Expos© The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of
Transcript of Expos© The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of
Running Title: The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of Social CRM Systems
Exposé
The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of Social
CRM Systems: Quantitative Analysis of a User Acceptance Model
Submitted by
Fabian Haas
European Master in Business Studies
University of Kassel
Kassel, Germany 30th
October 2012
Exposé: The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of Social CRM Systems 2
List of content
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................... 3
1. Abstract ................................................................................................................ 4
2. Introduction.......................................................................................................... 4
3. Overview of chapters ........................................................................................... 5
4. Review of Literature ............................................................................................ 6
4.1. General Part ................................................................................................... 6
4.1.1. Definition of CRM ................................................................................. 6
4.1.2. Definition of Web 2.0 ............................................................................ 7
4.2. Social CRM .................................................................................................... 8
4.2.1. Definition of social CRM ...................................................................... 8
4.2.1. Outlining social CRM ............................................................................ 9
4.3. Research Model ........................................................................................... 10
5. Hypotheses ......................................................................................................... 13
6. Methodology ...................................................................................................... 14
7. Work Plan .......................................................................................................... 14
Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 16
Exposé: The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of Social CRM Systems 3
List of Abbreviations
CRM Customer Relationship Management
PEU Perceived Ease of Use
PLS Partial Least Squares
PU Perceived Usefulness
sCRM Social Customer Relationship Management
TAM Technology Acceptance Model
UTAUT Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
UTAUT2 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(extended version)
Exposé: The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of Social CRM Systems 4
1. Abstract
Title: The Determinants for the Customer Acceptance and Use of Social CRM
Systems: Quantitative Analysis of a User Acceptance Model
Keywords: Social CRM, User acceptance, customer engagement
Background: Customer Relationship Management (CRM) has been widely identi-
fied as a discipline impacting performance, customer satisfaction and retention. As
many fields in business it is exposed to new challenges due to the disruptive innova-
tions in information technology and especially in social media. In the context of
CRM this leads to a shift towards interaction and customer engagement, which en-
tails the necessity of creating systems that are accepted and used by customers.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify the variables that determine the
usage intention and the actual use of social CRM. Applying an adapted model of
technology acceptance and use, hypothesis describing single elements influencing
the behavior in the context of usage will be verified. Variables that are expected to
influence the behavioral intention to use will be designed. Finally the influence of
behavioral intention on actual use will be tested.
Method: The required information will be collected through a quantitative study in
an online survey. The responses will be analyzed by applying multivariate regression
(PLS Method) in order to gain insights in strength and direction of the correlations
between the tested variables.
2. Introduction
The field of customer relationship management (CRM) has been object of extensive
research starting in the 90ies until the first decade of the current century (Greenberg,
2009; Paas & Kulijlen, 2001; Payne & Frow, 2005; Winer, 2001). Most of them see
CRM as a discipline prospering because of the advancements in information tech-
nology. However, the philosophy behind is grounded in the theories of customer ori-
entation and relationship marketing (Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987; Jayachandran,
Sharma, Kaufman, & Raman, 2005).
Exposé: The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of Social CRM Systems 5
Since the progress in the field of Social Media and Web 2.0 there has been a shift in
paradigm in the research area of CRM. As Askool and Nakata (2010) argue, compa-
nies now have to take into account a change in behavior which was influenced by the
new type of media and interaction, changing among others the determinants for cus-
tomer satisfaction. Traditional models, also in the field of CRM have run out of date
and fail in delivering theoretical and practical insights (Harrigan, 2012). The disci-
pline of CRM is changing into “social CRM System” (Mohan, Choi, & Min, 2008)
with additional challenges in terms of being trustworthy, customer centric and cus-
tomer driven (Shih, 2009).
All the recent studies of social CRM (sCRM) emphasize the importance of interac-
tion and user engagement ex. (Askool & Nakata, 2010), an element which is peculiar
to sCRM and was less of a concern for traditional CRM – this is shown in a literature
review of Paulissen, Milis, Brengman, Fjermestad, and Romano (2007) who identi-
fied several fields of study in the context of CRM – but none of them addressed the
customer itself or elements like interaction.
Considering this gap, the purpose of this study shall be to analyze the determinants
of customer acceptance of sCRM in order to find out, what businesses have to take
into account for setting up an interactive and effective sCRM System.
Thus the general research question to be answered by this study is:
What are the determinants that influence the customer acceptance and use of sCRM
Systems?
3. Overview of chapters
1) Introduction
2) Literature Review
a) General Part: This section describes the fundamentals of CRM and Web 2.0
as those concepts constitute the basics where social CRM is built on.
b) Social CRM: In the first part of this section, social CRM will be defined from
different perspectives and the differences to traditional CRM will be ana-
lyzed. The second part will be dedicated to an in-depth explanation of social
CRM providing explanation such as performance possibilities, fields of ap-
plication, customer perspective and business potential.
Exposé: The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of Social CRM Systems 6
c) Research Model: In this part, the variables influencing the user acceptance
will be established, by reviewing and analyzing previous models.
3) Methodology: This part will provide explanations about how the research will be
conducted.
4) Analysis of Results: First the results will be analyzed applying statistical methods
(PLS). Starting from these values, the research model will be tested and verified.
5) Conclusions: This section will draw the conclusions based on the research results
in order to develop managerial implications.
4. Review of Literature
In order to provide a comprehensive overview of the analyzed literature so far, the
sources will be grouped according to the preliminary structure of the Master Thesis.
4.1. General Part
4.1.1. Definition of CRM
Point of View Content Reference
General defini-
tion
Definition of CRM as a set of activities
aiming at establishing and maintaining
loyalty and satisfaction of customers
on the long run.
(Landroguez, Castro,
& Cepeda-Carrión,
2011)
Technological
definition
Definition of CRM as a process to
identify customer needs and to develop
close relationships by the use of tech-
nology which collects, analyzes and
manages customer data.
(Paulissen et al., 2007)
Integrated defini-
tion
Definition of CRM as an integration of
business processes and technologies to
manage interactions with customers
and contributing to customer satisfac-
tion. CRM is seen as a system to col-
lect and manage information with the
aim to increase the sales and make the
selling process more efficient.
(Bose, 2002)
Marketing based
definition
Definition of CRM as a tool to identify
the profitable customer and thus ena-
bling the company to focus on those
and to deliver the ideal product with
the ideal elements of the marketing
mix (place, promotion and price) at the
right time.
(Paas & Kulijlen,
2001)
Exposé: The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of Social CRM Systems 7
Strategy based
definition
CRM is considered to be a philosophy
with the goal to improve interactions
in the business environment by the use
of a business strategy and technology.
(Greenberg, 2003)
CRM is defined as a strategic approach
generating several benefits as in-
creased profits and customer satisfac-
tion.
(Sarner et al., 2011)
Effects/
Potential/
Benefits
Lowers customer recruitment costs
Stable customer base
Reduced cost of sales
Higher customer profitability
Increased customer retention and loy-
alty
Enables analysis of customer profita-
bility
(Swift, 2001)
Increases understanding of customer
and gives the possibility to treat cus-
tomers considering their potential
positive effect on performance
(W. Reinartz, Krafft, &
Hoyer, 2004)
Satisfaction increases performance (Kamakura, Mittal, de
Rosa, & Mazzon,
2002)
CRM increases customer value (loyal-
ty and acquisition), profitability and
customer satisfaction
(Kim, Suh, & Hwang,
2003)
Loyalty increases profits (W. J. Reinartz &
Kumar, 2000)
Active commitment and loyalty pro-
grams influence positively the reten-
tion and the customer share develop-
ment
Direct mailings support customer share
development
(Verhoef, 2003)
CRM use is positively correlated to
performance
(Jayachandran et al.,
2005)
eCRM reduces cognitive dissonance (Clark & Das, 2009)
4.1.2. Definition of Web 2.0
Point of view Content Reference
Definition
Elements of Web
2.0
User generated content, network ef-
fects, collective intelligence, data on
epic scales, enabling services, light-
weight programs, open platform
(Faase, Helms, &
Spruit, 2011)
Services Blogs, Wikis, Social Tagging, Multi- (Faase et al., 2011)
Exposé: The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of Social CRM Systems 8
media sharing, syndication, social
networking
Social Media
Usage
Social Media Usage Data (Heller Baird &
Parasnis, 2011a)
4.2. Social CRM
4.2.1. Definition of social CRM
Perspective Content Reference
Technical defini-
tion
SCRM is defined as user friendly appli-
cation that supports the existing struc-
ture of CRM improving the efficiency
by integrating social networks and other
external data.
(Mohan et al., 2008)
Strategy based
definition
SCRM is seen as strategic direction of
the company aiming to create customer
involvement and engagement to create a
closer relationship with the customer
with the final outcome of obtaining mu-
tual benefits. The technological aspect
including Web 2.0 is seen as a tool to
obtain these advantages.
(Faase et al., 2011)
SCRM is defined as a system and stra-
tegic approach, combining the power of
online communities with CRM systems
to increase the engagement and in-
volvement of customers with the final
goal to establish a value relationship
between customer and company.
(Askool & Nakata,
2010)
Customer orient-
ed definition
SCRM is defined as a system, dedicated
to meet the requirements of the dynamic
environment of communities in social
media, where the customer has a high
degree of power.
(Heller Baird &
Parasnis, 2011a)
“Social CRM is a philosophy and a
business strategy, supported by a tech-
nology platform, business rules, pro-
cesses, and social characteristics, de-
signed to engage the customer in a col-
laborative conversation in order to pro-
vide mutually beneficial value in a
trusted and transparent business envi-
ronment. It’s the company’s response to
the customer’s ownership of the conver-
sation.”
(Greenberg, 2009, p.
34)
Exposé: The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of Social CRM Systems 9
“It’s now a two-way conversation. Lis-
ten, respond and talk intelligently. Stop
dictating to customers. It’s your cus-
tomers, not you, who have the power.”
George Colony
(2007), CEO of For-
rester Research quot-
ed in Greenberg
(2009, p. 33)
SCRM is defined as a system recogniz-
ing the importance of facilitating col-
laborative experiences and interaction
rather than controlling the customers.
(Heller Baird &
Parasnis, 2011b)
Distinction to
traditional CRM
Several factors are listed, mainly related
to a higher degree of integration of fea-
tures, transparency, engagement and
collaboration.
(Greenberg, 2009)
Distinction of
Social Media
Strategy and so-
cial CRM Strate-
gy
A social CRM strategy provides an
“overarching strategic approach” for
customer engagement as well as overall
guidelines and a plan for governance,
whereas a social media strategy ap-
proach rather points at the bare increase
of usage of various types of social me-
dia.
(Heller Baird &
Parasnis, 2011a)
Evolutionary
view
Describes the evolution in the field of
CRM as a path from social media pro-
jects to social media programs and to a
social CRM strategy
(Heller Baird &
Parasnis, 2011a)
4.2.1. Outlining social CRM
Topic Content Reference
Performances
related to sCRM
(What is it for?)
Presence
Action
Sharing
Reputation
Relationships
Conversation
Groups
Collaboration
Context
(Greenberg, 2009)
Activities
Provision of Context
Analysis of context
Channel for transactions
Platform for cooperation
(Reinhold & Alt,
2012)
Empirical data and statistics about per-
formances
(Heller Baird &
Parasnis, 2011a)
Capabilities
(How does it op-
erate?)
Monitor
Assess and analyze
Strategize and structure
Test
(Acker, Gröne,
Akkad, & Yazbek,
2010)
Exposé: The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of Social CRM Systems 10
Embed
Review
Fields of applica-
tion
(Where is it ap-
plied?)
Innovation
Social Marketing
Social Sales
Social Service
(Acker et al., 2010)
Co-developing products
Generating brand awareness
Aiding information gathering
Offering price comparisons
Assisting the selling process
Enabling peer-to-peer customer market-
ing and service after purchase
(Sarner et al., 2011)
Marketing
Knowledge generation
Real time services
Participation and cooperation
(Reinhold & Alt,
2012)
Empirical data about the fields of appli-
cation
(Heller Baird &
Parasnis, 2011a)
Components
(Which techno-
logical tools are
used?)
Search Engines
Social Media Monitoring
Business Intelligence Tools
CRM Systems
Social Media management
Social Network analysis
(Reinhold & Alt,
2012)
Resources used:
(Which resources
are used?)
Posting Body
Posting Envelope
Profile Body
Profile Envelope
Interconnections
(Reinhold & Alt,
2012)
Data (history etc.)
Customer participation
(Greenberg, 2009)
Applied in:
(Where is it ap-
plied?)
Blogs
Podcasts
Wikis
Social Tagging and Bookmarking
Social Search
(Greenberg, 2009)
Customer bene-
fits
Data about customer usage and motiva-
tions
(Heller Baird &
Parasnis, 2011b)
Perception gap (Heller Baird &
Parasnis, 2011b)
4.3. Research Model
In order to establish the critical factors leading to the user acceptance and conse-
quently to the use of sCRM, a research model will be established displaying the hy-
pothesis in this regard. The Model to be applied in this research grounds in several
theories of user acceptance which will be reviewed in this section.
Exposé: The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of Social CRM Systems 11
Model Description Reference
Technology ac-
ceptance model
(TAM)
Two external variables (perceived use-
fulness (PU) and perceived ease of use
(PEU)) determine the attitude towards
using which then determines the behav-
ioral intention
(Davis, Bagozzi, &
Warshaw, 1989;
Davis, 1985, 1989)
Extended tech-
nology ac-
ceptance model
(TAM2)
Starting point is the traditional TAM,
extending the view by defining the con-
structs of subjective norm, image, job
relevance, output quality and result de-
monstrability as determinants of per-
ceived usefulness.
(Venkatesh & Davis,
2000)
Further extension
of the technology
acceptance model
(TAM3)
TAM 2 was further extended by adding
determinants of perceived ease of use:
Anchorage determinants (computer self-
efficacy, perceptions of external control,
computer anxiety and computer play-
fulness) and adjustment determinants
(perceived enjoyment and objective
usability).
(Venkatesh & Bala,
2008)
Unified theory of
acceptance and
use of technology
(UTAUT)
Defines performance expectancy, effi-
ciency expectancy, social influence and
facilitating conditions as determinants
of behavioral intention. Behavioral in-
tention is defined as predictor of use
behavior
(Venkatesh, Morris,
Davis, & Davis,
2003)
Extension of the
unified theory of
acceptance and
use of technology
(UTAUT2)
In addition to the variables mentioned
by Venkatesh et al. (2003), hedonic
motivation and price value are defined
as determinants of behavioral intention.
Habit is defined as predictor of both
behavioral intention and use behavior.
(Venkatesh, 2012)
Conceptual mod-
el for user en-
gagement in so-
cial CRM
Starting point is the TAM, adding the
fact that the attitude towards use deter-
mines customer engagement. This in-
fluences relational information process
which is a predictor of CRM technology
adoption (equivalent to the behavioral
intention in TAM). 1
(Harrigan &
Choudhury, 2012)
Conceptual mod-
el for understand-
ing SCRM usage
and acceptance
It is also based on the TAM; Three Web
2.0 elements (ease of networking, ease
of participation and ease of collabora-
tion) are determinants of PU and PEU
as well as of familiarity, care and in-
formation sharing. The latter three build
up trustworthiness, which is a determi-
nant of attitude towards use.1
(Askool & Nakata,
2010)
1 Model has not been tested yet.
Exposé: The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of Social CRM Systems 12
The first relevant theory in this regard is the so called Technology acceptance model
(Davis, 1985) who identifies perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use as pre-
dictors of acceptance for a technology. This Model acknowledges the influence of
those two variables on attitude toward using which influences the behavioral inten-
tion that finally determined the actual system use.
In the following years, there were several extensions of the model, by adding deter-
minants explaining the perceived usefulness, such as subjective norm, image, job
relevance, output quality and result demonstrability (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and
determinants explaining the perceived ease of use, namely anchorage determinants
(computer self-efficacy, perceptions of external control, computer anxiety and com-
puter playfulness) and adjustment determinants (perceived enjoyment and objective
usability) (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).
Furthermore, there have been variations of the model. Venkatesh et al. (2003) de-
fined performance expectancy, effort expectancy and social influence as determinants
of the behavioral intention (intention of use). The intention of use and facilitating
conditions were defined as variables influencing the usage behavior. In addition age,
gender and experience were identified as moderators of all the connections between
the variables. The model is known as Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology (UTAUT).
In their latest research, Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu (2012) extended the model, by
adding two variables influencing the behavioral intention (hedonic motivation and
price value) and one variable (habit) determining both behavioral intention and use
behavior. Subsequently, this adapted model was labeled with the acronym UTAUT2
In addition to these models, there are other two models, adapting previous theories to
the field of social CRM.
Firstly, there is the so called “Conceptual model for understanding SCRM usage and
acceptance” (Askool & Nakata, 2010). The general base of the model is the TAM;
however, Web 2.0 elements are influencing the variables perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use as well as familiarity, care and information sharing. Attitude
towards use is depending on perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and per-
ceived trustworthiness.
Similar to the previous model, the “Conceptual Model for Customer Engagement in
Social CRM” tries to explain the acceptance of the sCRM System applying an
Exposé: The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of Social CRM Systems 13
adapted TAM Model, outlining elements of user engagement as outcome of the atti-
tude towards use as defined by the traditional TAM. As a consequence of user en-
gagement, the model defines relational information process and finally CRM Tech-
nology adoption (Harrigan & Choudhury, 2012).
For the purpose of this research, the elements of the previous models will be com-
bined, in order to provide a model which aims at explaining the process as complete
as possible. Since the models designed by Askool and Nakata (2010) and Harrigan
and Choudhury (2012) are particularly addressed to this topic, they provide a good
starting point. On the other hand, they don’t explicitly take into account important
factors such as social influence, hedonic motivation, facilitating conditions and habit
as proposed by Venkatesh, Thong and Xu (2012).
As a result of the review of the different models the elements identified to shape the
behavioral intention to use social CRM in this research are:
Perceived usefulness (Askool & Nakata, 2010; Davis, 1985; Harrigan &
Choudhury, 2012)
Perceived ease of use (Askool & Nakata, 2010; Davis, 1985; Harrigan &
Choudhury, 2012)
Perceived trustworthiness (Askool & Nakata, 2010)
Social Influence (Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012)
Hedonic Motivation (Venkatesh et al., 2012)
Habit (Venkatesh et al., 2012)
Facilitating conditions (Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012)
5. Hypotheses
Finally the model shall consist in an explanation of the link between behavioral in-
tention and use behavior.
The designed preliminary model leads to the following Hypotheses:
H1: Perceived usefulness has a positive influence on behavioral intention
H2: Perceived ease of use has a positive influence on behavioral intention
H3: Perceived trustworthiness has a positive influence on behavioral intention
H4: Social influence is a determinant on behavioral intention
Exposé: The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of Social CRM Systems 14
H5: Hedonic motivation influences behavioral intention
H6: Habit is a determinant on behavioral intention
H7: Facilitating conditions have a positive influence on behavioral intention and use
H8: Behavioral intention influences positively the use of social CRM
6. Methodology
The hypotheses mentioned above will be tested by applying a qualitative research.
The data will be collected through an online questionnaire spread to personal con-
tacts as well as on social media pages.
The questionnaire will mainly contain seven point (Likert) scales as it has been ap-
plied in previous studies of comparable models (Davis, 1985; Venkatesh & Bala,
2008; Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012). By proceeding this way, numerical results can
be obtained.
The obtained data then will be used to validate the model and to show the connec-
tions between the variables (both latent and observable). The method used for this is
the Partial Least Squares method (PLS) performed by the software SmartPLS. By
using these tools, the hypothesis constructing the research model will be validated
and the model can be tested.
7. Work Plan
Time Activity
a) 01.10.2012-
11.11.2012
Basic research
phase
Creating, discussing and adapting
the exposé
b) 01.11.2012-
30.11.2012
Theory phase Intensive literature review and
predisposition of theoretical part
of the master thesis
c) 01.12.2012-
06.01.2013
Methodology
phase
Study of methodology, estab-
lishment of the research model,
creating questionnaire
d) 10.12.2012-
22.01.2013
Intermediate
presentation
Elaborating first draft of inter-
mediate presentation
(20.12.2012), reviewing correc-
tions and creating final version
and presentation slides
(22.01.2013)
Exposé: The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of Social CRM Systems 15
e) 06.01.2013-
31.01.2013
Field research
phase
Finalizing questionnaire and exe-
cuting the survey
f) 01.02.2013-
10.03.2013
Analysis phase Finalizing the method for the
analysis, executing the qualita-
tive evaluation, drawing first
implications
g) 10.03.2013-
31.03.2013
Drawing implications and con-
clusions
h) 01.04.2013- deadline Finalization phase Reviewing the work, adaptation,
correction, preparing final report
and presentation
The work plan is also displayed in the Gantt chart below.
10/12 11/12 12/12 01/13 02/13 03/13 04/13 05/13
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
Exposé: The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of Social CRM Systems 16
Bibliography
Acker, O., Gröne, F., Akkad, F., & Yazbek, R. (2010). Social CRM - How Compa-
nies Can Link into the Social Web of Consumers. Booz & Company Inc.
Askool, S., & Nakata, K. (2010). A conceptual model for acceptance of social CRM
systems based on a scoping study. Ai & Society, 26(3), 205–220.
doi:10.1007/s00146-010-0311-5
Bose, R. (2002). Customer relationship management: key components for IT success.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 102(2), 89–97.
doi:10.1108/02635570210419636
Clark, P. W., & Das, N. (2009). Exploring the Use of E-CRM Elements and Effec-
tive Website Design as Tools for Reducing Consumer Post-Purchase Cognitive
Dissonance. Journal of Technology Research, 1–8.
Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-
user information systems: theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user ac-
ceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User Acceptance of Comput-
er Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Sci-
ence, 35(8), 982–1003. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing Buyer-Seller Relation-
ships. Journal of Marketing, 51(April), 11–27.
Faase, R., Helms, R., & Spruit, M. (2011). Web 2.0 in the CRM domain: defining
social CRM. International Journal of Electronic Customer Relationship Man-
agement, 5(1), 1–22. doi:10.1504/IJECRM.2011.039797
Greenberg, P. (2003). Making CRM Whole-Brained. CRM Magazine. Retrieved
from http://www.destinationcrm.com/Articles/Columns-Departments/Reality-
Check/Making-CRM-Whole-Brained-48129.aspx
Greenberg, P. (2009). CRM at the Speed of Light , Fourth Edition : for Engaging
Your Customers (4th ed.). New York: Mc Graw Hill.
Harrigan, P. (2012). Modelling CRM in the Social Media Age.
Harrigan, P., & Choudhury, M. M. (2012). Technology acceptance model and the
social crm: a model for customer engagement. Academy of Marketing (pp. 1–9).
Southhampton. Retrieved from https://marketing.conference-
services.net/programme.asp?conferenceID=2958&action=prog_titles
Exposé: The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of Social CRM Systems 17
Heller Baird, C., & Parasnis, G. (2011a). From social media to Social CRM - Rein-
venting the customer relationship.
Heller Baird, C., & Parasnis, G. (2011b). From social media to Social CRM - What
customers want.
Jayachandran, S., Sharma, S., Kaufman, P., & Raman, P. (2005). The Role of Rela-
tional Information Processes and Technology Use in. Journal of Marketing,
69(October), 177–192.
Kamakura, W. A., Mittal, V., de Rosa, F., & Mazzon, J. A. (2002). Assessing the
service-profit chain. Marketing Science, 21(3), 294–317. Retrieved from
http://mktsci.journal.informs.org/content/21/3/294.short
Kim, J., Suh, E., & Hwang, H. (2003). A model for evaluating the effectiveness of
CRM using the balanced scorecard. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17(2), 5–
19. doi:10.1002/dir.10051
Landroguez, S. M., Castro, C. B., & Cepeda-Carrión, G. (2011). Creating dynamic
capabilities to increase customer value. Management Decision, 49(7), 1141–
1159. doi:10.1108/00251741111151181
Mohan, S., Choi, E., & Min, D. (2008). Conceptual Modeling of Enterprise Applica-
tion System Using Social Networking and Web 2 . 0 “ Social CRM System .”
International Conference on Convergence and Hybrid Information Technology
(pp. 237–244). doi:10.1109/ICHIT.110
Paas, L., & Kulijlen, T. (2001). Towards a general definition of customer relation-
ship management. Journal of Database Marketing, 9, 51–60.
Paulissen, K., Milis, K., Brengman, M., Fjermestad, J., & Romano, N. J. (2007).
Voids in the Current CRM Literature: Academic Literature Review and Classi-
fication (2000-2005). 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS’07). Ieee. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2007.609
Payne, A., & Frow, P. (2005). A strategic framework for Customer relationship man-
agement. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 167–176.
Reinartz, W. J., & Kumar, V. (2000). On the Profitability of Long-Life Customers in
a Noncontractual Setting : An Empirical Investigation and Implications for
Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 64(October), 17–35.
Reinartz, W., Krafft, M., & Hoyer, W. D. (2004). The Customer Relationship Pro-
cess : Its Measurement and Impact on Performance. Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 41(3), 293–305.
Reinhold, O., & Alt, R. (2012). Social Customer Relationship Management : State of
the Art and Learnings from Current Projects 1 Introduction 2 Dimensions for
analysing SCRM. 25th Bled eConference eDependability: Reliable and Trust-
worthy eStructures, eProcesses, eOperations and eServices for the Future (pp.
155–169). Bled, Slovenia.
Exposé: The Determinants for Customer Acceptance and Use of Social CRM Systems 18
Sarner, A., Thompson, E., Davies, J., Drakos, N., Fletcher, C., Mann, J., & Maoz, M.
(2011). Magic Quadrant for Social CRM What You Need to Know (pp. 1–29).
Shih, C. (2009). Facebook Is the Future of CRM. Customer Relationship Manage-
ment, (November), 12.
Swift, R. (2001). Accelerating customer relationships: Using CRM and relationship
technologies (1st ed., pp. 28–30). Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall. Re-
trieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zDhMMsq-
rlsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR17&dq=Accelerating+Customer+Relationships:+Using+C
rm+and+Relationship+Technologies&ots=9slDDJVULT&sig=f6Ppg1HRI-
j5EF_gAZGCRE12o_8
Venkatesh, V. (2012). C ONSUMER A CCEPTANCE AND U SE OF I NFOR-
MATION T ECHNOLOGY : E XTENDING THE U NIFIED T HEORY,
36(1), 157–178.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research
Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology ac-
ceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2),
186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance
of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–
478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of infor-
mation technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of tech-
nology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
Verhoef, P. C. (2003). Understanding the Effect of Efforts on Customer Retention
and. Journal of Marketing, 67(October), 30–45.
Winer, R. S. (2001). A Framework for Customer Relationship Management. Califor-
nia Management Review, 43(4), 89–105. doi:10.2307/41166102