Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Selecting CRM packages based on architectural, functional, and cost requirements: Empirical validation of a hierarchical ranking model

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study describes a hierarchical ranking model to help the selection of CRM (customer relationship management) packages based on their functional and technical quality. The model is tested empirically by applying the hierarchical analytical process (AHP) to a sample of 42 CRM packages. Results indicate how functionally similar packages can differ substantially in their technical quality and, thus, in their ability to be integrated within a company’s information system. The hierarchical model is verified to be dependable, since the quality-based ranking of packages is found to have a low rank-reversal probability as a consequence of managers’ uncertainty in weighing the relevance of different quality variables. From a practical standpoint, these results confirm that CRM packages differentiate in measurable quality variables, which can be used by practitioners as a framework to gather and evaluate software-selection information during feasibility analyses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cahners in-stat group (2001) CRM revenues worldwide moving on up; Europe and Asia Pac to get their piece of the pie.http://www.instat.com

  2. Desmond M (2001) CRM Software: customer service for a song. PCworld.http://www.pcworld.com

  3. IDC (2000) Customer relationship management market forecast and analysis, 2000–2004. Report no. W22401.http://www.idc.com

  4. IDC (2002) IDC says Asia/Pacific CRM solutions market will grow by 30%.http://www.idc.com.sg/Press/2002/AP-PR-crm.htm

  5. King J (2001) Premier 100: CRM still in formative stages for many users. Computerwords.http://www.computerwords.com

  6. Karlsson J, Ryan K (1997) A cost–value approach for prioritazing requirements. IEEE Softw 14(5):67–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sivzattian S, Nuseibeh B (2001) Calibrating value estimates of requirements. In: Third international workshop on economics-driven software engineering research. Co-located with the international conference on software engineering (ICSE)

  8. Barua A, Ravindran S, Whinston AB (1997) Efficient selection of suppliers over the Internet. J Manag Inf Syst 13(4):117–138

    Google Scholar 

  9. Tam KY, Hui KL (2001) A choice model for selection of computer model vendors and its empirical estimation. J Manag Inf Syst 17(4):97–124

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nikoukaran J, Paul RJ (1999) Software selection for simulation in manufacturing: a review. Simulation Practice Theory 7(1):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ochs M, Pfahl D, Chrobok-Diening G, Nothhelfer-Kolb B (2001) A method for efficient measurement-based COTS assessment and selection method description and evaluation results. In: Proceedings of the seventh international software metrics symposium (METRICS 2001), pp 285−296

  12. Dean J, Oberndolf P, Vidger M, Abts C, Erdogmus H, Maiden N, Looney M, Heneiman G, Guntersdorf M (2001) COTS workshop: confirming collaboration for successful COTS development. ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 26(1):61–73

    Google Scholar 

  13. Choi S J, Scacchi W (2001) Modeling and simulating software acquisition process architectures. J Syst Softw 59(3):343–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Blecherman B (1999) Adopting automated negotiation. Technol Soc 21:167–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Boehm B, Grunbacher P, Briggs RO (2001) Developing groupware for requirements negotiation: lesson learned. IEEE Softw 18:46–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Khirallah K (2001) CRM case study. Optimizing relationships at National Australia Bank, Ltd. TowerGroup

  17. Compton J (2001) Case study: calling on CRM. ZdnetIndia.http://www.zdnetindia.com

  18. Anderson EE (1990) Choice models for the evaluation and selection of software packages. J Manag Inf Syst 6(4):123–138

    Google Scholar 

  19. Maiden NA, Ncube C (1998) Acquiring COTS software selection requirements. IEEE Softw 15(2):46–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ahrens JD, Prywes N, Lock E (1995) Software process reengineering: toward a new generation CASE technology. Syst Softw 30:71–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. McChesney IR (1995) Towards a classification scheme for software process modeling approaches. Inf Softw Technol 37(7):363–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cash JI, Lawrence PR (1990) The information system research challenge: qualitative research methods. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  23. Taudes F, Mild A (2000) Options analysis of software platform decisions: a case study. MIS Q 24(2):277–243

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ossadnik W, Lange O (1999) AHP-based evaluation of AHP-software. Eur J Oper Res 118:578–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Farbey B, Finkelstein A (2001) Software acquisition: a business strategy analysis. In: Proceedings of the fifth IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, pp 76–83

  27. Orlikowski WJ, Iacono CS (2001) Research commentary: desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research – a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Inf Syst Res 12(2):121–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. ISO/EIC 9126 (1991) Information technology – software product evaluation – quality characteristics and guidelines for their use. International standard, ISO, Genève, Switzerland

  29. Chechik M, Gannon J (2001) Automatic analysis of consistency between requirements and designs. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 27(7):651–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Blume M, Appel AW (1999) Hierarchical modularity. ACM Trans Program Language Syst 21(4):813–847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Greenberg P (2001) CRM at the speed of light. Osborne/McGraw-Hill

  32. Bradshaw D, Armstrong S (2001) Ovum evaluates: eCRM. Ovum.http://www.ovum.com

  33. Chorafas DN (2001) Integrating ERP, CRM, supply chain management and smart materials. Auerbach

  34. Booch G (1986) Object-oriented development. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 12(2):211–221

    Google Scholar 

  35. Chau P, Tam KY (1997) Factors affecting the adoption of open systems: an exploratory study. MIS Q 21(1):1–24

    Google Scholar 

  36. Berndt DJ, Hevner AR (1997) The COR model for analyzing information systems change. In: Proceedings of the 30th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, vol 3, pp 198–207

  37. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

  38. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives. Cambridge University Press

  39. Ticehurst J (2000) CRM vendor market faces massive shakeout. In: Gartner group European symposium, Cannes

  40. Roy B, Bouyssou D (1993) Aide Multicritère à la décision: Méthodes et Cas. Economica, Paris

  41. Gibson J (1994) How to do system analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

  42. Mollaghasemi M, Pet-Edwards J, Gupta U (1995) A multiple criteria buy versus lease analysis for government contracts. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 42(3):278–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Dubois D, Prade H, Testemale C (1988) Weighted fuzzy pattern matching. Fuzzy Sets Syst 28(3):313–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Fenton NE (1996) Software metrics, a rigorous approach. Thomson Computer Press

  45. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (1987) Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 32:107–117

    Google Scholar 

  46. Jolliffe IT (1986) Principal component analysis. Springer, New York Berlin Heidelberg

  47. Everitt BS, Dunn G (2001) Applied multivariate data analysis. Oxford University Press, New York

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been partially supported by the Italian VISPO and MAIS projects funded by the Italian Ministry of Research (MIUR). Particular thanks are expressed to Paolo Galli and Andrea Duro for their assistance in the data collection effort.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informazione, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo Da Vinci, 32, 20133, Milano, Italy

    Enzo Colombo & Chiara Francalanci

Authors
  1. Enzo Colombo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chiara Francalanci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Enzo Colombo.

Appendices

Appendix 1. CRM modules and sub-modules

1.1 Collaborative CRM

(Tables 11 and 12)

Table 11. Module: Channel management
Full size table
Table 12. Module: Call centre/help desk
Full size table

1.2 Analytical CRM

(Tables 13 and 14)

Table 13. Module: Data integration
Full size table
Table 14. Module: Datawarehousing and knowledge management
Full size table

1.3 Operational CRM

(Tables 15, 16, 17, and 18)

Table 15. Module: Field
Full size table
Table 16. Module: Sales
Full size table
Table 17. Module: Marketing
Full size table
Table 18. Module: Product management
Full size table

Appendix 2. Operating definition of model variables

(Tables 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29)

Table 19. Determinants of architectural quality
Full size table
Table 20. Determinants of functional quality
Full size table
Table 21. Paired comparisons between functional and architectural quality (first level of the hierarchical model)
Full size table
Table 22. Pair comparisons between a) maintainability and portability according to functional quality and b) completeness and personalizability (second level of the hierarchical model)
Full size table
Table 23. Pair comparisons among personalizability variables (third level of the hierarchical model)
Full size table
Table 24. Pair comparisons among maintainability variables (third level of the hierarchical model)
Full size table
Table 25. Pair comparisons among portability variables (third level of the hierarchical model)
Full size table
Table 26. Pair comparisons among qualitative values of Communication standards
Full size table
Table 27. Pair comparisons among qualitative values of Security levels
Full size table
Table 28. Pair comparisons among qualitative values of Customizable fields and Customizable reports
Full size table
Table 29. Pair comparisons among qualitative values of Interface type
Full size table

Appendix 3. Empirical results of pair comparisons

(Tables 30, 31, and 32)

Table 30. Mean value, standard deviation, and 99% confidence interval of the personalizability eigenvector’s weights
Full size table
Table 31. Mean value, standard deviation, and 99% confidence interval of the scalability eigenvector’s weights
Full size table
Table 32. Mean value, standard deviation, and 99% confidence interval of the interoperability eigenvector’s weights
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Colombo, E., Francalanci, C. Selecting CRM packages based on architectural, functional, and cost requirements: Empirical validation of a hierarchical ranking model. Requirements Eng 9, 186–203 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-003-0184-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-003-0184-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation