WIXLIB

Journal of Computer Information Systems 2011.52:42-50.THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDResearchers have used different theories to study ITimplementation issues but most use the theory of planned behavior(TPB) [16]. TPB has been drawn from the Theory of ReasonedAction (TRA) developed by Fishbein and Ajzen in 1975 [18].TPB is well–established in the IT field (Ajzen, 1991; cited in[18]). In the TPB, the firm’s decision or behavioral intention toimplement the CRM system is dependent of attitude, subjectivenorm, and perceived behavioral control [23]. According to theTPB, there will be execution of the behavioral intention [23]which, in this study, is the existence of the CRM implementationproject. Subjective norm is the degree of perceived social pressurethat the state SBDC feels to implement the CRM system.Attitude is the capacity of the state SBDC to undertake the CRMimplementation project. Perceived behavioral control is howeasy or difficult the state SBDC thinks that CRM implementationshould be, including potential obstacles. Since the state SBDC isa resource-constrained public institution with limited possibilitiesof acquiring information and knowledge, the potential obstaclescan be limited resources.TPB theory accounts for some of the IT and CRMimplementation factors which are theorized in three groups:contextual factors, organizational factors and individual factors[2]. Wybo [30] extended the theories of IT implementation toinclude the sales cycle as a source of identified contextual factors.Standing et al., [26] indicate that like private businesses, publicinstitutions also are influenced by contextual, organizational andindividual factors. Following Wybo [30] and Standing et al., [26]an attempt is made in this paper to determine whether existingIT and CRM implementation factors will be found in the CRMimplementation project at a public institution.CONTEXTUAL FACTORSIn the private businesses, contextual factors have been linkedto competitive pressure in many studies of IT implementation.According to Avlonitis and Panagopoulos [2], competitionpressure and environmental pressures are potential contextualfactors. These factors are relevant when a firm implements a CRMsystem and other industry firms feel the pressure or are influencedto use the same system because they do not want to be behind[6].Finnegan and Currie [9] further described ways that thecurrent business environment can impact CRM implementation.CRM allows organizations to adopt a holistic approach towardstheir customers, but CRM implementations often ignore theunderlying interdependencies of contextual socio-technicalelements that can enable or inhibit the culture, process, people,and technology integration [9]. CRM implementation can also beaffected by contextual factors such as benchmarking enterprisesand exchange data quality between organizations [8]. Even et al[8] found that the process of improving CRM data quality doesnot necessarily maximize economic benefits.Since the state SBDC is a non-profit organization and apublic institution, the competitive pressure factor might not fitto the rationale behind its decision to implement CRM, rather itis non-competitive pressures. In the public sector, institutionaltheory has been used to study environmental pressures andpeer influence in a wide variety of research. Institutional theoryconsiders how institutions cope with factors such as susceptibilityto external forces [23]. Other contextual factors which canWinter 2011influence IT implementation in public institutions are imitationand conformism which is the tendency of firms to imitate the mostcommon form of behavior [11]. For example, public institutionscan imitate each other to implement CRM technology even if itmight fail.ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORSWhile Hirschheim et al [13] challenged the view that ITimplementation should only be conceived in technical terms bypresenting it as a form of social action, others have investigatedthe organizational factors behind the IT implementation processand concluded that those factors may be as important as otherelements such as technical factors. In the private sector, manyauthors have argued that IT and CRM implementation successor failure is largely due to organizational and social, rather thantechnical, factors [21].According to Finnegan and Currie [9], most problems in CRMimplementation are not technical but organizational; they includeorganizational change and disruption, different views on customerinformation and changes in the business processes. Organizationalresistance can create barriers for an overall CRM integration.Variables such as senior management support/sponsorship,selling change internally, putting a change infrastructure inplace, providing effective end-user training, business processre-configuration and establishing rewarding systems play animportant role in the CRM implementation process [9]. Beckeret al [4] found that CRM impacts performance only if adequatelysupported by the appropriate company stakeholders. Morenoand Melendez [19] found that organizational factors (humanresource management, the organizational structure, and resourceallocation) impact CRM implementation success. Hung et al [14]proposed an integrated model that incorporates organizationalfactors (size of organization, IS staff capabilities, innovation ofsenior executives and knowledge management capabilities) asprimary determinants of CRM implementation.The debate of the use of social organizational factors andtechnical organizational factors in IT implementation hasbeen made in the private businesses, as well as in the publicinstitutions. For instance, Robey and Newman [25] stated that ITis subject to social construction which may have an impact on itsimplementation and use. To shape their theoretical arguments, theydeveloped a framework linking social context of implementationwith organizational processes. The organizational factors in thepublic sector are relevant to rules, regulations and by-laws/policies.Rules and regulations are thought to ensure the predictability ofthe behavior of the organization and to lead to efficiency andeffectiveness [26]. There are general rules which are applied toall public purchases. These rules require that the main mode ofIT or CRM systems purchasing should be through competitivebidding. In some public institutions, by-laws and policy are usedand public institutions may fail to realize significant benefits fromtheir IT or CRM innovations because they have been implementedto satisfy policy rather than efficiency [26].INDIVIDUAL FACTORSPrior researchers have used the behavioral theory and thesubjective psychological theory to provide an underpinningexplanation to user behavior and successful IT implementationin organizations (Barki and Hartwick, 1989; cited in [23]). In theprivate business sector, individual resistance and user acceptanceJournal of Computer Information Systems43

Table 1.Summary of IT and CRM implementation factorsJournal of Computer Information Systems 2011.52:42-50.FactorsContextual FactorsCompetitive pressuresEnvironmental pressuresRelations with customersPeer influenceOrganizational Factors(technical factors)IT infrastructureIT TrainingIT maintenance planIT application complexityOrganizational Factors(social factors)Top management supportHuman resource managementSize of organizationOrganizational changemanagementKnowledge managementIndividual FactorsComputer anxietyUser acceptancePersonal innovativenessUser resistanceComputer experienceUser personal dispositionsUser capacity of acquired ITknowledgeof CRM can be a factor in CRM implementation [9]. Venkateshet al., 2003; and Chiu and Wang, 2008 (cited in [22]) found thatwhen users have enough usage capacity, they show positiveacceptance of CRM technology.Potential CRM user behavior in both private and publicsectors will vary. Users differ in terms of personal dispositionsand in acquired knowledge [2]. Among the individual factorswe may cite computer anxiety, personal innovativeness anduser resistance to change. Computer anxiety is about individuals who experience negative affectivity or fatalism when usingthe computer [12]. Those individuals are likely to view negatively the CRM implementation process. Personal innovativeness is a user’s willingness to try a new IT and a new method,or a measure of his or her receptivity to change [26]. Manystudies have concluded that innovative individuals have morepositive perceptions to the implementation process and resistless to the change. User resistance to change is the lack ofengagement of people who will employ the technology afterthe implementation.CASE BACKGROUNDThe state SBDC is funded in part through a partnership withthe U.S. small-business administration (SBA) and makes manyservice centers available to provide no-cost consulting and lowcost training to small businesses (SBs) throughout the state. Thestate SBDC must deliver effective services to the SB communityunder the annual cooperative agreement negotiated with US SBA.Also, non-federal funds are allocated to the state SBDC from thestate Department of Commerce, the state Certified DevelopmentCorporation (CDC) and the local university. The state SBDC isone of over 65 SBDCs in the U.S. whose performance is measuredin terms of substantial economic impact, business and job creationand retention and increased company revenues.44The lead center of the state SBDC is composed of a statedirector and an assistant state director. The lead center authorizes about 12 service centers, each headed by a regional director who supervises the consultants. Those centers locatedin more populated cities receive more funding per center thanthe rural center allocation. Because the state SBDC is a nonprofit organization, the performance of the consultants isassessed based on the number of clients trained, the varietyof training events organized, the number of clients served, thetotal consulting hours offered and the number of long-termcounseling clients.THE CYCLE OF INTERACTIONSThis section enables understanding of the interactions betweenthe state SBDC and SBs. The interactions map shown in Figure 1helps us to realize how the state SBDC connects SBs to servicesand resources.As shown in Figure 1, the state SBDC lead center partnerswith the following entities and institutions: the state Departmentof Commerce, the state CDC, the state Mep (The PreferredManufacturing Partner), the state Regional Council and U.S.SBA. Usually, banks or other organizations refer the SB or theprospective SB to the state SBDC lead center or service centers.Once the SB or prospective SB comes to the state SBDC, it istaken in charge by a state SBDC consultant who uses the 1-Sitesystem, the old information systems for managing customerrelationship, to open an account for the SB or the prospectiveSB. Next, the consultant goes through the state SBDC presentation by explaining the services and resources available to theSB. The decision to prepare a proposal is made. The consultant identifies the SB as either “introductory position” or“advanced position”. To determine the position, the consultantassesses the experience, the equity, the assets, the financialneeds, etc. of the SB. After that step, a North American IndustryClassification System (NAICS) code is assigned to the SB. Theconsultant monitors the proposal and corresponds with the stateSBDC partners and organizations to determine whether theproposal is viable. At that level, the approval decision is made.In collaboration with the SB, the consultant prepares the businessplan using the built-in business plan model available in the1-Site system. The next step is the financial projection wherethe consultant prepares the projected balance sheet, cashflow, income statement, etc. This projection is followed bythe identification of the type of loans needed. The loan canoriginate from Banks, U.S. SBA or other financial institutions.The consultant keeps in touch with the SB by follow-ups andadjustments to the financial projections.CRM TECHNOLOGYINFRASTRUCTURE OF THE STATE SBDCCRM underlying infrastructure of the state SBDC has threeparts: operational CRM, analytical CRM and collaborative CRM.Figure 2 shows the functionalities of the CRM system of the stateSBDC.Under the operational CRM, there are channel interactionsystems which communicate directly with the operationaldatabase system. Actually, the operational database is the currentyear database of the state SBDC. Data are migrated from 1Site system, forms sba641 and sba1062, and online web sites(online form 641) to the operational database. CRM systemsJournal of Computer Information SystemsWinter 2011

Journal of Computer Information Systems 2011.52:42-50.Figure 1.Interactions mapbefore CRMimplementationFigure 2. CRM implemented at thestate SBDCWinter 2011Journal of Computer Information Systems45

Table 2. Content analysis streamsJournal of Computer Information Systems 2011.52:42-50.Points of view aboutcontent A scientific procedure bymeans of which textualmaterial is examined to findits meaning and sense [5].Empirical-explanatoryanalysisA quantitative procedure byassigning content to specificcategories and countingfrequencies with the aim ofdescribing the manifestcontent [5].Mixed forms of contentanalysisThe mixed forms are thequalitative methods ofcontent analysis and thequantifying content analyses[5]functionalities are used to transform, integrate, and archivethe content of the operational database to the data warehouse.Under the analytical CRM, the data warehouse is split into smallportions called data mart [15]. At this point, the SBDC introduceddata mining, used to create patterns and discover knowledge,which are not directly observable when reading the data mart orthe data warehouse. Under the collaborative CRM of the stateSBDC, there is a module named economic impact module thatcommunicates with the federal system named EntrepreneurialDevelopment Management Information System (SBA-EDMIS).EDMIS is administered by SBA. All SBDCs country wide mustreport to EDMIS.RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURESRESEARCH DESIGNAfter obtaining the necessary agreement of the state SBDClead center, we began our case study to find the contextual,organizational and individual factors that may emerge in theCRM implementation process. In order to satisfy the objective ofthis study, data was collected by using several methods such asinterviews, observations of meetings, and collection of documentslike internal papers, plans, agendas, minutes and annual reportfrom the state SBDC. The results of these investigations wereadded to the findings from IT and CRM implementation literatureto set up an interview guide.SITE SELECTIONThe state SBDC has been selected for investigation becauseit provides interesting insights into how a public institutionundertakes CRM implementation. Most of the participants wouldcome from the state SBDC network. Therefore, the focus was ontwo groups of participants: the supervisors and the consultants.The state SBDC director provided a list of consultants who wouldparticipate in the study. A series of phone and online discussionstook place with all consultants over a four-week period.The consultants who participated in the study were spreadacross counties in the state. There are 53 counties in the state.Each county has a county level SBDC. The lead center of the state46SBDC is located in the capital of the state. In terms of location,23% of the participants cover the north-western counties of thestate, 31% work in the north-eastern counties, 31% are located inthe south-western counties and 15% in the south-eastern countiesof the state.In terms of gender, 56% of the participants who have an officein the state are women while 44% are men. In terms of education,44% of the participants who have an office in the state have aBachelor’s degree while 56% have a Master’s degree. In termsof age, 34% of the consultants are over 50 years old. About 22%of the consultants are between 21 and 30 years old. Roughly22% of the consultants are between 31 and 40 years old. Thefinal 22% of the consultants are between 41 and 50 yearsold.DATA COLLECTIONThe purpose of the interview was explained during the initialtelephone and online contact and an additional meeting was setup to complete the interview at a subsequent date. All interviewswere face-to-face.Primarily, structured interviews were conducted with all therelevant participants in the CRM implementation process. Allinterviews lasted for one hour, were tape-recorded and transcribedwith the permissions of the interviewees. In total, 19 interviewswere conducted.The state SBDC consultants were asked to answer openended questions. A summary of these open-ended questionsare the following: the state SBDC consultants were asked todescribe the CRM implementation process, the motivationsfor the CRM implementation, CRM implementation decisionmaking process, the influence of their peers who alreadyimplemented CRM, training received, their participation, theirinvolvement, the top management support, the relationshipbetween the CRM vendor and the state SBDC, the datacompatibility issues between their existing systems and theSBA EDMIS, the cost and budget of the CRM implementation process.ANALYSISCONTENT ANALYSISContent analysis is the tabulation of the most commonlyoccurring concepts in the body of text and in small fragments ofa body of literature, typically with the frequency of occurrenceattached [27]. Table 2 summarizes three groups of authors usingdifferent points of view about content analysis.This study has used the mixed forms of content analysis asshown in Table 2. This is because, we did an overview of IT andCRM implementation factors but we did not know which factorscan emerge from the state CRM implementation process. Inaddition, we used a grounded theory approach to examine datacollected from interviews. Therefore a model was not developedfirst, but instead, emerged from the data analysis [10]. Followingthe grounded theory approach, categories have been establishedwhich related to the contextual, organizational and individualfactors. These categories and factors were represented based onthe content found in the transcript of the interviews.Rourke et al (cited in [10]) distinguish five types of units incontent analysis. Those units can be a text, a message, a paragraph,a theme and sentence. The text units which were frequentlyJournal of Computer Information SystemsWinter 2011

Journal of Computer Information Systems 2011.52:42-50.Table 3.Inter-judges reliabilities and Factors per al CategoryData compatibility issues.91between 1-Site andSBA-EDMISEnvironmental pressure.85Choice of the technology.93Outsourcing Decided.90OrganizationalHigh volume of data.90categoryInvestment Decision.86Cost-effectiveness of.88CRM technologyTop Management Support.90Hybrid individualTraining Activities.87organizational category CRM user acceptance.86used and related to the existing IT and CRM implementationcontextual, organizational and individual factors were chosenas a unit of analysis in this content analysis. On this basis, eachtext unit in the interview transcripts was analyzed to determinewhether it was related to CRM implementation or not and, if so,to what extent existing IT and CRM implementation contextual,organizational and individual factors it related.FACTOR IDENTIFICATIONFollowing the grounded theory approach and the procedures recommended by the mixed forms group, two judgesconverted the interview data into meaningful text units. If thejudges found the same text unit more than once per participant, they coded it as one count. Regardless of the number of timesa single participant repeated the same text unit, we considered itas one count.The factors that emerged from the implementation literaturewere corroborated with interview data text units. In this way, thetext units were associated with their relevant factors inside thecontextual, organizational and individual categories.RELIABILITY TESTCohen’s kappa (k) was used to assess the credibility of thecontent analysis. Cohen’s kappa (k) measures the overall intercoder reliability, and the Cohen’s kappa (k) results that are closerto 1 indicate a perfect consensus between both coders; while 0indicate lower agreement between the pair of judges. As notedin Table 3, the Cohen’s kappa reliabilities for the factors rangedfrom a high of .94 to a low of .85.FINDINGSAfter the content analysis and the reliability tests, all factorswhich were found fell in the contextual, organizational and hybridindividual-organizational categories. As shown in Table 3, someof the expected factors were found in 2 of 3 categories. Somefactors which are classified in the literature as individual and insome cases as organizational were also found. As shown in TableWinter 20113, they have been assigned to a hybrid individual-organizationalfactor category. Some of the expected factors did not find support(see Table 1).DISCUSSIONThe state SBDC implementation process was found to beinfluenced by some of the same contextual and organizationalfactors as CRM implementation in the private business sector.Under contextual factors, we found that data compatibilitybetween 1-Site and SBA-EDMIS was a factor in the state SBDCdecision to implement a CRM system. This corroborates withthe results of Tornatzky and Klein [29] who also found thatcompatibility is a motivating factor for IT implementation. Butthis does not corroborate the findings of Even et al [8] who foundthat the process of improving CRM data quality is not necessarilya motivating factor for CRM implementation.The state SBDC 1-Site database configuration was notsynchronized with the EDMIS database. Because of thatinefficiency, the EDMIS system rejected all exported recordsfrom the state SBDC. After noticing the problem, the state SBDCdecided to implement CRM as a new solution for reporting datato the EDMIS. This is reflected by the following declarationcollected during the interview:“The first thing I noticed was the shortcoming of our currentsystem. There was a very big problem with the SBA-EDMISsystem and the current 1-Site program because it was veryincomplete as far as the SBA requirements ”Environmental pressure was another contextual factor [9].At the state SBDC, CRM implementation was influenced byexternal forces. All US SBDCs have to respect or follow someSBA regulations. About 28 US SBDC have implemented theCRM system. The state SBDC also felt the pressure to do so. Anexcerpt of the interviews that revealed the environmental pressureis the following:“Currently, 28 states use CRM systems. I asked mypeers what systems were best recognized by our nationalassociation. I gathered all of that data to see what my peerswere using. Most of them were using CRM ”Choice of the technology was another contextual factorfound in this study. Technological factors are considered whencompanies assess the fit between the new software and itshardware platform [7]. At the state SBDC, there was a concern about the fit between the CRM system and the serverwhich would host it. That concern was resolved because thevendor which has been chosen hosts the CRM systems onhis server. The following statement derived from the interviewsexplained that:“ After that, I had interviewed users of the CRM systemto get the pros and cons of their experiences with thatsoftware. General speaking, those who used CRM found itto be adequate and responsive to customized needs becausethe vendor hosts the system on his server.”The fourth contextual factor identified was CRM outsourcing.IT outsourcing is the transfer of part or all of an organization’scomputer science activities to an external specialized IT vendor.Journ

business IT and CRM implementation factors best fit to the CRM implementation at a public institution like a state SBDC, which recently implemented a CRM system. The research question is: what are the contextual, organizational and individual factors, found in private organizations, influencing a strategic