The factors affecting adoption of CRM at the organizational level in Iran’s shipping industry

(1)

2007:025

M A S T E R ' S T H E S I S

The Factors Affecting Adoption of CRM at the Organizational Level in

Iran’s Shipping Industry

Navid Fakhredaei

Luleå University of Technology Master Thesis, Continuation Courses

Marketing and e-commerce

Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences

(2)

The Factors Affecting

Adoption of CRM at the Organizational Level in Iran’s Shipping Industry

Supervisors:

Dr. Lennart Persson & Dr.Hessameddin Zegordi

Referee:

Dr.Sepehri

Prepared by:

Navid Fakhredaei

Tarbiat Modares University Faculty of Engineering Department of Industrial Engineering

Lulea University of Technology

Division of Industrial Marketing and E-Commerce

MSc PROGRAM IN MARKETING AND ELECTRONIC COMMERCE Joint

2006

(3)

MASTER'S THESIS

The Factors Affecting

Adoption of CRM at the Organizational Level in Iran’s Shipping Industry

Supervisors:

Dr. Lennart Persson & Dr.Hessameddin Zegordi

Referee:

Dr.Sepehri

Prepared by:

Navid Fakhredaei

Tarbiat Modares University Faculty of Engineering Department Industrial Engineering

Lulea University of Technology

Division of Industrial Marketing and E-Commerce

MSc PROGRAM IN MARKETING AND ELECTRONIC COMMERCE Joint

2006

(4)

Abstract:

Shipping, the World’s largest industry, consists of sectors and each sector is approaching the IT revolution in different ways for the achievement of competitive advantages. Today the shipping industry has expanded dramatically and it is in the process of harnessing the advancements of Information Technology in providing added value for the business.

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is a fast-growing segment of business software that has been embraced by manufacturers and service providers in many industries. CRM is about understanding the buying habits and preferences of the customers and prospects.For a global competitive market such as shipping, CRM can bring a lot of advantages. But contrary to what is expected most carriers and logistic providers have yet to launch a formal CRM program. And few CRM vendors have crafted transportation industry specific applications.

Considering the good potential of this industry for adopting CRM, the main contribution of this research would be to the CRM vendors and marketers who are seeking for a good market in order to launch their product. This research can help them to influence the adoption process of CRM at organizational level and also find out what motivates the adoption of CRM and related technologies in this industry.

With this in mind this research is trying to find out the factors effecting the adoption of CRM at organizational level in Iran’s shipping industry. The data has been collected from 50 companies which have been selected randomly. This research is mainly exploratory. Quantitative approach was used during the whole study.

At the end of this research it was found out that adopter characteristics ( attitude toward change and perceived CRM knowledge) , environmental hostility ( market uncertainty , environmental hostility ) and perceived CRM characteristics ( CRM relative advantage, CRM complexity ,CRM trialability , CRM switching cost and CRM compatibility ) all have positive effect on intention to adopt CRM. Among these three sets of factors adopter characteristics have more effect on intention to adopt CRM.

(5)

Acknowledgements:

I would like to express my gratitude to all those who gave me the possibility to complete this thesis, specially my supervisors Dr. Lennart Persson at division of Industrial Marketing and Electronic Commerce of Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, and Dr.Hessameddin Zegordi at division of Industrial Marketing and Electronic Commerce of Tarbiat Modares University , Iran, for all .their support and intelligent guidance.

Winter 2006 Navid Fakhredaei

(6)

Table of Figures:

Figure 1-1: The Outline of the Thesis... 15

Figure 2-1: The Innovation Adoption Curve ... 21

Figure 3-1: Research Model... 47

Figure 4-1: Data Collection Approach... 52

Figure 4-2: Research Design Blue Print ... 63

Figure 5-1: Research Model... 72

Figure 5-2: Standardized Values... 78

Figure 5-3: Standardize Path Coefficients ... 80

(9)

List of Tables:

Table 4-1: Relevant Situation for Different Research Strategies... 50

Table 4-2: Measurement Items for Key Research Variables ... 57

Table 5-1: Selected Companies' Characteristics... 67

Table 5-2: Customers of Selected Companies ... 67

Table 5-3: IT Penetration in Selected Companies ... 68

Table 5-4: Reliability Analysis (Cronbach's Alpha)... 70

Table 5-5 : Goodness of Fit Indices for the Model... 76

Table 5-6: Covariance Matrix... 77

Table 5-7: Operationalization of Multiple Item Subconstructs ... 77

Table 5-8: Correlation Matrix of Independent Variables ... 81

(10)

Chapter One

Introduction and Research Problem

1 Introduction and Research Problem

Chapter Brief:

In this chapter an introduction and a background to this research will be presented. The background begins with a brief definition of CRM will continue with an explanation about the CRM adoption and necessity of IT in shipping industry. At the end the research problem and the outline of the thesis would be presented.

1.1 Introduction:

During recent years technology has increasingly been employed in order to help the businesses to manage their functions and processes. CRM as one of the most popular business management application systems plays a great a role in controlling the companies touch points with their customers and help them to improve their experiences by knowing these customers better.

(11)

But it should be noticed that before each business can benefit from a new product, technology or solution it should have come to a maturity to be able to adopt that technology properly. This adoption may happen in different levels, and several items can effect this adoption at each level.

By getting help from the innovation adoption theories, this research is trying to find out how does the factors defined in these theories effect the adoption of CRM .

In order to do a more precise research, this study is focused on the shipping industry of Iran. I have selected this industry because this industry is characterized by globalization of trade, services and manufacturing activity. It means all the companies which are active in this industry are some how related with foreign companies, whether as a customer, supplier or competitor. So they can not resist against the global changes, and sooner or later they should adopt the new technologies that have been adopted worldwide.

As businesses in Iran are getting familiar with these kinds of business management applications and are curious to know how these technologies improve their performance, it is so important for the vendors of these applications to know these businesses better and take the first steps of launching their products with the minimum mistakes.

Therefore this research tries to study the factors that may effect the adoption of CRM in Iran’s shipping industry. And the result of this research can help the vendors of CRM and related technologies to have a more precise evaluation of Iran’s shipping industry as their target market.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 CRM Definition

Everybody who profits from CRM has their own definition of what it is, but they're agreed as to what it is not: CRM isn't about technology any more than hospitality is about throwing a welcome mat on your front porch. (P. Greenberg 2002)

(12)

CRM and related data-driven technologies have brought tremendous progress to the process of better understanding customers, particularly in terms of developing mutually beneficial relationships (Peltier et al. 2003; Reinartz et al. 2005). Companies advantage if they can deliver value added services to their customers and are able to respond to their changing needs (Bell et al. 2005).

A good CRM system builds value for a business by opening up vital communication channels and creating a common client-focused knowledgebase to better serve the clients.

CRM is about understanding the buying habits and preferences of the customers and prospects, so it makes it possible for a business to:

• Build and strengthen customer relationships to keep them coming back.

• Provide value added services that are difficult for competitors to duplicate.

• Improve the product development and service delivery processes.

• Increase the staff’s awareness of customer needs.

• Reduce customer frustration by not asking the same question over and over.

CRM is more than just software or a set of processes- it’s a business culture solidly focused on winning and keeping the right customers. Although CRM technology provides the tools to effectively and efficiently serve customer needs, successful CRM endeavours tailor strategies and tactics across the customer relationship life-cycle, from the initial segmentation and targeting of new customers all the way through customer retention (Rigby and Ledingham 2004). That is why it might be a complete waste of money when companies install CRM before they are really ready for that.

1.2.2 CRM Adoption at Organizational Level

Although there is a small and growing stream of research on CRM within the academic literature, it has focused primarily on “installation” issues such as gaining sponsor support, IT infrastructure, and training (Wilson, Daniel, and Mc Donald 2002), rather than on factors that influence when, how, and why firms “adopt” CRM and similar information technology (Mole et al. 2004; Kickul and Gundry, 2002; Peppers and

(13)

Rodgers 2003). Relative to CRM adoption decisions is the study of the diffusion of technological innovations which has emerged as a prominent topic in the marketing literature (c.f., Montoya-Weiss and Calantone 1994; Moore 1991; Speier and Venkatesh 2002). This interest stems in part from the well-grounded belief that the successful adoption of technology creates sustainable competitive advantages in the market place (Srinivasan, Lilien, and Rangaswamy 2002), provides a central mechanism for adapting to rapidly changing markets and the opportunities they offer, helps shape and enhance buyer-seller relationships (Parasuraman and Grewal 2000), and is critical for leveraging applicable systems in the practice of customer-centric marketing (Sethi 2000). Much of the extant conceptual and empirical research in marketing has been on identifying factors that influence the rate and depth of the adoption and diffusion of new products and services.

Adoption refers to the decision of any individual or organization to make use of an innovation, whereas diffusion refers to the accumulated level of users of an innovation in a market (Rogers 1995). Traditionally, marketers have embraced Rogers' (1995) definition of the diffusion of innovations as a process where innovations are

"communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system,” This process has been conceptualized as having four main components: the innovation, communication channels, timing of adoption, and entities within a social system (Mahajan, Muller, and Bass 1990). Augmenting this literature is a growing body of research that focuses on ways to launch and market "high tech" innovations (Mick and Fournier 1998). Given that CRM adoption deals with both technology development and technology implementation, the innovation literature provides a strong theoretical and empirical foundation for studying its adoption.

The central focus of this paper will be on CRM adoption in an organizational context. In essence, two types of organizational adoption decisions can be identified, i.e.

the decision made by an organization to adopt an innovation and the decision made by an individual within an organization to make use of an innovation (Frambach & Schillewaert 1999).

(14)

1.2.3 Information Technology in Shipping Industry

Shipping has been the cornerstone of transportation from the very beginning of civilization, especially in countries like Iran which are surrounded by water and most transportation jobs are done through the sea. But the present business environment poses many challenges for the shipping industry, which, if not addressed using the right solutions, can make a difficult situation worse. Fluctuating demand, unstable revenues and increasing costs means bad times for the shipping industry in the whole world. The present trend of upstream and downstream consolidation, capacity/space utilization and increasing automation needs to be carefully evaluated.

The Ports and Shipping Industry is characterized by globalization of trade, services and manufacturing activity. Globalization has brought in the need for global networks and has prompted shipping companies into mergers, acquisitions, alliances and consolidation regardless of their location. It has also impelled the development of value- added services and producing large capacity ships to achieve economies of scale.

Information technology can play a pivotal role in bringing exciting times back for the shipping industry. The adoption of information technology can give organizations operational agility, providing seamless information integration in addition to considerable cost savings. As a result, while their customers can enjoy the convenience and functionality offered by e-commerce, shipping companies are able to communicate better with their extended organizational network.

1.2.4 Iran’s Shipping Industry Adoption of CRM: research problem

Growth wise, through the latter half of the 1990s through early 2000, companies spent millions of dollars on CRM systems designed to track and strengthen customer relationships (Peltier, Schibrowsky and Zhao 2004). But the majority of the firms investing resources in CRM technology failed to garner the expected benefits associated with getting close to customers. Many adopters of CRM technology grew frustrated and learned firsthand that becoming customer-centric requires not only a high level of

(15)

coordination between IT and marketing, they also became to understand that the entire organization must undergo a cultural shift with regard to how customer data are integrated and shared within and between functional areas (Gulati and Oldroyd 2005;

Zahay et al. 2004).

The lack of internal coordination that many organizations encountered and resulting negative impact on ROI contributed in part to a sharp drop in CRM sales. After rising 28% between 1999 and 2000, CRM sales dropped by 5% in 2001, 25% in 2002, and 17% in 2003 (Gartner Research 2004).

This is not only with CRM, many new products are found to fail after their market launch. In the past three decades, extensive research has been conducted to identify discriminating factors between new product success and failure (see e.g., Montoya-Weiss and Calantone 1994).

Thus, in order for a firm to be successful in bringing CRM to the market, a thorough understanding of their potential customers and both the process and factors influencing potential customers’ decision to either adopt CRM or not is of crucial importance. In this respect, research on the adoption and diffusion of CRM offers significant contributions to the marketing domain. One of the important issues marketers face in this context is how to successfully market their innovations.

Several stages have been defined in CRM market evolution:

• Unaware/Low awareness

• Aware but unconvinced

• Convinced not planning to implement

• Convinced planning to implement

• In implementation

• Already implemented

While there has been a great deal of attention on CRM technology and practices in recent times in Iran, when it comes to putting it in practice, the market is in a very early stage of evolution. It can be felt that companies active in Iran’s shipping industry

(16)

are either unaware, or unconvinced about the benefits and applicability of CRM. So the first steps in launching CRM into this big market are so vital.

Due to the importance of shipping industry in Iran and the role that CRM can play in this industry, it is the objective of this paper to identify and integrate variables that have been found to determine or influence organizational decisions on CRM adoption in Iran’s shipping industry.

I set out to focus my research findings on formulating a single-level model of organizational innovation adoption that incorporates determinants at only organizational level. This (organizational) adoption models help suppliers of CRM to analyze and identify the potential key drivers of an effective launch of CRM in shipping industry of Iran.

1.2.5 Outline of the thesis

In the first chapter an introduction and a background to this research have been provided. Defined CRM term and research problem have also been outlined.

Chapter two presents the theoretical review mainly based on adoption literature as well as the CRM definitions to describe and discuss adoption process and what factors relate to CRM adoption at organizational level.

Chapter three specifies the research questions and constructs the framework of reference based on theoretical reviews.

Chapter four describes and explains the motives behind the overall research design from research purpose, research approach, and research strategy to empirical cases, and methods of data collection and data analysis.

Chapter five presents the empirical data and analysis of the research result.

Chapter six provides the conclusion. Further study direction is also suggested in this chapter.

(17)

Figure 1-1: The Outline of the Thesis

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Chapter 3: Frame of Reference

Chapter 4: Methodology

Chapter 5: Data Presentation &

Analysis

Chapter 6: Conclusion &

Implications

(18)

Chapter Two Literature Review

2 Literature Review

Chapter Review:

In this chapter a theoretical review has been in theories and definitions relating to the research problem of this thesis. In this regard, the following section incorporates conceptual and empirical diffusion research to develop a set of hypothesis regarding the adoption of CRM technologies at organizational level in Iran’s shipping industry.

2.1 Innovation Definition:

The literature on innovation has a long history. The early research on innovation tended to address the organization’s ability to respond and adapt to external and/or internal changes (Burns and Stalker 1961; Hull and Hage 1982). Subsequent work on innovation stressed more pro-active innovation and distinguished between types of innovation. Emphasis was on the organization’s ability to promote both process and product innovation, regardless of an immediate need for change (Kanter 1988). The

(19)

organization’s ability to promote process and product innovation has been argued to be no longer sufficient and a third type of innovation has been introduced in the literature—

called strategy innovation by some and business concept innovation by others. This type of innovation stresses the growing need for today’s organizations to proactively address challenges of the future by undertaking radical innovation that will transform their environments and the marketplace (Hamel and Prahalad 1994; Hamel 1996).

Organizations can no longer remain successful by merely adapting to external change and/or innovating in terms of products/services.

The concept of innovation has become more complicated in other ways as well.

The first major scholar to address this topic, Joseph Schumpeter, defined innovation as encompassing the entire process, starting from a kernel of an idea continuing through all the steps to reach a marketable product that changes the economy. Now, there is not only a distinction between three major types of innovation (process; product/service; and business concept) but current scholars now distinguish levels of innovation (incremental to radical and sustaining versus discontinuous), no longer restricting the term to major innovations that change the economy. Finally innovation is no longer restricted to the process of creating something new from beginning to end but can include the capacity to quickly adopt externally created innovations that may be of benefit to the organization.

2.1.1 Levels of Innovation

As the term broadened, innovations were seen as ranging from incremental to radical. This distinction primarily focused on the extent of newness. An innovation can be new within a particular context or new in terms of the overall marketplace of ideas.

Similarly, it can be a new twist on an old theme or a radically novel idea. This distinction did not, however, clearly differentiate between newness and impact. In terms of impact, the effect of an innovation can range from: (1) contributing to fairly small improvements to products or to the way things are done, (2) causing a fundamental transformation in the resulting products or services and/or the process technology of an entire industry, or (3) transforming the market place and/or the economy as a whole.

(20)

Christensen (1997) advanced the concept of innovation by disentangling the attributes of newness and impact. Because radically new innovations do not always have a significant impact, he differentiates between sustaining versus discontinuous innovations. Sustaining innovations improve the performance of established products or services. Discontinuous innovations bring to market very different products or services that typically undermine established products and services in the particular market sector.

An example of a discontinuous innovation is steel minimills (while the product was not significantly changed, a change in the production process led to a drastic change in prices, firms, and markets). A discontinuous innovation does not always have greater utility; it may, in fact, result in a product that under-performs established products. The reason for this is that the momentum of on-going sustaining innovations can push product and service functionality beyond what many customers may actually require (in other words, the establish products and services eventually overshoot a large segment of their market).

Companies in all industries are advised, to be continually attuned to a potentially discontinuous innovation that could cause their demise if they do not quickly adapt and adjust to the fundamentally changing situation.

2.1.2 Types of Innovation

There are three main types of innovation (process, product/service, and strategy), each of which can vary in the degree of newness (incremental to radical) and impact (sustaining versus discontinuous).

Process Innovation:

Process innovation became an important topic with the rise of the quality and continuous improvement movements and, then again, with the more recent attention directed at change management, organizational learning and knowledge management.

Corporations today, at least in the developed world, are reaching the limits of incremental process improvement. Some have argued that what is needed today is radical process innovation. Hammer and Champy (1994) introduced the concept of radical reengineering

(21)

based on their assertion that for companies to achieve maximum efficiency and effectiveness requires radical process reengineering of the organization and its processes.

Because processes lag far behind what is possible given technological advancement, it is not possible to achieve the necessary transformation through incrementalism.

The argument for radical reengineering seemed plausible and many organizations undertook large scale reengineering efforts. The results, however, have been mixed.

Many organizations spent a great deal of time and money for little pay-off (Carter 1999).

There are several competing explanations for these failures, including an explanation proposed by one of the initial advocates. Champy (1996) suggests that management has often been a barrier and that successful reengineering of the corporation requires that management itself be radically reengineered. Others suggest that organizations are often not capable of changing as much and as quickly as radical reengineering encourages and that transition management has not been sufficiently addressed (Feldman 1999). There have been two main problems with reengineering: (1) an ambitious model of the reengineered corporation without a sufficiently detailed and realistic plan of how to manage current operations while transitioning to the new model and (2) a lack of the sustained effort needed to ensure success. In addition, as Carter (1999) notes, downsizing has too often posed as reengineering and, not surprisingly, downsizing tends to have short-term and limited benefits. The clear lesson is that radical engineering to be successful must be done with great care and that balance and caution must be exercised.

Discontinuous process innovation can originate outside the industry and/or may be more or less serendipitous. Thus, in addition to intentional process improvement and reengineering, companies must take care to monitor and have the ability to quickly adapt to potential innovations that could affect how they currently operate.

Product/Service Innovation:

Incremental product/service innovation is oriented toward improving the features and functionality of existing products and services. Radical product/service innovation is oriented toward creating wholly new products and/or services. Product life cycles, in

(22)

particular, have become shorter and shorter, causing business survival to depend on new product development and, increasingly, on the speed of innovation in order to develop and bring new products to market faster than the competition (Jonash and Sommerlatte 1999). Organizations must direct greater attention to new product development, while maintaining and improving their existing products. Discontinuous products and services are increasingly likely with ever-faster new product/service development. Organizations must be constantly on the lookout for discontinuous new products and/or services.

Although product/service innovation and process innovation is not the same thing, they are often interconnected. For example, process innovation may be required to support product or service innovations. Also, it has been argued that organizational processes and structures oriented to incremental product innovation are not the same as those needed to foster and facilitate new product development. The current wisdom it is necessary to separate these activities and to introduce wholly new process innovations that will help promote and speed-up radical product innovation.

Strategy or Business Concept Innovation:

It is, of course, possible to incrementally improve one’s business strategy but Hamel (1996, 2000) contends that radical business concept innovation is now paramount.

He claims that the current environment is hostile to industry incumbents and hospitable to industry revolutionaries. The fortifications that protected the industrial oligarchy have crumbled under the weight of deregulation, technological upheaval, globalization, and social change. What is now required to ensure organizational success is to continually revolutionize the basic organizational strategy, which progressively typically requires:

• Radically preconceiving products and services, not developing new products and services.

• Redefining market space

• Redrawing industry boundaries.

If radical business concept innovation is successful in accomplishing these objectives, it is by definition discontinuous.

(23)

2.1.3 The Innovation Adoption Process in Organizations

According to one of the most well know and early social science researchers in the area of diffusion, Everett M. Rogers, innovation is “an idea perceived as new by the individual” and diffusion is “the process by which an innovation spreads.” (Rogers 1995).

Rogers used well-established theories in sociology, psychology, and communications to develop a concise and easily understood approach to the diffusion of innovations. The model of diffusion and innovation proposed by Rogers was originally used by rural sociologists to study the diffusion of agricultural technologies in social systems (Rogers and Svenning 1969). It has been successfully applied to specific information technology products such as Java® software used in Internet and Intranet environments or hypertext environments.

Figure 2-1: The Innovation Adoption Curve

Source: (Rogers, 1995)

After its conception, an innovation spreads slowly at first - usually through the work of change agents, who actively promote it - then picks up speed as more and more people adopt it. Eventually it reaches a saturation level, where virtually everyone who is going to adopt the innovation has done so. A key point, early in the process, is called take-off. After the forward-thinking change agents have adopted the innovation, they

(24)

work to communicate it to others in the society by whatever means they believe appropriate. When the number of early adopters reaches a critical mass - between 5 and 15% - the process is probably irreversible. The innovation has a life of its own, as more and more people talk about or demonstrate the innovation to each other.

The adoption process concerns a sequence of stages a potential adopter of an innovation passes through before acceptance of the new product. Rogers (1995) defines the adoption process as “the process through which an individual or other decision making unit passes from first knowledge of an innovation, to forming an attitude toward the innovation, to a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the new idea, and to confirmation of this decision”. With respect to organizational adoption, commonly two main stages (consisting of different sub-stages) are distinguished: initiation and implementation (e.g. Zaltman, Duncan and Holbek 1973; Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour 1997). The actual adoption decision occurs between the initiation and the implementation phase. In the initiation stage, the organization becomes aware of the innovation, forms an attitude towards it and evaluates the new product or idea (Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour 1994); it encompasses the awareness, consideration and intention stages. In the implementation stage, the organization decides to purchase and make use of the innovation (adoption and continued use). However, this organizational adoption decision marks merely the beginning of the actual implementation of an innovation. From this point onward in the adoption process, the acceptance or assimilation within the organization becomes important. The innovation process can only be considered a success to the extent that the innovation is accepted and integrated into the organization (Rogers 1995;Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour 1997; Zaltman, Duncan and Holbek 1973) and the target adopters demonstrate commitment by continuing to use the product over a period of time (e.g. Bhattacherjee1998). This line of thinking is consistent with Rogers (1995, p. 21) who defines adoption as ‘... the decision to make full use of an innovation as the best course of action available’. Thus, the full and actual adoption of (many) innovations in an organizational context implies that adoption also occurs within the organization, at the individual level. This is referred as intra- organizational acceptance. The instance where the usage of an innovation by

(25)

organizational “end-users” is uncertain and contingent upon a former organizational adoption decision is referred to as contingent innovation decisions or “forced adoption” (Rogers 1995; Ram and Jung 1991).

2.1.3.1 Determinants of the organizational level adoption:

Based on studies on organizational innovation adoption in different disciplines, we can identify a set of factors that have been found to influence the acceptance of new products by organizations. As indicated in the previous paragraph, we have to distinguish between two main levels of adoption. First, determinants of innovation adoption at the organizational level can be identified. Subsequently, an innovation acceptance process at the level of organizational members is coupled to this organizational innovation. We will address the first level –organizational Level – in this paper.

Moore and Benbasat (1991) and Slyke, Kwon and Zmud (1987) proposed five variable categories that influence innovation adoption: (1) environmental factors, (2) user characteristics, (3) organizational characteristics, (4) technology characteristics, and (5) task characteristics. As I am focused on factors affecting adoption of CRM at organizational level, in this paper I have omitted user characteristics and task characteristics.

Institutional theorists assert that the institutional environment can also strongly influence the adoption of an innovation in an organization, often more profoundly than market pressures. The net effect of institutional pressures is to increase the homogeneity of organizational structures in an institutional environment. Firms will adopt similar structures as a result of three types of pressures: (1) Coercive pressures (2) Mimetic pressures (3) Normative pressures (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).

Below in brief you can see the definitions for each of the above sets of factors.

2.1.3.1.1 Technology /Innovation Characteristics

(26)

As it was said before the innovation has a life of its own, as more and more people talk about or demonstrate the innovation to each other. What makes an innovation like CRM to be successfully adopted?

In order to measure the effect of technology characteristics on adoption of CRM I have used Roger’s diffusion theory. Rogers (1995) identified five factors that influence the adoption of technology: (1) relative advantage, (2) compatibility, (3) complexity, (4) trialability, and (5) observability.

The first four characteristics are positively related to adoption of an innovation and the last one, complexity, negatively related.

Relative Advantage:

Relative advantage refers to the degree to which the CRM technology creates customer information that leads to superior customer service when compared to traditional methods of meeting customer needs. The relative CRM advantage relates to perceptions of how adoption of CRM technology will ultimately benefit the organization when it comes to competing against other firms for customers (Rogers, 1995; Mole et al., 2004). If people do not perceive an innovation as better it will not spread quickly, if at all. Researchers have shown that relative advantage is one of the strongest predictors of adoption. The extreme competitive pressure facing small businesses makes it critical for small retail firms to utilize advancing technologies, especially those that will allow them to be more customer-oriented and that will help establish greater operational efficiencies (Mohr 2001).

Compatibility:

How does the CRM fit with the company’s past experiences and present needs? If it doesn't fit both well, it won't spread well. Does it require a change in existing values? If members of the culture feel as though they have to become very different people to adopt the innovation, they will be more resistant to it.

(27)

As it was said by CRM experts, CRM is not only a technology. It is also a business strategy. In order for a company to successfully implement CRM, and get the most from it , the decision makers should make the company ready by making sure that customer centric culture exists in it , and the businesses processes are streamlined. So it is almost impossible to have full compatibility with past situation considering CRM. But obviously the less the need for change the more easily the adoption of CRM would be.

Complexity:

How difficult is the CRM to understand and apply? The more difficult, the slower the adoption process.

Perceived innovation complexity, the degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use (Rogers 1995), has been widely recognized as an inhibitor to adoption (Grover 1993; Tornatzky and Klein 1982).

Organization learning theories assume that, at any given moment, organizations possess some bundle of knowledge and skills that are related to their current operational and managerial processes (Fichman and Kemerer 1997). A complex innovation thus increases the bundle of knowledge and skills an organization has to acquire in order to assimilate that innovation effectively (Rogers 1995). The heightened knowledge gap between what is required and what an organization has currently creates a higher sense of uncertainty about that innovation for the organization.

Trialability:

Trialability is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis. New ideas that can be tried on the installment plan are generally adopted more rapidly than innovations that are not divisible. Relatively earlier adopters of an innovation perceive trialability as more important than do later adopters. Generally, an innovation is easier to sample, the more it will be adopted.

Observability:

(28)

Observability is the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others. The results of some ideas are easily observed and communicated to others, whereas some innovations are difficult to observe and to describe to others. So we can say the greater is the observability if an innovation, the more rapidly it will be adopted.

Switching Cost:

The preceding hypotheses addressed issues and the benefits associated with adopting a technology. However, the adoption of a (CRM) technology may lead to potential costs as well. Specifically, switching costs related to the financial commitment required to purchase the CRM and complementary products, the amount of learning or training needed to effectively use the innovation, and other time commitments may arise that lessen the desire and/or the ability to adopt the technology. (Peltier , Schibrowsky and Zhao 2002) Switching costs thus add to the "total" costs associated with the adoption decision. When switching costs are high, the likelihood of adoption is reduced (Speier and Venkatesh 2002).

2.1.3.1.2 Environmental Factors

Environmental factors play an important role in understanding the diffusion of technological innovations (Jaworski and Kohli 1993; Weiss and Heide 1993; Rai and Bajwa 1997). One key variable is environmental turbulence (Morris, Schindehutte, and LaForge 2002). Rai and Bajwa (1997) point out that organizations operating in different environments have to manage different customer relationships and use different competitive strategies. Diffusion research has measured environmental turbulence in terms of two interrelated concepts that have been shown to impact technology adoption:

market uncertainty and environmental hostility (e.g., Calatone, Schmidt, and Di Benedetto 1997; Moriarty and Kosnik 1989). Notwithstanding, there is a general lack of models in the diffusion literature of how organizations adapt to turbulent and uncertain environments through the adoption of technological innovations (Souder, Sherman and Davies-Cooper 1998). This dearth in literature is especially true for small retailers trying

(29)

to survive in increasingly complex and turbulent environments (McGee and Rubach 1996/1997).

Market Uncertainty:

Market uncertainty reflects the extent to which customer needs can be identified and the degree to which a particular technology can satisfy these needs (Moriarty and Kosnik 1989). Market uncertainty can also be conceptualized in terms of task complexity and represents the difficulty that retailers might have when performing various organizational functions (McGee and Sawyerr, 2003; Jaworski and Kohli 1993). These functions could include selling tasks, monitoring inventories, setting price, tracking customers, etc. To serve customers better in this market, it is critical for organizations to take a "customer-oriented" strategy in business practices (Kara et al., 2005; Verhees and Meulenberg 2004). Joshi and Campbell (2003) find that dynamism in the environmental sector increases the need for a close customer relationship. The adoption of CRM technology is likely to be very important when market conditions are characterized by high uncertainty (McGee and Sawyerr, 2003).

Environmental Hostility:

Environmental hostility is characteristic of industries marked by increased competitive intensity and difficulties associated with assessing customer needs (Calatone, Schmidt, and DiBenedetto 1997). Hostile environments are perceived as being more risky and stressful due to precarious and uncertain industry conditions (Covin and Slevin 1989; Mole et al., 2004). The net result is that hostile environments witness substantial heterogeneity in consumer preferences, lack of technology for responding to customer heterogeneity, are increasingly competitive, and are less predictable than more stable environments (Slater and Narver 1994; Souder, Sherman and Davies-Cooper 1998; van Everdingen 2002). In many ways, market orientation and intelligence gathering advantages (Kara et al., 2005; Verhees and Meulenberg 2004) that CRM offer might reduce the threat of environmental hostility.

2.1.3.1.3 Organizational Characteristics:

(30)

Organizational characteristics influence the organizational innovation adoption decision (Damanpour 1991; Cohn and Turyn 1984). In general, we can distinguish between three main determinants related to adopter characteristics at the organizational level that affect the adoption decision. These include product knowledge and attitude toward change.

Product Class Knowledge:

Product class knowledge relates to a prospective adopter's level of knowledge with the product category under scrutiny. In this instance, product class knowledge pertains to the retailers’ background and knowledge of computer information systems and CRM technology. Greater product knowledge should lead to a higher probability of adopting an innovation (Weiss and Heide 1993). In contrast, those lacking of understanding of computers, computer information systems, and the (CRM) technology are less likely to decide to adopt it (Cohen and Levinthal 1990).

It is also likely that lower knowledge individuals will associate higher levels of complexity and incompatibility to CRM technology, which in turn translate into greater levels of cognitive effort needed to comprehend and evaluate CRM technology. This relationship between knowledge, cognitive effort, and search is supported in the organizational buying literature (Anderson, Chu, and Weitz 1987), and suggests it is likely to lengthen the buying process (Gourlay and Pentecost 2002). In combination, greater CRM knowledge should lead to a higher probability of adopting CRM (Srinivasan, Lilien, and Rangaswamy 2002). Specific to the current context, owner- managers of small retailing firms with limited understanding of technology should be less predisposed to adopt information technologies into their operations (McGregor and Gomes 1999).

Attitude toward Change:

Attitude toward change can be viewed as being multidimensional in nature and reflects the general acceptance of new ideas, a risk-taking propensity, and/or a preference for innovation (Stewart et al. 2003). Although some literature exists that has focused on

(31)

individuals or organizations as change agents, little research has merged the two for examining how attitude toward change impacts adoption likelihood (Wu, Mahajan, and Balasubramanian 2003). Consequently, models that investigate attitudinal and psychographical antecedents of the readiness to adopt (CRM) technology are worthy of investigation (Kickul and Gindry, 2002.) Research studies in a variety of areas suggest that individuals and/or organizations characterized as being open to change tend to be more creative, have more a favorable attitude toward risk and innovation (Stewart et al.

2003) , are more venturesome (Rogers 1995), are more confident decision makers (Gatignon and Robertson 1985; Kickul and Gindry, 2002), have a better grasp of the world outside of their immediate social system (Maxwell and Westerfield 2002), and are more likely to adopt (CRM) technology (Wu, Mahajan, and Balasubramanian 2003). We posit:

2.1.3.1.4 Institutional Factors:

Institutional Theory:

Organizations typically respond to an institutional environment that comprises shared conceptions of appropriate organizational forms and behaviors (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). As organizations compete for resources and customers, they face pressures to become isomorphic with the environment to acquire and sustain legitimacy and the ability to secure resources and social support (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).

Institutional theorists assert that the institutional environment can strongly influence the development of formal structures in an organization, often more profoundly than market pressures. Innovative structures that improve technical efficiency in early- adopting organizations are legitimized in the environment. Ultimately these innovations reach a level of legitimization where failure to adopt them is seen as "irrational and negligent" (or they become legal mandates). At this point new and existing organizations will adopt the structural form even if the form doesn't improve efficiency.

Meyer and Rowan argue that often these "institutional myths" are merely accepted ceremoniously in order for the organization to gain or maintain legitimacy in the

(32)

institutional environment. Organizations adopt the "vocabularies of structure" prevalent in their environment such as specific job titles, procedures, and organizational roles. The adoption and prominent display of these institutionally-acceptable "trappings of legitimacy" help preserve an aura of organizational action based on "good faith".

Legitimacy in the institutional environment helps ensure organizational survival.

However, these formal structures of legitimacy can reduce efficiency and hinder the organization's competitive position in their technical environment. To reduce this negative effect, organizations often will decouple their technical core from these legitimizing structures. Organizations will minimize or ceremonialize evaluation and neglect program implementation to maintain external (and internal) confidence in formal structures while reducing their efficiency impact.

DiMaggio and Powell conclude that the net effect of institutional pressures is to increase the homogeneity of organizational structures in an institutional environment.

Firms will adopt similar structures as a result of three types of pressures:

• Coercive pressures

• Mimetic pressures

• Normative pressures Coercive Pressures:

Coercive pressures result from resource-dominant organizations, regulatory bodies, and parent corporations that constrain resource-dependent organizations (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Strategic partnerships can be a source of coercive pressure when companies enter into these arrangements with organizations larger than themselves.

Larger organizations are typically resource-dominant organizations and place the smaller focal organization into a resource dependence relationship (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978).As it was said before, so many of companies active in shipping industry are somehow related with other companies. Some of these companies are the owner of the shipping lines that these companies support in Iran .i called these companies the Foreign Partners. And some of them are the customers.

(33)

In the context of shipping, pressures stem mainly from dominant foreign partners and dominant customers. Dependence on customers arises when organizations rely heavily on customers that account for much of their sales and customers that have alternative suppliers. Dependence on foreign partners arises when organizations are unable to switch to alternative partner, thereby relying on existing suppliers that account for much of their purchases. Resource-dominant organizations that have CRMI, would attempt to influence their resource-dependent trading partners to adopt CRM so as to increase their own benefits of adoption. Organizations are thus likely to receive both formal and informal pressures from dominant foreign partner adopters that want to maximize their benefits of adoption through increasing the customer acquisition and retention rate by their partners in Iran. Hence, in the context of shipping industry, organizations may receive similar pressure from dominant customer adopters that want to reduce administrative disbursement costs and enhance systems efficiencies. In sum, organizations may imitate the adoption behavior of dominant partner and dominant customers that have adopted CRM to acquire legitimacy or status, or to demonstrate their fitness to do business with these dominant organizations.

Mimetic Pressures:

Mimetic pressures derive from uncertainty and lead organizations to model themselves on others in their organizational fields (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Two mimetic mechanisms are: bandwagon and status-driven.

The bandwagon model of imitation proposes that organizations adopt innovative practices that are used by a large number of other organizations. Adoption decisions are made relatively indiscriminately due to the lack of useful information from the early adopters other than the knowledge that they have adopted (Kraatz, 1998). In an CRM context, a focal organization may adopt CRM based on the knowledge that its competitors have adopted similar innovations.

The status-driven imitation model specifies that organizations adopt practices previously implemented by prominent organizations (Kraatz, 1998). This is because the

(34)

focal organization believes that imitating prominent organizations will result in legitimacy gains. Therefore, the focal organization may adopt CRM when the more prominent organizations have adopted similar innovations.

Sociological research on threshold models (Granovetter 1978; Krassa 1988) suggests that decisions to engage in a particular behavior depend on the perceived number of similar others in the environment that have already done likewise. Hence, if enough similar organizations do things in a certain way such that it gives rise to that particular course of action being legitimated or taken for granted throughout a sector, others will follow suit to avoid the embarrassment of being perceived as less innovative or responsive (Fligstein 1985; Goodstein 1994; March 1981). In the context of CRM adoption in Iran’s shipping industry , the greater the extent of adoption in a given sector, the more likely the potential adopters in that sector would adopt the innovation to avoid being perceived as technologically less advanced and as less suitable trading partners than their competitors that have adopted.

Besides cue-taking from the collective action of similar others, organizations are particularly apt to imitate the behaviors of those whom they perceive as successful (Burns and Wholey 1993; DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Haunschild and Miner 1997).

Organizations can learn vicariously, copying or avoiding certain organizational practices according to their perceived impact or outcomes (Levitt and March 1988; Miner and Haunschild 1995). Copying fruitful products or practices for second-mover advantage may allow an organization to unwittingly acquire some unexpected or unsought unique advantages (Lieberman and Montgomery 1988). Innovation profitability has been proposed as a key factor determining its rate of adoption (Rogers 1995). Mimicking behaviors of these successful organizations could also accrue an external referent of prestige (Perrow 1961). Although there are no studies directly examining mimicry of IT practices, there is implied evidence that followers, out of competitive necessity, imitate pioneers that have successfully exploited IT, especially in the banking and airline industries (Clemons 1990; Copeland and McKenney 1988). Therefore, in the context of CRM adoption in Iran’s shipping industry, potential adopters will be more likely to adopt if they perceive that CRM has conferred success on adopters.

(35)

Normative Pressures:

According to social contagion literature, a focal organization with direct or indirect ties to other organizations that have adopted an innovation is able to learn about that innovation and its associated benefits and costs, and is likely to be persuaded to behave similarly (Burt 1982). Sharing these norms through relational channels among members of a network facilitates consensus which in turn increases the strength of these norms and their potential influence on organizational behavior (Powell and DiMaggio 1991). These normative pressures manifest themselves through dyadic interorganizational channels of firm-supplier and firm-customer (Burt 1982).

If two actors have direct and frequent communication with each other, they are more likely to think alike or behave similarly (e.g., Burt 1982; Erickson 1988). From a potential adopter’s perspective, the perceived value of adoption would increase to the extent that its contacts have adopted the innovation and communicated their reasoning (Davis 1991; Palmer et al. 1993). Huff and Munro (1985) reported that information gathered through interorganizational communication had been used to understand the implications of adopting new information systems products. Hence, as an organization perceives more of its contacts adopting an innovation, adoption may come to be deemed normatively appropriate for the organization (Davis 1991). Some researchers have observed that a wide extent of use may also serve as a proxy indicator that a practice has technical value (Abrahamson and Rosenkopf 1993; Haunschild and Miner 1997). In the case of interactive technologies (such as electronic mail and EDI) that involve reciprocal interdependence (Markus 1987) and complementary innovations, frequency of use among an organization’s suppliers and customers may directly create positive externalities and increase the technical value of that innovation for the adopting organization (Farrell and Saloner 1985).

2.1.4 A Digital Revolution in Shipping Industry

Shipping, the World’s largest industry, consists of sectors and each sector is approaching the IT revolution in different ways for the achievement of competitive

(36)

advantages. Today the shipping industry has expanded dramatically and it is in the process of harnessing the advancements of Information Technology in providing added value for the business.

The shipping industry as any other business consists of many business partners whose activities generate various transactions through exchange of manifold shipping documents. Traders, Banks, Insurance Companies, Shipping Agents, Customs and Ports are the main business partners in the shipping industry.

In this section, as a brief history of diffusion of IT in shipping industry, the emphasize would be mainly on Export/Import trade applications and Container Terminal Operation Systems where the companies active in this field have the most interaction with customers. The process of adopting CRM seems to be slow in this industry regarding type of marketing that exists in this industry.

2.1.4.1 Export/Import Trade Applications

Documents related to shipping should be processed at document clearance centre in any port before the consignments are cleared. Firstly the shipping agent should supply the Manifest document and Bill of lading document to calculate the tariff. Then clearance from customs and the banks will be required before gate passes for the delivery of consignments are prepared. A number of different documents with multiple copies of the same are requested by ports, customs and the banks from the consignee to clear the consignment. Manual operation of the above process is tedious as there are no standard formats to these documents maintained by different shipping lines, freight forwarders, banks, etc.

In the Export/Import businesses following paper-based documents are frequently transferred to exchange data:

• Manifest- Contains a list of all cargo/containers carried by the ship

• Bill of Lading - Title document of the consignment

• Invoice - Consignment details with price, quantity, etc

• Customs Declaration

(37)

• Imported/Exported consignment details declared to the customs

• Delivery Order - Authority given by the Agent to the consignee clear the consignment

In the standard documents used in the shipping industry the Bill of Lading is the fulcrum of world trade and is the product of many centuries of creative commercial genius. The above documents have to be transferred among the business partners across the globe enormous no of times. Very low productivity has been experienced in the shipping industry due to various difficulties faced in re-tracking the documents, delays in processing, wrong human interpretation etc.

2.1.4.2 Container Terminal Operations System

Container Terminals handle the loading/discharging of containers from/to vessels, stacking of containers in the yard, gate operations for in and out containers, Equipment management, billing agents for various services rendered to shipping lines Viz.

Navigation, Stevedoring, Shifting, Refer monitoring etc. Since a container terminal is a link in the chain of operations, its performances and the productivity lie in the correctness and the accuracy of the information provided by other ports and port users. For eg. a terminal to plan it's equipment utilization for the loading and discharging of container boxes, previous port should promptly provide the "Bay plan" information, shipping agent should provide vessel information and container boxes to be loaded for the vessel and the destination of the container boxes etc. Essentially this information is vital for the next port for carrying out their operations successfully.

Main operations in a container handling port could be classified into following sub systems as:

• Vessel Planning - Stowage positions of the containers in the vessel and ship profile details.

• Yard Planning- Container yard planning details such as container stacking details, Gate operations etc.,

• Yard Operations - Stevedoring (loading and discharging of containers) activities, Work instructions to cranes, work instruction to prime move drivers etc.

(38)

• Agent Billing- Billing shipping agents for the services rendered to the agent at the port.

Paper based documents being used among ports, shipping lines, banks, and customs for the exchange of information for the above container terminal operation system do not conform to one commonly agreed standard. Few of important documents used are as follows:

• Bay plan, Stowage plan report

• Container Discharged/loaded report

• Container Gate In/Out report

• Vessel call information report

2.1.4.3 Difficulties faced in the paper based system

These documents are voluminous and involve a lot of time and cost in transmitting across the horizon. This has a direct impact on the efficiency of any system.

With free market policies and deregulation of economic policies, vulnerability of documents to forgery and faking by the tricksters also increases. This is a factor requiring the attention of the authorities.

High space requirements for storing documents in today’s highly congested office rooms have posed another problem, which stresses the necessity for having compact storage mechanisms for conserving space.

Paper based documents are naturally subject to wear and tear and mutilation over prolonged use rendering them illegible. This has caused many problems at Banks, Ports and Customs etc. requiring re-certification by the authorized parties.

In today’s rapidly changing, competitive world, provision of instant information on demand in order to expedite the shipping operations and retain the customers is extremely important. In a paper based information system fast retrieval of information required for vessel operators, terminal operators etc., is quite a daunting task. This

(39)

suggests that some form of electronic storage and retrieval mechanism is required in the shipping industry to increase the productivity and efficiency.

2.1.4.4 EDI/E-commerce in the shipping world

EDI:

EDI has come a long way from it's origin in the 1960s and given many users, mostly large corporations and government agencies, a considerable productivity boost.

Many say that EDI is the backbone of e-commerce.

UN/CEFACT is the United Nation Center for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business. The center's objective is to be "inclusive" and it actively encourages organizations to contribute and help develop its recommendations and standards in electronic business. UN/EDIFACT working group is one of the CEFACT steering groups assigned with the task of formulating standard EDI message formats for Administration Commerce and Transport.

UN/EDIFACT standard messages have been incorporated in the EDI transfers in the shipping world today specially in sending data packets from one port to another, in sending Manifest and Bill of Lading information, in sending consignment clearance details to customs, and in sending Loading and Discharging details of containers to the next port of call etc.

But commercialization of the Internet technology in 1980s and the development of the World Wide Web, transformed the traditional EDI technology to Internet/Web driven technologies.

E-Commerce Application Systems:

Electronic commerce is of vital importance for the development and integration of the worlds business and economics. Increasingly shipping industry especially Export/Import trade applications and container terminal operation systems are based on electronic documents, payments and cargo tracking systems.

(40)

The Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) through its center for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (CEFACT) is engaged in developing global standards for international trade. In the area of electronic business the management of the standards such as United Nations electronic Interchange for Administration, commerce and Transport (UN/EDIFACT), or Extensible Mark-up language (XML) for electronic Business (ebXML) has now become de facto prerequisites to compete successfully in advanced markets. The announcement by the UN/CEFACT Steering Group (CSG), of a new group builds on the success of the ebXML initiative. The new group, called the e- Business Transition Ad hoc Working Group (eBTWG) will provide a single forum for UN/EDIFACT and ebXML standardization.

Data transfers via EDI or Internet in shipping industry will be able to upgrade their Export/Import or Container Terminal Operation Systems accordingly with the new enhanced initiatives.

Open –EDI Reference Model:

An open-EDI model has been suggested by UN/CEFACT in transforming business in to e-enabled systems.

Business operational view defines the scope of the business to be modeled and understand the dynamics of the business process, which derive the high-level business requirement. Then in the analysis stage, UML deliverables such as use case diagrams, sequence diagrams and class diagrams are being used to describe how each activity is carried out in the business environment. In the design stage, logical model constructed will be translated to generate software components, UN/EDIFACT or simple EDI messages or XML messages.

In Functional Service View software application modules will be generated as per the requirements identified in the Business Operational View.

Open-EDI reference model has laid down some useful rules of how electronic transactions could be coupled with the business application systems. Open-EDI reference

(41)

model is architecturally designed in a manner that is modular and can support the digital revolution in the shipping application systems to accommodate rapid growth and change in IT.

2.1.4.5 Benefits in e-shipping

In today's context it's essential that shipping industry should embark on strategies, resources, plans of action to participate in digital economy. To transform the shipping business such as Export/Import and Container Terminal Operation Systems into a globally competitive, 24 X 7, innovative, e-business that embraces change and update, we have to accept it as a strategic weapon.

As e-business restructure the traditional shipping application systems, it reduces paper handling, filling, and storage costs while improving productivity in processing documents, availability and accessibility to information, customer relationship management, provision of better opportunities in B2B, B2C interaction, standardization of electronic messages, platform integrity etc.

In Export/Import business, clearance of various documents discussed earlier such as manifest, bill of lading, delivery note etc could be electronically transferred according to UN/CEFACT standards from one business partner to another. Therefore uniformity between parties could be maintained and processing of documents will be much easier.

Similarly, in Container Terminal Handling system the next port of call may electronically receive "Bay Plan" information. Preparation of Loading/Discharging sequence of containers could be automatically carried out far ahead of the berthing of the vessels.

Optimization of crane allocation for loading and discharging of container boxes would be easier. As a result vessel planning and yard planning would be more efficient and accurate and therefore vessel turn around time and the port productivity could be dramatically improved. Further, services rendered by port to vessels could be electronically billed to shipping agents. Cargo tracking, from port to port would be easier for consignees.

(42)

2.1.4.6 CRM in Transportation Industry

As it was in an article written by Robert J. Bowman, published in SupplyChainBrain,Com in Oct 2003 , “Transportation Industry Turns a Deaf Ear to CRM Applications”. According to Bowman a recent survey by the Customer Respect Group, based in Bellevue, Wash., states that 39 percent of major transportation, distribution and logistics firms don’t even respond to inquiries made at their web sites.

Only 12 percent automatically confirm the receipt of inquiries. And just 7 percent provide off-line contact information, in the form of phone numbers and postal addresses.

That attitude of apparent indifference extends beyond the internet as well.

Customer Relationship Management is a fast-growing segment of business software that has been embraced by manufacturers and service providers in many industries. Not so transportation. Most carriers and logistics providers have yet to launch a formal CRM program. And few CRM vendors have crafted industry-specific applications for them.

Again Bowman mentions in his article that as distinct area of information technology, CRM is far from mature in any sector. Worldwide software license revenues stood at $5.6bn in 2001, according to the Gartner consultancy. That compares with Gartner’s prediction of $15.9bn in revenues by 2005. As of now, no vendor has built out a fully functioning suite of CRM tools for all industries. And it’s far from clear who will dominate the CRM market in future — stand-alone vendors, such as Siebel Systems, or enterprise software giants, such as SAP AG and Oracle Corp.

Still, such industries as automotive, high-tech, consumer packaged goods and financial services have made far greater inroads into CRM than transportation. They have begun revitalizing their organizations through better information about the customer, and tighter links to key buyers. According to AMR Research Inc., transportation and warehousing accounts for around 2 percent of customer-management license revenues vs.

computers and electronics with 12 percent, telecommunications services with another 12 percent, and finance and insurance with 15percent.

The factors affecting adoption of CRM at the organizational level in Iran’s shipping industry

M A S T E R ' S T H E S I S

The Factors Affecting Adoption of CRM at the Organizational Level in

Iran’s Shipping Industry

Navid Fakhredaei

The Factors Affecting

Adoption of CRM at the Organizational Level in Iran’s Shipping Industry

Supervisors:

Dr. Lennart Persson & Dr.Hessameddin Zegordi

Referee:

Dr.Sepehri

Prepared by:

Navid Fakhredaei

MASTER'S THESIS

The Factors Affecting

Adoption of CRM at the Organizational Level in Iran’s Shipping Industry

Supervisors:

Dr. Lennart Persson & Dr.Hessameddin Zegordi

Referee:

Dr.Sepehri

Prepared by:

Navid Fakhredaei

Abstract:

Acknowledgements:

Table of Contents:

Table of Figures:

List of Tables:

Chapter One

Introduction and Research Problem

1 Introduction and Research Problem

1.1 Introduction:

1.2 Background

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Chapter 3: Frame of Reference

Chapter 4: Methodology

Chapter 5: Data Presentation &

Analysis

Chapter 6: Conclusion &

Implications

Chapter Two Literature Review

2 Literature Review

2.1 Innovation Definition: