Crm System Roi Template

Document Sample
Crm System Roi Template Powered By Docstoc
					Customer Relationship Management
BCE CRM process improvement


CaRM Project

Project Director:                                        Chris Awre (c.awre@hull.ac.uk)
Project Manager:                                         Vicky Mays (v.mays@hull.ac.uk)
Project Officer:                                         Vladimir Kislicins (v.kislicins@hull.ac.uk)



Project Summary:



The CaRM project is a case study analysis of the implementation of the CRM Self-Analysis Framework
and the outcomes from it. The work is undertaken from a peripheral-tactical perspective aiming for a
long-term strategic implementation. The project is considering the cross-boundary issues, focusing
on the relationships between the University and external businesses. At the moment of the project
initiation the University has already had some experience in developing CRM, although islands of
CRM activities were not centralised, used different incompatible systems and relied on individual
processes which negatively affected information sharing within the institution.

The CaRM project has been undertaken in the context of existing preliminary work to implement a
CRM system within two key departments at the University, the Business School (including the
Logistics Institute) and the Knowledge Exchange, to assist them in their interactions with external
businesses. The project is developing this initial work to provide a basis upon which the Self-Analysis
Framework will be used to identify a process for wider cross-institutional CRM implementation,
maximising the value of using CRM overall.

Date: 24 February 2010

Version: 0.3
WP4: Self-analysis Framework assessment                      Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer



Project Plan
WP1: Project management

WP2, Part 1: Existing CRM outputs within the University

WP2, Part 2: CRM and HE sector

WP3: User requirement survey analysis

WP4: Self-analysis framework assessment




Executive Summary: WP4 Self-analysis Framework Assessment



This report is a critical review and a pilot of the JISC Customer Relationship Management Self-
analysis Framework (further known as the CRM SAF) on the case study at the University of Hull. As a
sequential step from the Baseline Assessment and the User Requirement Survey, it was foreseen
that an application of the CRM SAF would assist the University in understanding where to move
forward with CRM and Business Community Engagement (BCE).

This report will guide through the application of the JISC CRM SAF and provide findings and feedback
acknowledged during the process. The document will also follow the JISC CRM SAF chapter structure
to ease any further analysis of the framework implementation results. The introduction part of the
report is focused on the approach of the University towards the application of CRM SAF and how an
institution on a peripheral stage of CRM and BCE development used the framework to establish its
requirements. The main body of the report highlights the most important and common findings
within the specific areas and identifies actions that were taken to achieve these results. The
assessment of the CRM SAF input into achieving those results will also be undertaken. The summary
of this report concludes the key advantages and disadvantages of the CRM SAF as well as making
suggestions for further development.

It is envisaged that the following findings and comments on the JISC CRM SAF will help further
development of the framework as well as provide a case study for other institutions interested in
applying the JISC CRM SAF.




                                                 2
WP4: Self-analysis Framework assessment                                                              Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer



Index
  1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 5
        1.1 JISC CRM SELF-ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK AND THE UNIVERSITY OF HULL................................................................. 5

  2.0 SELF-ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................................................ 6

        2.1 WHAT IS CRM? ......................................................................................................................................... 6

                2.1.1 Structure and substance ............................................................................................................. 6

                2.1.2 Self-analysis checklist ................................................................................................................. 7

                2.1.3 Summarising ‘Why CRM’ ............................................................................................................ 8

        2.2 THE NEEDS OF HEIS AND FECS ...................................................................................................................... 8

                2.2.1 Structure and substance ............................................................................................................. 9

                2.2.2 Balance Scorecard & Quantifiable Benefits ................................................................................ 9

                2.2.3 Summarising ‘The needs of HEIs and FECs’ .............................................................................. 10

        2.3 WHO ARE YOUR CUSTOMERS? ..................................................................................................................... 10

                2.3.1 Structure and substance ........................................................................................................... 11

                2.3.2 Customer Analysis Templates ................................................................................................... 12

                2.3.3 Summarising ‘Who are your customers?’ ................................................................................. 12

        2.4 WHERE ARE YOU NOW? ............................................................................................................................. 12

                2.4.1 Structure and substance ........................................................................................................... 12

                2.4.2 Tools introduced in the paragraph ........................................................................................... 13

                2.4.3 Summarising ‘Where are you now?’ ......................................................................................... 13

        2.5 ARE YOU READY FOR CHANGE? .................................................................................................................... 13

                2.5.1 Structure and substance ........................................................................................................... 13

                2.5.2 Change-readiness assessment tools ......................................................................................... 14

                2.5.3 Summarising ‘Are you ready for change?’ ................................................................................ 14




                                                                                 3
WP4: Self-analysis Framework assessment                                                          Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer


      2.6 PROCESS MAPPING ................................................................................................................................... 15

              2.6.1 Summarising ‘Process Mapping’ .............................................................................................. 15

      2.7 WHICH CRM? ......................................................................................................................................... 15

              2.7.1 Summarising ‘Which CRM?’ ..................................................................................................... 15

  3. 0 Summary and Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 17

              3. 1 Tools and usability ...................................................................................................................... 17

  3. 2 Criticism of the framework ....................................................................................................................... 17




                                                                             4
WP4: Self-analysis Framework assessment                        Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer



1.0 Introduction
1.1 JISC CRM Self-analysis Framework and the University of Hull

Throughout the CaRM project most of the project team actions, networking events, feedback
sessions, data collection activities and findings analyses have referred to the JISC CRM SAF at some
point for guidance and inspiration. It was acknowledged from the beginning of the project that even
if the framework had its own limitations, it was providing a basis for an institution on which to
develop and build further CRM investigation. As the University of Hull (UoH) has already had
experience implementing islands of CRM activities with limited success, it was considered useful to
apply the JISC CRM SAF to establish potential for further CRM development and to identify what
should be the next step forward in the improvement of the BCE processes.


Due to the specifics of the UoH case study some sections of the framework were modified to adjust
to the requirements of the institution when other sections, for the same reason, were followed
through on a discussion/theoretical level rather than the actual implementation. Feedback on such
instances is provided throughout the report.


The UoH approached CRM SAF as a holistic tool that was designed as a ‘best practice’ guide for those
institutions that were interested in the development of BCE CRM. Focusing on the analysis of each of
the individual chapters, the following criteria were considered:


    1) Structure and substance (including the logical structure of each chapter, the relevance of the
        information provided and the degree of subject coverage);
    2) Self-analysis tools introduced (including the feedback from the tools implementation);
    3) Overall opinion and recommendations (summary about the chapter as well as
        recommendations about any issues that need to be addressed for further development).


This report is structured in the same way as the framework in order to follow the logical build-up of
the BCE CRM development. The report will also introduce some case study examples from the
experience of the UoH in BCE and CRM.




                                                  5
WP4: Self-analysis Framework assessment                        Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer



2.0 Self-analysis Framework
2.1 What is CRM?

With the first chapter of the framework being more informative rather than practical, the CaRM
project referred to it numerous times during the research and the report writing processes. The
information about the CRM concept as well as the examples provided were well defined and easy to
understand. Through the self-analysis checklist it was possible to start forming questions about the
internal BCE processes that were addressed in the Baseline Assessment (BA) and the User
Requirement Survey (URS).

2.1.1 Structure and substance

It was found useful that the framework started with an explanation of CRM and enabled the CaRM
project to associate with the subject on a deeper level. In specifics it was appreciated that the
triangular approach to CRM – the concept of Technology-Processes-People - was explained from the
technology side of it first as such a tangible approach was easier to understand. It was also useful to
see the potential benefits of CRM from the start as it was a primary matter of interest for the
stakeholders.

With some of the benefits identified it was also useful to understand that technology is only an
enabler and that the importance of processes is considered the foundation of CRM. The emphasis on
the ‘people’ part of CRM added another important angle to the concept. This helped the CaRM
project team to assess the importance of staff behind the CRM processes as well as the risks
associated with it. All in all this section provided an excellent fundamental knowledge for the project
team to be able to understand the importance of CRM and advocate for it with the stakeholders.

Description of the CRM challenges in HEIs and FECs environments was seen as a useful example
although at a later stage when the Baseline Assessment of CRM within the UoH was already
completed. The similarity of experience allowed the CaRM project team to confirm that the
challenges experienced previously by the UoH were not unique which means that other institutions
might have experience on how to overcome those challenges.

The CaRM project team has also found the diagram ‘Unified view of the Customer’ to be very useful.
The diagram was used for several project related presentations (CRM Workshop, Introduction to
CRM, Project Progress Report, etc.) as a method of explaining how a CRM system brings together the
internal processes of an institution.



                                                  6
WP4: Self-analysis Framework assessment                         Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer


The last section of the chapter included examples of CRM and CRM systems outside of the HE sector
which was seen as less relevant during the pilot of the framework. It is possible that such examples
would be more suitable in the Appendix section of the report rather than the first chapter.

In addition there were too many different definitions of CRM included in the first chapter and the
following sub-chapter. Although it was useful for the project team to understand how to define CRM,
so many definitions made it harder to understand which one was more suitable and useful to use.

2.1.2 Self-analysis checklist

Although the CaRM team used the checklist tool during several stages of the project, it was not
completed at the beginning of the work. Some of the questions asked in the checklist were
considered to be too general or too large-scale to be addressed at the initial stages of the self-
analysis and, therefore, were not completed. Those questions included but were not limited to the
following:

    1) How many customer groups does our institution have and who are they?

The ‘customer’ was considered to be a grey area for the UoH (more details available in chapter 2.3)
and there was little support on the subject available within the first chapter.

    2) What are the different services we deliver?

The range of ‘services’ was considered to be linked to the definition of the customer. As stated above
it was difficult to answer this question.

    3) Which databases are managed at School/departmental/individual levels?

This question was considered to be too broad to be addressed at that stage as there was little
agreement to the definition of a CRM database.

Most of the questions were used to a degree for two of the CaRM project activities – Baseline
Assessment (BA) and User Requirement Survey (URS). The questions introduced in the checklist
helped the project team to understand which information was difficult to pinpoint and allowed the
development of the subject areas which would be explored through the individual interviews of the
stakeholders as well as the institution-wide surveys. The following questions were considered to be
the most useful and were asked directly or implied within the User Requirement Survey exercise:

    1) How do individuals record their communications with clients?
    2) How much resistance to sharing information would we anticipate within our institution?



                                                   7
WP4: Self-analysis Framework assessment                       Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer


    3) Approximately how many different databases exist across our institution?
These questions allowed the project team to assess the most popular methods for relationship
management within the institution as well as the reasoning behind them, the potential resistance
from implementing a centralised CRM system with its related processes as well as gaining an
understanding of the scale of such a project.

2.1.3 Summarising ‘What is CRM’

This chapter allowed the CaRM project to development and introduce a shared understanding of
CRM that would be used throughout the BCE development project. The large amount of CRM
definitions was seen as confusing and so were the case-study examples of CRM outside of the HE
sector. On the other hand the experience introduced from the University of Hertfordshire was seen
as beneficial and allowed the project team to realise the significant difference between private and
public sector CRM. Due to the specifics of the ‘customer’ definition it would be beneficial to see
more of the success stories from within the HE sector. The self-analysis checklist was seen as a
valuable tool and was used throughout the project although it was not clear whether the tool should
have been completed as a first stage of the process or simply used as guidance for further research.

2.2 The needs of HEIs and FECs

The CaRM project team identified the second chapter to be more informative rather than practical
than the first one. By that time the project was ready to begin the Baseline Assessment (‘Where are
you now’ section of the framework) therefore this section was used for information only.

Although the chapter name declared this to be about the common CRM needs for HEIs and FECs, it
was felt that the chapter focused more on the following:

    1) Internal and External support available for an institution involved in BCE CRM;
    2) Measuring CRM success – examples how to measure the CRM success, which tools might be
        appropriate and how other organisations have done this;

Both of the topics within the section were confusing and seemed to be out of place within the
framework. The CaRM project at that stage had not done any significant research to require any
support and there was no CRM system in place to measure the success. Although it was understood
that there was a need for a baseline in order to establish any further return on investment (ROI), the
project team struggled to see how measuring success of CRM could be relevant at a stage when it
was not even clear whether there was a need for CRM within the institution in general. The




                                                  8
WP4: Self-analysis Framework assessment                         Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer


recommendation of the CaRM project team in regards to a better positioning of those parts of the
framework is available in the summary of this chapter (paragraph 2.2.3).

2.2.1 Structure and substance

The questions introduced in the first part of the section were useful to the CaRM project as they
formed the foundation for CRM, potential aims and strategies as well as risks and how it would affect
expectations. The self-analysis questions within the section helped formulate the baseline
assessment. Potential external and internal support needs introduced in the chapter were seen as
more beneficial if included at a later stage of the project. ‘Measuring progress’ which made up part
of the second chapter was found to be too general for the specific needs of the HEIs and FECs. It
would be more useful to see this section as a separate chapter of the framework but extended
further to focus on specifics of HEIs and FECs and especially to look at the way in which intangible
benefits arising from CRM could be measured (such as better engagement with the community).
Although there were some probing questions available in the section, it was not possible for the
project team to construct any sort of plan of action on ‘success measurement’ from those questions.
In addition, the links - ‘Download an article on measuring CRM success’ and ‘Download about the
way in which other institutions have measured customer benefits’ – lead to the same article about
measuring CRM benefits in a commercial environment, which was difficult to apply our situation. The
article also contradicted the CRM SAF approach to CRM with the suggestion that CRM is viewed as a
marketing programme.

The summary of the chapter logically concluded that it is crucial to assess ‘where you are at the start’
in order to succeed in measuring CRM success and relevant return on investment (ROI). This key
suggestion confirmed that this chapter is probably located in the wrong part of the framework as
there was a clear need to do a baseline assessment in order to move the project further.

2.2.2 Balance Scorecard & Quantifiable Benefits

The Balance Scorecard (BS) was not seen as a very useful tool by the CaRM project team and
therefore was not implemented. Being too general in its content and without a certain enabler
towards any further action development from the BS results, it could be suggested that the tool does
not provide any additional value to the framework. Potentially the tool might be more useful for
other institutions to identify their goals and write them down for further use although it could be
recommended changing ‘Measures’ column to ‘Actions’ column as that would help the institution to
plan actions towards their goals.




                                                   9
WP4: Self-analysis Framework assessment                         Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer


The Quantifiable Benefits tool was also perceived by the project team as difficult to implement. It
was next to impossible to calculate ‘Pre-CRM Implementation Costs’ as one of the main ideas of CRM
was to collect, store and provide data for such analysis. This allowed the project team to conclude
that the most accurate tool for measuring the success of CRM is an actual CRM system, therefore a
small-scale trial of a CRM system (even at a team level) might be much more useful for identifying
benefits rather than anything else. However the project team was skeptical about establishing ‘Post-
CRM Implementation Costs’ as the Baseline Assessment indicated that CRM in the HE sector is better
at returning improved quality of relationships rather than cost reduction. It was also concluded not
reasonable to link together any cost changes with CRM due to a number of other variables affecting
the results. For example, it is not possible to tell for sure that the staff costs decreased from the
implementation of CRM rather than from the budget cuts or staff unhappiness with a CRM system
followed by a lot of voluntary redundancies.

In addition it seemed more logical to see the Quantifiable Benefits tool towards the end of the
framework as ROI could only be established after the baseline had been drawn and that required a
CRM system to be implemented. It would also be useful to see some suggestions on how often the
data should be collected in order to establish a reliable dataset for ROI.

2.2.3 Summarising ‘The needs of HEIs and FECs’

Although expecting this section to be about the similar CRM needs for HEIs and FECs and examples
of those, the actual topics covered were more to do with the support and ROI. The chapter was not
significantly used during the CaRM project and was seen as lacking depth surrounding the common
and specific needs for CRM. It could be recommended that the ‘support’ section of the paragraph
would be moved to the ‘Are you ready for change?’ paragraph and the ROI section seemed more
useful within the ‘Which CRM?’ section as it potentially could help building a CRM business case to
ask for investment into CRM and specifically a CRM system. On the other hand the complexity of ROI
measurement seemed to be underdeveloped and would benefit from more examples from the HE
sector. The article on success measurement was found confusing.

2.3 Who are your customers?

In line with the previous two chapters, this section was also more theoretical than expected by the
CaRM project team. The practical tool to analyse the process of data collection and consultation
helped develop ways to approach the identification of the customer, although the results analysed
through the provided templates as well as the tool suggested that customer value analysis did not
cover the complexity experienced.



                                                   10
WP4: Self-analysis Framework assessment                        Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer


2.3.1 Structure and substance

The self-analysis questions introduced in the beginning of the chapter were not as helpful as
expected by the CaRM project team. The way the framework defined the customer into groups of
Students/Businesses/etc was considered inconclusive for the UoH and omitted the complexity of the
customer. The CaRM project was able to identify many different types of customers across the
institution (full-time students, short courses students, external business partners, internal
businesses, etc) and even more grey areas when the same contact was present in several customer
groups at the same period of time. The CRM SAF did not expand on such complexities. In addition
the Baseline Assessment identified that within the UoH some users desired to record only external
contacts on their CRM system, when others were also adding internal colleagues and students as
their customers (more details available in WP2, Part 1 - Existing CRM outputs within the University).
It is acknowledged that for other institutions which had less experience with ‘atypical’ customer
types this section might be more useful.

On the other hand, the importance of the customer needs and the suggestions on how to gather the
required information was useful for the CaRM project. These suggestions as well as the experience of
another institution from the JISC RM Project group helped the UoH to develop a CRM ‘Workshop’
event as a method of consultation with the stakeholders.

During the project the suggestions on how to consult the customer helped to form the Customer
Satisfaction survey. Due to the specifics of the survey the marketing department wanted to be
heavily involved in the data collection process but could not dedicate any time which coincided with
the duration of the project. Unfortunately due to the project time limitation the project team could
not run the Customer Satisfaction Survey. However the UoH will identify opportunities for running
the survey beyond the project’s lifetime.

Customer value was considered as an interesting concept although slightly underdeveloped in
relations to the HE sector. It was not possible to identify any customer values due to the reasons
described in the previous paragraph. In addition the CaRM project team though it would be useful to
expand on the example on how to map customer value taking into consideration the complexity of
similar services provided within different industries. For example when short courses are offered by
training agencies, consulting agencies, colleges as well as universities - HEIs are in competition with
industry outside the HE sector, so the question would be how is that is reflected on the customer
value and which service provider would a customer choose and for what reason.




                                                  11
WP4: Self-analysis Framework assessment                       Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer


2.3.2 Customer Analysis Templates

Both of the templates introduced in the chapter were not utilised by the CaRM project as there was
no access to the information required as well as a lot of grey areas and uncertainty about the
definition of the customer. The template focused on analysing the consultation process was useful
and helped the CaRM project team to develop the Customer Satisfaction Survey. The template on
customer value was not used as there was no data available to populate the template with.

2.3.3 Summarising ‘Who are your customers?’

This was another theoretical based chapter within the framework. A better place for this section
seems to be as a part of the ‘Where are you now’ so to avoid having 3 theoretical chapters in a row
with no opportunity to check the content in practice, such as producing a Baseline Assessment.

It would be beneficial to have some guidance regarding the complexity of the customer definition. It
would also be interesting to see some examples of this complexity in other institutions so that the
UoH could confirm that the issues experienced are common for the sector. Case studies on potential
solutions would also be of benefit.

2.4 Where are you now?

This chapter was one of the most useful for the CaRM project. This chapter introduced the method
of characterising stages of CRM development within the institution, and allowed the CaRM project
team to understand what should be looked for in the Baseline Assessment. This also provided a
simple way of explaining the situation with CRM to the stakeholders. The CaRM project made an
initial decision to start the implementation of the CRM SAF from this chapter and focused on
identifying at which stage the CRM development was at the UoH.

2.4.1 Structure and substance

The paragraph is very well structured and the CaRM project team did not encounter any difficulties
working with it. The external links and hidden pop-down paragraphs were useful and highly relevant.

The description of the 3 possible stages of CRM development allowed the CaRM project to create a
hypothesis and focus the Baseline Assessment on collecting and analysing the information to test
that hypothesis. ‘The CRM Continuum’ tool was a useful representation of the differences between
the stages. The opposite descriptors allowed the CaRM project team to set out an interview script for
collecting the data for the Baseline Assessment.




                                                   12
WP4: Self-analysis Framework assessment                       Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer


Although there was some suggestions on how to approach the ‘Where would you like to be’ stage, it
would be useful to see some reference back to ‘The needs of HEIs and FECs’ chapter in order to
reflect on ‘How to decide where would you like to be’.

The implementation approaches outlined in the paragraph were also considered useful and
interesting. The approach to the CRM implementation previously carried out at UoH with limited
success was also reviewed and assessed according to the suggestions in the SAF.

2.4.2 Tools introduced in the paragraph

There were no tools as such introduced in the paragraph although the CaRM project team did not
feel that there was a need for them.

2.4.3 Summarising ‘Where are you now?’

The CaRM project team found this particular section to be one of the most practical and useful
within the framework. The paragraph helped the project team to develop an interview script which
was used for initial data collection (Baseline Assessment). It could be suggested that the section
should be located earlier in the framework as the project team found it more useful as one of the
first self-analysis development activities. However, this may be a consequence of the UoH having
already had some experience of CRM. Another suggestion would be to expand on how an institution
might decide which stage of CRM BCE development is sufficient for their particular situation.

2.5 Are you ready for change?

This chapter focused on the correlation between the ‘importance of Culture-People-Processes
factors’ for assessing ‘change readiness’ and helped the CaRM project team to understand, evaluate
and raise awareness of the potential difficulties with the CRM implementation. Some conflict was
encountered between the content of the section and a case study developed during the CaRM
project.

2.5.1 Structure and substance

The culture of the organisation was established as one of the potential barriers to the CRM
implementation within the UoH. It was useful to discover how to characterise the existing culture
within the UoH in order to introduce some ‘common language’ between the CaRM project and other
HEIs. This had a very positive effect on the development of the Baseline Assessment research.

The CRM SAF suggested that the institution should not attempt to change the existing culture within
the organisation but to work with it. Although it sounds reasonable, the University of Salford and


                                                 13
WP4: Self-analysis Framework assessment                        Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer


their successful Employer Engagement project (which has also included CRM development) viewed
culture change as key for the project success. In addition, the University of Hertfordshire case study
available within the CRM SAF also suggested about revolutionising culture. This leads to a conclusion
that perhaps there is no ‘black or white’ approach to whether an institution should change or work
with the existing culture in order to achieve success in CRM. It would be useful to see some
suggestions on how to decide whether the culture of the institution needs to be changed or adapted
to.

The ‘strategy, leadership, culture and change’ section of the chapter seemed to be repeating the rest
of the paragraph and was not used by the CaRM project. The suggestions on how to assess change-
readiness were seen as very useful and helped the further development of the project as described
in the following section.

2.5.2 Change-readiness assessment tools

The checklist was seen as a useful tool for the CaRM project. The checklist was used after the
Baseline Assessment and the User Requirement Survey in order to establish whether the project
team was successfully communicating with the stakeholders. Although some questions were slightly
irrelevant as they were targeted on the post-implementation results, others were seen as a useful
way to assist the establishment of change-readiness. It would be useful to see another tool further in
the framework that would specifically address the post-implementation issues and, if those existed
according to the results of the self-analysis tool, suggest some actions on how to overcome them.

The second tool ‘Assessment of change-readiness’ was also considered a potentially useful tool.
Using this tool the CaRM project team was able to establish that the UoH is not yet ready for change
and some work needs to be done specifically towards preparing staff members to accept the need
for CRM and the affect it will have on their work.

The case study of the Northhumbria County Council was considered to be slightly irrelevant and too
broad. Perhaps just the summary of the report would be more useful rather than the full case study.

2.5.3 Summarising ‘Are you ready for change?’

The chapter helped the CaRM project team establish a common language with other institutions in
the HE sector for the definition of internal culture. The tools provided within the section assisted in
identifying ‘change-readiness’ and flagged issues to address prior to an implementation of CRM
within the UoH. In addition this caused some reflection on previous attempts of CRM
implementation.



                                                     14
WP4: Self-analysis Framework assessment                        Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer


2.6 Process Mapping

During the Baseline Assessment and the User Requirement Survey it was established that there are
disparate CRM systems within the University and a range of ill-defined processes and procedures
regarding the use of CRM for BCE (for example and clearly indicated differences between ‘As Is’ and
‘As Should Be’ – please see Appendix 1). Specifically, different teams within one department would
use different CRM systems for their individual processes. These findings indicate a need to redevelop
BCE processes on an institutional level. The CaRM project was not in a position to engage in process
remodelling other than by providing factual confirmation of the need to do so. Being in such a
position and with a need to evaluate the ‘Process Mapping’ chapter, the CaRM project team decided
to take on a single CRM process and produce two maps of it – ‘As Is’ and ‘As Should Be’. Both maps
are available within the Appendix 1.

2.6.1 Summarising ‘Process Mapping’

Overall the chapter allowed the team members to understand how the JISC would like to see the
HEIs map processes. For those members of the team who had previous experience in process
mapping, it was useful to see which particular methods were recommended by the JISC, when those
new to the process mapping could easily understand the basics without all the complexity of
different modelling methods and languages. The information and process mapping techniques
provided within the chapter helped the project team understanding and navigating within the
SmartDraw software, the use of which was also an excellent recommendation within the framework.

Drawing on previous experience and knowledge of business process re-engineering (BPR), the
project team felt that more could be added to the section, specifically – more detailed explanation
and guidance through each of the BPR steps and possibly some tools or relative self-assessment
questions as well as a reading list that could help with this complex procedure.

2.7 Which CRM?

Similar to the previous chapter, the last section of the CRM SAF was also not implemented as the
CaRM project objectives did not include choosing a CRM system. Rather the opposite, the CaRM
project team tried to stay objective and not give a recommendation on a specific system. It was the
institutional level of need for CRM that the project team wanted to establish.

2.7.1 Summarising ‘Which CRM?’

After consideration of this section of CRM SAF it is possible to conclude that the chapter should
prove to be very useful for designing a CRM implementation project plan. Taking into consideration


                                                  15
WP4: Self-analysis Framework assessment                      Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer


an overall CRM vision and strategy, the chapter allows the development of the existing findings and
the production of a robust business case including the costs and risks involved with such a project.
This would align with the project management framework currently in place at the University of Hull.




                                                16
WP4: Self-analysis Framework assessment                         Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer



3.0 Summary and Recommendations
Analysis of the JISC CRM SAF demonstrates that the framework is designed in such a way that any
HEI or FEC regardless of their previous experience in CRM could apply it to their particular case. At
the same time, because the SAF focuses on institutions with limited experience in CRM it renders the
framework somewhat difficult to adjust for an institution such as the UoH who has had previous
experience in CRM. The difficulty was further compounded as the previous attempts had not been
entirely successful. The CaRM project team did not follow the framework chronologically but
consulted with different parts of the framework at different stages of the project in order to assess
previous CRM implementation pilots and activities. The framework should achieve its full potential
within an institution that had no previous experience implementing CRM.

3. 1 Tools and usability

Graphical images and diagrams incorporated within the framework described the relevant issues
particularly well and were adopted by the UoH for CRM workshops and presentations. Some of the
self-analysis tools introduced within the framework were more relevant to the UoH than others.
Specifically the following tools were actively used by the CaRM project team:


    -   Self-analysis checklist of the practices within your institution;
    -   Assessment of change readiness;
    -   Factors affecting staff readiness for change;
    -   How will I consult my customers;


A recommendation would be to review the self-analysis tools available within the SAF and
rearrange/expand the selection. One of the tools that proved successful for the CaRM project and
could be added to the SAF is the CRM Workshop activity and it could be recommended to add such
an event as a method of consultation with the stakeholders, customers or partners. The event
allowed the CaRM project team to bring together stakeholders from different parts of the institution
to discuss similar issues and problems that could be solved with CRM. The event also helped to
establish some new relationships that proved useful further along into the project.


3. 2 Criticism of the framework

In general the major criticism from the UoH point of view was not the content of the framework but
the arrangement of the chapters. Some chapters were considered to be in the wrong part of the



                                                   17
WP4: Self-analysis Framework assessment                       Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer


framework when some parts of individual sections could be separated into individual chapters
themselves. As it is highly possible that this opinion is biased by the fact that the UoH has had
previous experience with CRM, the suggestion would be to produce 2 frameworks or include
alternative methods within the same framework that would target institutions that are completely
new to CRM and those that are not. Through introduction of a few multiple choice questions in the
beginning of the framework, the system could determine which framework or alternative sections to
load in order to avoid any confusion.


In conclusion it can be stated that CRM SAF has helped the UoH to initialise the work towards CRM
BCE and guide through some important stages. Although there are areas within the framework that
still require some improvement and case studies relevant to HE which could be added over time, in
general it is a very useful tool and the UoH would recommend using it to every institution interested
in improving their BCE processes.




                                                 18
Appendix 1

    Customer Enquiry Process Map (Knowledge Exchange) - ‘As Is’
WP4: Self-analysis Framework assessment                                        Vladimir Kislicins, CaRM Project Officer




               Customer Enquiry Process Map (Knowledge Exchange) - ‘As Should Be’




                                                     20

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Crm System Roi Template document sample