
was also
also given
given to
to other
other divided
criteria
criteria within
within into
the
the surveyed
surveyed partial
areas.
areas. Preference
Preference Atfor the
for otherbeginning
other criteria
criteria we
within the monitored areas was determined in a similar way.
calculatedwithin
the value
within the of Si according
the monitored
monitored areas wasto
areas was the following
determined
determined in relation:
in aa similar
similar way.
way.
After determining the preferences, we can create a Saaty matrix for the Offer Management area.
After
After determining
determining the the preferences,
preferences, we
we can
can create
create aa Saaty
Saaty matrix
matrix for
for the
the Offer
Offer Management
Management area.
area.
To simplify the weight calculation, we divided it into three partial parts. At the beginning we calculated
To
To simplify
simplify the
the weight
weight calculation,
calculation, we
we divided
divided itit into
into three
three partial
partial parts.
parts. At
At the
the beginning
beginning we
we
the value of Si according to the
calculated
calculated the
the value
value of = to
of SSii according
according tosthe
S following relation: j = 1, 2, … , n,
, following
the following relation:
relation: (5)
n

jj =
S =
SSi =
= 1,
1,2,
2,…
=…,,nn,, ∏ sssi,j,, j = 1, 2, . . . , n,
(5)
(5)
(5)
this value represents the multiplication ofj=all
1 elements in the i-th line of the matrix. Subsequently, we
have quantified the value of Ri, based on the relationship:
this
thisvalue
this valuerepresents
value representsthe
represents themultiplication
the multiplication
multiplication of of all
of all elementsin
all elements
elements inthe
in thei-th
the i-thline
i-th lineof
line ofofthe
the
the matrix.
matrix.
matrix. Subsequently,
Subsequently,
Subsequently, we
we
we have
have quantified
have quantified the
quantified the value
the value
value of of
of R R i , based
Rii,, based
based R
on on the
oni=〖(S
the relationship:
i)〗^(1⁄n),
the relationship:
relationship: (6)
we then calculated the weight of criteria: RRRi ii=〖(S
= (Siii)〗^(1⁄n),
=〖(S )〗^(1⁄n),
) ˆ(1⁄n), (6)
(6)
(6)
we
we then
then calculated
calculated the
the weight
weight of
of criteria:
criteria:
R
we then calculated the weight of criteria:
v = RR i = 1, 2, … , n, (7)
vv∑== R Ri ii =
= 1,
1,2,
2,…
…,,n,
n, (7)
(7)
∑
∑ RRn
vi = i = 1, 2, . . . , n, (7)
∑i= Ri
where n is the number
where
where nn is
is the of criteria.
the number
number of
of criteria.
criteria.
where n is the number of criteria.
The following
The matrixmatrix
The following
following (Figure
matrix 1) contains
(Figure
(Figure 1) containsthe
1) contains the calculation
the calculation ofof
calculation of thethe
the weights
weights
weights of of criteria
of criteria
criteria in in Offer
in Offer
Offer
The following matrix (Figure 1) contains the calculation of the weights of criteria in Offer
management area. The
management
management sum
area.
area. Theof
The sum
sumthe ofweight
of the
the weight
weightmust
must
mustalways
always be
always be 1.The
be 1.
1. Theweight
The weight
weight of of criterion
of the
the the criterion
criterion
management area. The sum of the weight must always be 1. The weight of the criterion F1 Customer
F1 F1 Customer
F1 Customer
Customer
is
is
is 0.148815, 0.148815,
0.148815,
the weight the
the weight
weight of
of F2
F2
of F2ofCustomerCustomer
Customer satisfaction
satisfaction
satisfaction is
is 0.785391
0.785391
is0.785391
0.785391 and
and
andthe
the weight
weight of
of F3
F3 Value
Value of
of products
products
is 0.148815, the weight F2 Customer satisfaction is and the the weight
weight of F3 of F3 of
Value Value of products
products
for
for customers
customers is is 0.065794.
0.065794.
for customers is 0.065794.
for customers is 0.065794.
FF11 FF22 FF33 SSii RRii VVii
F1
FF 11F 2 11//77F 3 33 Si
0.428571
0.428571 Ri
0.753947
0.753947 0.148815
0.148815Vi
11
1
F1 FF1
22 77 /7 11 3 99 0.42857163
63 0.753947 0.785391
3.9759057
3.9759057 0.148815
0.785391
11
F2 FF7 33 //331 11//99 9 11 0.037037
0.037037
63 0.333333
0.333333 0.065794
0.065794
3.9759057 0.785391
Σ1Σ 1 5.066338
5.066338 11
F3 /3 /9 1 0.037037 0.333333 0.065794
Σ 5.066338 1
Figure
Figure 1.
1. Matrix
Matrix of
of the
the calculation
calculation of
of criteria
criteria in
in Offer
Offer management
management area.
area.
Figure 1. Matrix of the calculation of criteria in Offer management area.
The
The Figure
Figure
Figure22 shows
shows
1. that
thatofthe
Matrix the Classic
theClassic marketing
marketing
calculation area
area consists
of criteriaconsists of
of criteria
in Offer criteria F2
managementF2 Campaign
area. reach
Campaign reach with
with
the
the weight
weight 0.080961,
0.080961, F4F4 Cost
Cost ofof getting
getting aa new
new customer
customer with
with the
the weight
weight 0.730645
0.730645 and
and F5
F5 Average
Average
The Figure 2 shows that the Classic marketing area consists of criteria F2 Campaign reach with
order
Thetheorder size
Figure size with
with the weight
thethat
weightthe0.188394.
0.188394. marketing area consists of criteria F2 Campaign reach with
weight20.080961,
shows F4 Cost ofClassic
getting a new customer with the weight 0.730645 and F5 Average order
the weight
size 0.080961, F4 Cost
with the weight of getting
0.188394. FF22 FF44a new
FF55 customer
SSii with
RRii the weight
VVii 0.730645 and F5 Average
11 11
FF22 11
order size with the weight 0.188394. //77 //33 0.047619
0.047619 0.36246
0.36246 0.080961
0.080961
FF44 77 11 55 35
35 3.271066
3.271066 0.730645
0.730645
F552
FF 33F 4 //55F 5
11
11 S0.6
0.6
i Ri
0.843433
0.843433 Vi
0.188394
0.188394
F2 ΣΣ1 1 1
0.047619 4.476959
4.476959
0.36246 11
0.080961
/7 /3
F4 7 1 5 35 3.271066 0.730645
Figure
Figure 2.
2. Matrix
Matrix
1
of
of the
the calculation
calculation of
of criteria
criteria in
in Classic
Classic marketing
marketing area.
area.
F5 3 /5 1 0.6 0.843433 0.188394
The
The Figure Σ
Figure 33 shows
shows that
that the
the Sales
Sales activities
activities area 4.476959
area consists
consists of
of criteria
criteria F1 1
F1 Likelihood
Likelihood of
of success
success with
with
the
the weight
weight 0.052632,
0.052632, F2
F2 Sales
Sales costs
costs with
with the
the weight
weight 0.473684
0.473684 and
and F4
F4 Sales
Sales results
results with
with the
the weight
weight
0.473684.
0.473684. Figure 2. Matrix of the calculation of criteria in Classic marketing area.
 Figure 1. Matrix of the calculation of criteria in Offer management area.

The Figure 2 shows that the Classic marketing area consists of criteria F2 Campaign reach with
the weight 0.080961, F4 Cost of getting a new customer with the weight 0.730645 and8 of
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2567
F517Average
order size with the weight 0.188394.
F2 F4 F5 Si Ri Vi
1 1
F2 1 /7 /3 0.047619 0.36246 0.080961
F4 7 1 5 35 3.271066 0.730645
1
F5 3 /5 1 0.6 0.843433 0.188394
Σ 4.476959 1

Figure 2. Matrix of the calculation of criteria in Classic marketing area.

Sustainability 2017, 9, x Figure
FOR PEER REVIEW
2. Matrix of the calculation of criteria in Classic marketing area. 8 of 16
Sustainability 2017, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16
The Figure 3 shows that the Sales activities area consists of criteria F1 Likelihood of success
ThewithFigure
Sustainability
3xshows
the9,weight
2017,
thatREVIEW
the
0.052632,
FOR PEER F F2Sales
F 2 activities
Sales F 4 witharea
costs consists
S i weight
the Rof criteria
0.473684 VF1
and F4 Likelihood
Sales of success
results with the with
8 of 16
1 i i
the weight weight 0.473684.F2 FSalesF1
0.052632, costs
1 F1/with
2 F1/the
4 S i 0.473684
weight
0.012346 R i and F4
0.23112 Vi
Sales
0.052632 results with the weight
1 9 9
1 1
0.473684. F1
F 91 1/9 1/9 0.012346
9 0.23112
2.080084 0.052632
0.473684
2
F2 F91 F12 F14 S9i Ri
2.080084 Vi
0.473684
F 4 9 1
1 1
1 9 2.080084 0.473684
F
FΣ14 1
9 1/9 1/9 0.012346
9 0.23112
2.080084 0.052632
0.473684
4.391288 1
FΣ2 9 1 1 9 2.080084
4.391288 0.473684
1
F 9 1 1 9 2.080084 0.473684
Figure4 3. Matrix of the calculation of criteria in Sales activity area.
Σ 4.391288 1
Figure 3. Matrix of the calculation of criteria in Sales activity area.
The Figure 4 shows Figure
that the Service
3. Matrix of theand support
calculation activities
of criteria in Sales area
activityconsists
area. of criteria F2 Time of
Theoperation Figure
Figure 4 with
shows 3. Matrix of the calculation of criteria in Sales activity area.
service thethat the Service
weight 0.650648, andF3support
Customer activities area consists
satisfaction of criteria
with service with F2theTime of
weight
service operation
0.126834 andTheF5 with4 shows
Figure the weight
Communicationthat the0.650648,
with
Service F3support
customers
and Customer
during satisfaction
activitiesthe warranty
area with
consists serviceF2
ofperiod
criteria with
with the
Timethe weight
of weight
The Figure
0.126834service 4 shows
and operation that
F5 Communication the Service
with the weightwith and support
customers
0.650648, F3 Customer activities
during area
the warranty
satisfaction consists
with service of
period criteria
with
with the F2 Time
the weight
weight of
0.222518.
service operation
0.126834 andwith
0.222518. the weight 0.650648,
F5 Communication with customers F3 Customer satisfaction
during the warranty period with service
with the weightwith the weight
0.222518.
0.126834 and F5 Communication F2 Fwith
3 Fcustomers
5 S i during Rthe i warranty V i period with the weight
0.222518. F2 F12 F33 F55 S
15i R
2.466212
i Vi
0.650648
F2
F 11
/3 13 15
/3 15
0.11111 2.466212
0.48075 0.650648
0.126834
3
F3 F
1 F F
1 S R Vi
F 5
1/ 2
/53 313
1/3
5 0.11111
i
0.6 0.48075
i
0.843433 0.126834
0.222518
F
FΣ25 11 3
3 5
1 15
0.6 2.466212
0.843433 0.650648
0.222518
/5 3.790395 1
1 1
FΣ3 /3 1 /3 0.11111 0.48075
3.790395 0.126834
1
1
F5 /5 3 1 0.6 0.843433 0.222518
Figure Figure
4. Matrix of the calculation of criteria in Service and support activities area.
Σ Matrix of the calculation of criteria in Service
4. 3.790395 1
and support activities area.
Figure 4. Matrix of the calculation of criteria in Service and support activities area.
The Figure 5 shows
The Figure that that
5 shows the the
Logistics
Logisticsoperations areaconsists
operations area consists of criteria
of criteria F2 Compliance
F2 Compliance with the with the
Figure
Therequired
Figure 4.
5with
shows Matrix of the calculation of criteria in Service and support activities area.
required terms terms thethat
with the the Logistics
weight
weight 0.71471,
0.71471, F3operations
F3 area
Compliance
Compliance consists of criteria
with promised
with promised terms F2weight
Compliance
terms
with the with thewith
0.066796 the
weight
requiredand
0.066796 terms
andF5F5 with the
Reliability weight
of the
Reliability ofprocess 0.71471, F3 the
with thewith
the process weight Compliance
0.218494. with promised terms with the weight
weight 0.218494.
0.066796 and F5 Reliability of the process with the weight 0.218494.of criteria F2 Compliance with the
The Figure 5 shows that the Logistics operations area consists
required terms with the weight F3
F 2 0.71471, F 5 F3 Compliance
Si Rwith
i Vi
promised terms with the weight
0.066796 and F5 Reliability F
F 2 of the F
12 process
73 F5with
5 S
the35weight
i R
3.271066
0.218494.
i V
0.71471
i
F2
F 11
/ 17 15
/ 35
0.028571 3.271066
0.305711 0.71471
0.066796
3
F F11 72 F13 F1 55 S
0.028571 R
0.305711 Vi
0.066796
//57 1/5 i i
F 53 5 1 1 0.218494
F
FΣ25 11 7
5 5
1 35
1 3.271066
1 0.71471
0.218494
/5 4.576077 1
1 1
FΣ3 /7 1 /5 0.028571 0.305711
4.576077 0.066796
1
1
F 5 5. Matrix
Figure /5 of5 the calculation
1 of1criteria in Logistics
1 0.218494
operations area.
Figure 5. Matrix of the calculation of criteria in Logistics operations area.
Σ 4.576077 1
Figure 5. Matrix of the calculation of criteria in Logistics operations area.
The Figure 6 shows that the Internet activities area consists of criteria F2 Number of total visitors
Thewith
Figure 6 shows
the weight
that F4
0.71471,
theNumber
Internet activitiesusers
of registeredof
areawith
consists of criteria F2and
theLogistics
weight 0.066796
Number
F5
of total visitors
Average time
Figure 5. Matrix of the calculation criteria in operations area.
with The Figure
thespent
weight 6website
showswith
on a 0.71471,
that theweight
F4 the Internet
Number activities area
of registered
0.218494. usersconsists
with theof criteria
weightF2 Numberand
0.066796 of total visitors
F5 Average
with spent
time the weight 0.71471,with
on a website F4 Number
the weight of 0.218494.
registered users with the weight 0.066796 and F5 Average
The Figure 6 shows that the Internet
time spent on a website with the weight 0.218494. activities area consists of criteria F2 Number of total visitors
with the weight 0.71471, F4 Number F2 F 4 of Fregistered
5 S i users with R i the weightV i 0.066796 and F5 Average
F 2 the
time spent on a website with F74
F12 weight F55
0.218494. Si
35 Ri
3.271066 Vi
0.71471
F2
F 11
/ 17 15
/ 35
0.028571 3.271066
0.305711 0.71471
0.066796
4
F F11 72 F14 F1 55 Si
0.028571 Ri
0.305711 Vi
0.066796
 Figure 5. Matrix of the calculation of criteria in Logistics operations area.
The Figure 6 shows that the Internet activities area consists of criteria F2 Number of total visitors
with the Figure
The weight60.71471,shows that the Internet
F4 Number activities area
of registered consists
users of criteria
with the weightF2 Numberand
0.066796 of total visitors
F5 Average
with theSustainability
weight
time spent 0.71471,
on a website F4 Number
with
2018, 10, 2567
of 0.218494.
the weight registered users with the weight 0.066796 and9 F5 of 17
Average
time spent on a website with the weight 0.218494.
F2 F4 F5 Si Ri Vi
F2 F12 F74 F55 S35i R
3.271066
i V
0.71471
i
F
F 24 11
/ 71 15
/ 35
0.028571 3.271066
0.305711 0.71471
0.066796
7 5
1 1
F
F4 1/7
/5 15 1/5 0.028571
1 0.305711
1 0.066796
0.218494
5
1
FΣ5 /5 5 1 1 1
4.576077 0.218494
1
Σ 4.576077 1
FigureFigure
6. Matrix of the
6. Matrix calculation
of the of criteria
calculation of criteriain in Internet
Internet activities
activities area. area.
Figure 6. Matrix of the calculation of criteria in Internet activities area.
The Figure 7 shows
The Figure thatthat
7 shows thetheComplex indicators
Complex indicators areaarea consists
consists of F1
of criteria criteria F1 Perspective
Perspective of long-term of long-
The Figure 7 shows that the Complex indicators area consists of
term relationships with the weight 0.617504, F2 Overall satisfaction with the business
relationships with the weight 0.617504, F2 Overall satisfaction with the criteria
businessF1 Perspective
with thewith theofweight
weight long-
term relationships
0.2968650.296865
and F3and with
Detectiontheofweight
F3 Detection 0.617504,
of customer
customer F2 Overall
satisfaction
satisfaction with satisfaction
withthe weight
the weight with
0.085631. the business with the weight
0.085631.
0.296865 and F3 Detection of customer satisfaction with the weight 0.085631.
F1 F2 F3 Si Ri Vi
F1 F11 F32 F53 S15i R
2.466212
i V
0.617504
i
F
F 12 11
/ 31 55 15
1.666667 2.466212
1.185631 0.617504
0.296865
3
1
F
F2 1/3
/5 11
/ 51 1.666667
0.04 1.185631
0.341995 0.296865
0.085631
3 5
Sustainability 2017, 9, x FOR PEER 1
REVIEW 1 9 of 16
F
Σ3 /5 /5 1 0.04 0.341995
3.993838 0.085631
1
Σ 3.993838 1
Figure 7. Matrix
Figure of the
7. Matrix calculation
of the calculationof
of criteria
criteria ininComplex
Complex indicators
indicators area.area.

In order to objectify
In order the the
to objectify obtained
obtainedweights,
weights, we alsoasked
we also askedininthethe questionnaire
questionnaire which which areas of
areas of
monitoring are considered
monitoring to be
are considered important
to be importantby byenterprises. Based
enterprises. Based ononthethe search,
search, we found
we found that Brand
that Brand
Management area area
Management and and
Customer
CustomerSupport/Call
Support/CallCenter areabusinesses
Center area businesses do do
notnot consider
consider important
important to to
monitor. The order of preference for the areas was determined in the same way as for the
monitor. The order of preference for the areas was determined in the same way as for the criteria in criteria in the
Offer management area. When calculating weights, we proceeded similarly to the previous sections.
the Offer management area. When calculating weights, we proceeded similarly to the previous
Below in Figure 8 is the resulting Saaty matrix with the calculated weights of each area.
sections. Below in Figure 8 is the resulting Saaty matrix with the calculated weights of each area.
F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F9 Si Ri Vi
1
F2 1 7 /5 9 5 5 3 945 2.661103 0.225274
1 1 1
F3 /7 1 /7 3 1 3 /7 0.0262391 0.594478 0.050325
F4 5 7 1 9 7 9 5 99225 5.173721 0.437977
1 1 1 1 1 1
F5 /9 /3 /9 1 /3 /3 /9 0.0000508 0.243533 0.020616
1 1 1
F6 /5 1 /7 3 1 3 /7 0.0367347 0.623751 0.052803
1 1 1 1 1
F7 /5 /3 /9 3 /3 1 /7 0.0010582 0.375784 0.031812
1 1
F9 /3 7 /5 9 7 7 1 205.8 2.140386 0.181193
Σ 11.81276 1

Figure
Figure 8. Matrix
8. Matrix withthe
with thecalculated
calculated weights
weights of of
each area.
each area.

Consequently,
Consequently, we have
we have made
made thecalculation
the calculation of
of the
theobjectified
objectifiedweights of each
weights criterion
of each based based
criterion
on the on the multiplication of weight of the areas and the criteria. The resulting weights are shown in
multiplication of weight of the areas and the criteria. The resulting weights are shown in the
the Table 4.
Table 4.

Table 4. Objectivized weight of selected criteria.

Name of Objectivized
Key Area Criterion within the Key Area
Criteria Weight
F1 Customer loyalty 0.0335241
Offer management F2 Customer satisfaction 0.1769279
F3 Value of products for customers 0.0148216
F2 Campaign reach 0.035459196
Classic marketing F4 Cost of getting a new customer 0.320005912
F5 Average order size 0.082512372
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2567 10 of 17

Table 4. Objectivized weight of selected criteria.

Key Area Name of Criteria Criterion within the Key Area Objectivized Weight
F1 Customer loyalty 0.0335241
Offer management F2 Customer satisfaction 0.1769279
F3 Value of products for customers 0.0148216
F2 Campaign reach 0.035459196
Classic marketing F4 Cost of getting a new customer 0.320005912
F5 Average order size 0.082512372
F1 Likelihood of success 0.002648687
Sales activities F2 Sales costs 0.023838183
F4 Sales results 0.023838183
F2 Time of service operation 0.013413841
F3 Customer satisfaction with service 0.002614821
Service and support activities
Communication with customers
F5 0.004587469
during the warranty period
F2 Compliance with the required terms 0.037738903
Logistics operations F3 Compliance with promised terms 0.003527042
F5 Reliability of the process 0.011537187
F2 Number of total visitors 0.022736137
Internet activities F4 Number of registered users 0.002124897
F5 Average time spent on a website 0.00695068
F1 Perspective of long-term relationships 0.111887326
Complex indicators F2 Overall satisfaction with the business 0.053789816
F3 Detection of customer satisfaction 0.015515668

After defining the weights of criteria, we can proceed with the creation of the CRM level and
performance measurement model for companies in the pharmaceutical industry on the B2B market in
the Slovak Republic. For successful creation and implementation of the CRM level and performance
measurement model, it is necessary to obtain information about the current state of CRM functionality
in the enterprise. Typically, this information can be obtained at two levels, both corporate and
customer. Within the selected criteria that enterprises identified as important in the questionnaire
survey, we designed two questionnaires that contain questions about selected criteria. The first
questionnaire was created for CRM assessment from the point of view of the employees of the
company, respectively enterprise management. And the second one enables an enterprise to assess
the level of CRM from the point of view of its customers, respectively business partners. The Table 5
lists the questions that are included in the questionnaires about CRM assessment from a company’s
perspective and from a customer’s perspective as well.
The questionnaires were prepared in a generalized form so they could be used by any enterprise
from a basic sample of pharmaceutical companies in the B2B market in the Slovak Republic. A company
can individually decide whether to measure the level and performance of CRM from the company’s
or customer’s point of view or determine the level of CRM at both levels and compare each other.
The questions were in Likert scale form, using two types of responses ranging from 0 to 10 (0—the
lowest level, volume, time, etc. and 10—the highest level, volume or time). The second alternative
was the range from 0 to 100 in this case it was a percentage of the performance of the criterion). Each
respondent, whether from a questionnaire addressed to an employee or a customer, answered the
question of what the true level of execution of the criterion is and what, in their opinion should be the
optimal level of execution of the criterion. On the basis of such data, we will be able to clearly define
what the level and performance of CRM in a given enterprise at present is, and what should be the
optimal level of CRM by the target group.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2567 11 of 17

Table 5. Questionnaire questions for the assessment of CRM.

The Assessment from A Company’s Perspective
What is the degree of customer loyalty to the
company‘s offer?
What is the degree of customer satisfaction with the
company‘s offer?
How do your customers perceive the value contained
in the company‘s offer?
What percentage of the addressed customers
registered the marketing campaign?
What are the average costs of getting a new partner?
What is the average order size from partners?
What is the success rate in business negotiations with
partners?
What is the level of sales costs?
What is the success rate of sales?
What is the average time of service operation?
What is the degree of customer satisfaction with
service and post-warranty services?
What is the effective communication rate with the
customer during the warranty period?
What percentage of orders were provided in the
requested deadline?
What percentage of orders was provided in the
promised deadline?
What percentage of errors occur in logistic processes?
What is the total number of business website visitors?
What percentage of registered users of a business
website do you register?
What is the average time spent by visitors on a
company‘s website?
What is the prospect of creating long-term
relationships with partners?
What is the degree of total partner satisfaction with
our company?
What is the rate of customer satisfaction with our
company?
The Assessment from A Customer’s Perspective
What is the degree of yours loyalty to our company?
What is the degree of yours satisfaction with our
company‘s offer?
How do you perceive the value contained in our
company‘s offer?
How did our marketing campaign affect you?
What was, in your opinion, the amount of costs our
company‘s spent in gaining you as a customer?
What is the size of your average order?
What is the rate of successful business deals with our
company?
What is, in your opinion, the height of the sales costs
of our company?
What percentage of the offered deals were actually
concluded with our company?
What was the average time of service operation?
What is the degree of your satisfaction with our
service and post-warranty service?
What is the effective communication rate of our
company during the warranty period?
What percentage of your orders was provided in the
requested deadline?
What percentage of your orders was provided in the
promised deadline?
What percentage of errors in logistics processes did
you register when trading with our company?
How many of your employees visit our business
website?
How many of your employees are registered on our
website?
How much time do you spend on our company‘s
website?
What is the probability of keeping long-term
relationships with our company?
What is the degree of your total satisfaction with our
company?
How do you rate our detection of your satisfaction as
our partner?

One of the primary requirements for the construction of the model was to obtain information to
help predict future development of performance, because only in this way the company can correct
CRM activities. The requirement emerges from the fact that some of the methods used to measure
the level of CRM are focused on financial indicators and do not focus on qualitative indicators.
Measuring financial ratios makes it possible to assess past developments, but customer relationship
measurement methods can also predict trends in future developments [7,39]. Prognosis of the next
period’s development is an indicator that can significantly affect important decisions and business
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2567 12 of 17

strategy. Based on the data acquisition methodology, we can evaluate the CRM level and performance
measurement model not only as a current state indicator but also as a foresight with insight based
on hindsight because businesses that choose to get info from customers will want to get closer to
the desired optimal values of the customers. And only through cooperation, consensus and mutual
communication is it possible to maintain sustainable development.

5. Discussion
To confirm the usability of our model in practice, we have decided to cooperate with the selected
company in the pharmaceutical industry on the B2B market in the Slovak Republic. The company
agreed to cooperate without giving its name. From the point of view of annual turnover, the enterprise
is classified as a medium-sized enterprise and is also classified as a medium-sized enterprise from
the point of view of number of employees. It has been operating since 1994. The company has
applied the CRM strategy for seven years and regularly surveys the satisfaction of its customers
through a questionnaire survey. So far, company management has not deal with the possibility of
measuring the level and performance of CRM. Company management has decided to apply a CRM
level and performance measurement model to an enterprise, respectively to representatives of the
five departments and then also to their customers. For this purpose, we created a Google Docs
questionnaire that can be used by all businesses in the pharmaceutical industry on the B2B market and
can be used simply by sending a link to the questionnaire by email to their employees. Each enterprise
of can choose the number of employees who will form a sample of respondents to determine the level
of CRM. If the criterion of the number of respondents needed to find the CRM level is met, we can
export the results of the questionnaire survey in xslx format. The first column of the file contains a
question that was posed to respondents, other columns contain the answers of respondents. The first
numerical data denotes the actual fulfillment of the selected criteria in the opinion of the business
representatives. The second numerical data indicates the optimum level of compliance, in our case
the minimum level required by the business. In our surveyed company, five representatives of the
company participated in the questionnaire survey. The decision on the number of respondents was
the responsibility of the company. For optimal data processing and comparability of criteria, we have
transformed the answers formatted 0–10 to percentages from 0 to 100%. Some of the monitored criteria
have minimization character. This means that the goal was to achieve the smallest possible value.
According to Chlebovsky [22], we adjusted these values using the following formula:

Valuemax = [(max − min) − value] × 100/(max − min). (8)

We used this transformation for the following criteria: What are the average costs for getting a
new partner? What is the level of sales costs? What is the average time of service operation? What
percentage of errors occur in logistic processes? From the values obtained on the basis of the arithmetic
mean, we obtain the final value for each criterion within the actually achieved values and the optimal
values as well. Theoretically, the ideal state would be if the criteria had 100% value. Each respondent
was able to comment on each criterion, and their assessment of fulfillment of the criteria was equivalent,
as the departments work closely together to satisfy customers. We multiplied the resulting values
of the criteria with the weight of each criterion, the sum of these multiplications is percentage level
and performance of the CRM. We have obtained the actual and optimal values of each monitored
criterion as well as the values of the overall actual and optimal level and performance of CRM from
the enterprise perspective. By comparing the obtained data, we will conclude that certain reserves
exist in the selected criteria, which the company could even optimize, respectively improved.
For successful operation of CRM, the enterprise must also seek the opinion of its customers,
because customers are the most important article of the company. When calculating the level
and performance of CRM from a customer perspective, we used a similar approach. We created a
questionnaire that consisted of questions of the same nature that were addressed to business customers.
 Sustainability 2018, 10, 2567 13 of 17

In this case, the questionnaire can also be used for all companies of the selected pharmaceutical
industry on the B2B market in the Slovak Republic. The company sent a questionnaire to the ten
key customers in terms of sales volume over the last five years. In the questionnaire, we again
determine the actual rate of fulfillment of each criterion, as well optimal performance level from the
perspective of customers. We can export the results of the questionnaire survey in xslx format. The file
contains questions that was posed to respondents and columns of the answers of respondents. The first
numeric data represents the actual rate of fulfillment of the criteria and the second optimal level of
fulfillment of the criteria. We processed the data in the same way as in CRM level and performance
measurement model from the enterprise perspective. The weights of the individual criteria are the
same. The minimization criteria were as follows: What was, in your opinion, the amount of costs our
company has spent in gaining you as a customer? What is, in your opinion, the height of the sales
costs of our company? What was the average time of service operation? What percentage of errors in
logistics processes did you register when trading with our company? By this process we have obtained
the actual and optimal values of each monitored criterion as well as the values of the overall actual
and optimal level and performance of CRM from the customer perspective.
Based on the company’s request, we have compared the level and performance of CRM from
both perspectives. Because of up to 21 evaluated criteria in our model, we have created only summary
graph that compares the actual values of the criteria according to both company and customers,
and the optimal values that the individual criteria should achieve from both perspectives as well.
Below the graph are also given the numeric data of the fulfillment of individual criteria at actual and
optimal level. As can be seen from the Figure 9, the opinion of the customers of the company and of
the company representatives on the fulfillment of individual criteria develops in the same direction.
Neither criterion
Sustainability develops
2017, 9, x FOR in the opposite direction.
PEER REVIEW 13 of 16

Figure 9. 9.
Figure The level
The and
level performance
and of of
performance CRM from
CRM both
from perspectives
both perspectives.

6. Conclusions
The results of an empirical survey show which areas the company has underestimated so far
and do not give them the attention that customers and business representatives would require for
selected criteria. From this, we can deduce managerial implications for practice. The company has
the largest reserves in the field of Internet activities, while the actual levels are lower both from the
point of view of the company and the customers in all three criteria (Number of total visitors, Number
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2567 14 of 17

At the end of the comparison, we are making a direct comparison of the overall CRM levels and
performance of all reviewed views. In the company’s view, the total optimum CRM should be 3.86%
lower than the optimum level according to customers. This finding implies that the company should
re-evaluate its maxima that it wants to achieve in its customer relationship, as customers expect to take
greater care of their needs and requirements as the company plans to provide. Based on the above
results, we can also say that compared to customers, the company evaluates its total performance of
CRM better by 1.48%. This difference is not very large, but it also refers to an overestimation of CRM
performance from a company perspective versus perceptions of the customer.

6. Conclusions
The results of an empirical survey show which areas the company has underestimated so far
and do not give them the attention that customers and business representatives would require for
selected criteria. From this, we can deduce managerial implications for practice. The company has
the largest reserves in the field of Internet activities, while the actual levels are lower both from the
point of view of the company and the customers in all three criteria (Number of total visitors, Number
of registered users, Average time spent on a website). Customers see even greater reserves in this
area as the company itself and it is, therefore, necessary to solve the situation. The company must
re-edit its website and all Internet activities. The second area in which the business does not reach
the results that the customers and representatives of the business considered as optimal is Classic
marketing. Criterion Campaign reach is actually lower by more than 10 percentage points compared
to the optimal value it should reach from the point of view of the company and the customers as well.
The same value is reached in the Average order size criterion. Business management should focus
on the wider reach of campaigns, because it is currently at an average level. Customers, respectively
business partners would also welcome greater effort, creativity and the ability to engage in marketing
activities in the field of classical marketing. The company assures a broad customer portfolio by its
offer, but its communication skills, whether in the field of classic marketing or its online forms, lags
far behind current trends, what is largely perceived by its customers. In other areas, an enterprise
has reached a balanced value. From all the above, it is clear that the company must, first of all, make
a marketing communication more effective. It has shortcomings in both its offline and online form.
The company must pay more attention to the online marketing communication, which is at present
perceived as the weak side of company marketing mix by not only the company itself but also by its
business partners.
The results clearly show which tool of marketing mix an enterprise should target and at which
it achieves the minimum required level from both perspectives. Since the use of this model can be
tedious and unclear for businesses, which is a limitation of our research, we have decided to create
a standalone software application. The software application was created based on the algorithm
proposed in the previous chapters. Before using the software application, it is essential to send and
receive questionnaire replies. Business or customer responses provide an insight into the current level
and performance of CRM. If we have this data, we can access the application itself. Its use is described
in the following steps. After running the application, we can specify the input data needed to calculate
the actual and optimal CRM level. We enter this information via the Questionnaire—Company and
Questionnaire—Customer icon. We can select these data from the Input subfolder. The application
can work with the results of the questionnaire survey from both the company and the customer
perspective, both jointly and individually. If we have entered input data, we can proceed to the
calculation using the Run Calculation icon. Once the calculation is done, the app will display the
Actual and Optimal CRM level from the enterprise perspective—1st value and from the customer’s
perspective—2nd value. For greater clarity, the application uses the tool of the graphical user interface,
namely tooltip. The application also includes a graphical view of the level of the criteria at the bottom
of the application. The graph also uses the tooltip function to find out the level of fulfillment of the
individual criteria that represent the x axis and their total number is twenty-one in a total of seven
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2567 15 of 17

areas. The criteria names are located in the window above the chart and it is possible to be scrolled
between them. The main application graph shows all the criteria, but the number of criteria can
adversely affect transparency and evaluation of the fulfillment of individual criteria. For this reason,
the application also includes the ability to display partial graphs for each area. Each area then contains
three criteria and the results are more transparent. The criteria are re-depicted on the x-axis, they have
a numeric designation, and in the window above the chart you can see namely the criteria. Even in
this case, we can easily find out the level of fulfillment of each criterion through the tooltip. Usage
of the application is relatively simple and we have tested it with the selected company, which basic
characteristics are mentioned in the previous chapter. We tested the application based on data from
questionnaire surveys for employees and company customers. Based on the results obtained through
the software application, it was possible to identify the areas and criteria in which an enterprise
achieves low performance rates. The CRM level and performance measurement results show areas
underestimated by the company so far and it does not give them the attention that customers and
company representatives require for selected criteria. From this, the company can then predict future
development of performance, because only in this way the company can correct CRM activities.
Further limitations of the proposed model stem from the fact that it is not possible to create a
generalized model but only a CRM level and performance measurement model for companies in a
particular sector that share certain specific features. The model is primarily intended for companies
in the pharmaceutical sector in the B2B market in the Slovak Republic. However, its calculation
methodology is applicable to other industries in all countries as well. The limitations of the model
point towards issues to be addressed in the future, such as identifying the importance of individual
key areas in order to objectify the weights of each criterion in further empirical research.

Author Contributions: A.K. and L.G. conceived and designed the experiments; L.G. and M.N. performed the
experiments and analyzed the data; A.K. and L.G. wrote the paper.
Acknowledgments: This contribution is a partial output of the project APVV-15-0505: Integrated Model
of Management Support for Building and Managing the Brand Value in the Specific Conditions of the
Slovak Republic.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Sadaf, R.; Olah, J.; Popp, J.; Mate, D. An investigation of the influence of the worldwide governance
and competitiveness on accounting fraud cases: A cross-country perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 588.
[CrossRef]
2. Syaglova, V.Y. Influence of the marketing paradigm’s cycles patterns on the global entrepreneurship.
Econ. Manag. Spectrum 2017, 11, 48–61.
3. Machan, T.R. Stakeholder vs. shareholder debate: Some skeptical reflections. Contemp. Read. Law Soc. Justice
2017, 9, 7–13.
4. Kasych, A.; Vochozka, M. Theoretical and methodical principles of managing enterprise sustainable
development. Market. Manag. Innovat. 2017, 2, 298–305. [CrossRef]
5. Kliestik, T.; Misankova, M.; Valaskova, K.; Svabova, L. Bankruptcy prevention: new effort to reflect on legal
and social changes. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2018, 24, 791–803. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Aheame, M.; Hughes, D.E.; Schillewart, N. Why sales reps should welcome information technology:
Measuring the impact of CRM-based IT on sales effectiveness. Int. J. Res. Market. 2007, 24, 336–349.
[CrossRef]
7. Masarova, G. Marketingova Strategia Podiku v Oblasti B2B so Zameraním na CRM. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Zilina, Zilina, Slovakia, April 2015.
8. Storbacka, K.; Lehtinen, J. Řízení Vztahú se Zákazníky: Customer Relationship Management, 1st ed.; Grada
Publishing: Praha, Czech Republic, 2002; p. 167, ISBN 80-7169-813-X.
9. Czubała, A. Corporate Social Responsibility in marketing. For. Scien. Oecon. 2016, 4, 103–111.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2567 16 of 17

10. Chwistecka-Dudek, H. Corporate Social Responsibility: Supporters vs. opponents of the concept.
For. Scien. Oecon. 2016, 4, 171–180.
11. Braciníková, V.; Matušínská, K. Marketing mix of financial services from the customers perspective.
For. Scien. Oecon. 2017, 5, 35–48.
12. Musova, Z. Social responsibility in company marketing activities. Econ. Manag. Spectrum 2016, 10, 12–23.
13. Wesling, H. Aktívni Vztah k Zákazníkum Pomocí CRM, 1st ed.; Grada Publishing: Praha, Czech Republic, 2003;
p. 196, ISBN 80-247-0569-9.
14. Cerny, V. Prodejní Techniky, 1st ed.; Computer Press: Brno, Czech Republic, 2003; p. 486, ISBN 80-251-0032-4.
15. Hung, S.Y.; Hung, W.H.; Tsai, C.A.; Jing, C. Critical factors of hospital adoption on CRM system:
Organizational and information system perspectives. Decis. Support. Syst. 2010, 48, 592–606. [CrossRef]
16. Reinartz, W.; Krafft, M.; Hoyer, W.D. The customer relationship management process: Its measurement and
impact on performance. J. Market. Res. 2004, 41, 293–305. [CrossRef]
17. Hosseini, S.M.S.; Maleki, A.; Gholamian, M.R. Cluster analysis using data mining approach to develop CRM
methodology to assess the customer loyalty. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 5259–5264. [CrossRef]
18. Brown, S.A. Customer Relationship Management: A Strategic Imperative in the World of e-Business; John Wiley &
Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2000; p. 376, ISBN 9780471644095.
19. Pradana, H.A.; Riza, B.S.; Naseer, M.; Soetarno, D.; Mantoro, T. The effect of e-CRM towards service quality
and net benefits using structure equation modeling. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Informatics and Computing, ICIC 2017, Papua, Indonesia, 1–3 November 2017; Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1–6.
20. Oumar, T.K.; Mang’Unyi, E.E.; Govender, K.K.; Rajkaran, S. Exploring the e-CRM—e-customer- e-loyalty
nexus: A Kenyan commercial bank case study. Manag. Market. 2017, 12, 674–696. [CrossRef]
21. Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Esposito, E.; Raffa, M. Digital marketing in small and medium enterprises:
The impact of web-based technologies. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2016, 22, 1473–1476. [CrossRef]
22. Taiminen, H.M.; Karjaluoto, H. The usage of digital marketing channels in SMEs. J. Small Bus. Enterprise Dev.
2015, 22, 633–651. [CrossRef]
23. Grover, D. Effective Customer Relationship Management through e-CRM. Viewpoint 2011, 2, 27–38.
24. Sohrabi, B.; Haghighi, M.; Khanlari, A. Customer relationship management maturity model (CRM3):
A model for stepwise implementation. Int. J. Hum. Sci. 2010, 7, 1–20.
25. Hyung-Su, K.; Young-Gul, K. A CRM performance measurement framework: Its development process and
application. Ind. Market. Manag. 2009, 38, 477–489. [CrossRef]
26. Jonghyeok, K.; Euiho, S.; Hyunseok, H. A model for evaluating the effectiveness of CRM using the balanced
scorecard. J. Interact. Market. 2003, 17, 5–19. [CrossRef]
27. Sampson, L. The CRM Evaluation Method—-CRM BodyCheck. Available online: https://mthink.com/
legacy/www.crmproject.com/content/pdf/CRM6_wp_lee.pdf (accessed on 25 June 2018).
28. Chlebovsky, V. CRM Řízení Vztahu se Zákazníky; Computer Press: Brno, Czech Republic, 2005; p. 196,
ISBN 80-2510-798-1.
29. Milencicova, R. Meranie Ukazovatelov Výkonnosti CRM, 1st ed.; Univerzita sv. Cyrila a Matoda v Trnave,
Fakulta masmediálnej komunikácie: Trnava, Slovak Repubic, 2012; p. 148, ISBN 978-80-8105-412-9.
30. Balcerzak, A.P.; Kliestik, T.; Streimikiene, D.; Smrcka, L. Non-Parametric approach to measuring the efficiency
of banking sectors in European Union countries. A. Polyt. Hungar. 2017, 14, 51–70.
31. Kliestikova, J.; Misankova, M.; Kliestik, T. Bankruptcy in Slovakia: International comparison of the creditor’s
position. Oecon. Coper. 2017, 8, 221–237. [CrossRef]
32. Bratu, S. Is green consumerism really an environmentally conscious behaviour? Geopolitics Hist. Int. Relat.
2017, 9, 167–173.
33. Enderstein, A. European identity and gender equality policies: Shaping the practice of gender expertise.
J. Res. Gend. Stud. 2017, 7, 109–135. [CrossRef]
34. Sedliacikova, M.; Moresova, M.; Bikar, M.; Bencikova, D. How the internal stakeholders perceive the
implementation of controlling. Econ. Manag. Spectrum 2017, 11, 32–44. [CrossRef]
35. Chraska, M. Metody Pedagogického Výzkumu: Základy Kvantitativního Výzkumu; Grada Publishing: Praha,
Czech Republic, 2007; p. 265, ISBN 80-247-1369-4.
36. Durica, M.; Svabova, L. Improvement of company marketing strategy based on Google search results
analysis. Procedia Econ. Finance 2015, 26, 454–460. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2567 17 of 17

37. Kliestiková, J.; Krizanova, A.; Corejova, T.; Kral, P.; Spuchlakova, E. Subsidies to increase remote pollution?
Sci. Eng. Ethics 2018, 24, 755–767. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Kliestik, T.; Cisko, Š. Finančný Manažment Podniku II; Edis: Zilina, Slovak Republic, 2013; p. 775,
ISBN 978-80-554-0684-8.
39. Olah, J.; Zeman, Z.; Balogh, I.; Popp, J. Future challenges and areas of development for supply chain
management. LogForum 2018, 14, 127–138. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).