Linh Thuy Vuong-st112860

Implementing KCRM Strategy in a large company

1.

2.

Note key issues/questions addressed: The implementation of knowledge-enabled customer relationship management (KCRM) by a telecommunications firm - Global Telecom (GTCOM) and the current challenges facing the organization. Compose summaries of key/main ideas.

GTCOM was in monopolistic position but it had to face with the competitive market from July 2004. Therefore, an attempt to adopt a knowledge-based customer-centric response strategy, KCRM, is necessary. Overall KM plan of GTCOM: People: Job rotation is almost the only notable human-based initiative formally undertaken. Processes: Sharing of best practices and lessons learned are conducted. ICT: Applying Competency Dictionary or Performance Management Review, Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW), Integrated Document Management System (IDMS). KCRM architecture: The KCRM strategy was enabled by three ICT-based solutions: operational CRM, EDW, and analytical CRM. The operational KCRM is composed of three layers. The first layer is customer contact/interaction channels or touch points, that is, phone, e -mail, integrated voice recognition (IVR), fax, mail, e-commerce, and person walk-in retail stores. The second layer represents customer-facing departments, that is, marketing, sales, and customer services departments. The third layer is composed of several front- office operational systems. EDW project: integrates heterogeneous information sources (databases), is physically separated from operational systems, and is usually accessed by a limited number of users, as it is not an operational system. EDW helps to solve or reduce many of the negative effects of the challenges facing organizations, reduce business complexity, discover ways to leverage information for new sources of competitive advantage, realize business opportunities, and enable quick response under conditions of uncertainty CRM project: The goal of the CRM project was to enable GTCOM to focus on its customers lifetime value. Results: Good financial performance results during the first quarter of 2004. However, the operational CRM could not capture basic customer data; data fields were not validated by the system; the vendor underestimated project complexity and responsibilities; there was a dedicated change manager, which was ineffective. Challenges: The KCRM initiative at GTCOM seemed to be created and used on the basis of technology push, introduced through vendors, rather than market pull, as a mere response to real business need. Low-trust cultures constrict knowledge flow. There was lack of consensus on defining business requirements and goals of every business unit, there was also lack of consensus on defining data elements. As they lacked a single information repository, companies have traditionally spent large amounts of time and money writing integration programs to communicate between disparate systems. The CRM system still suffers from limited storage capacity/lack of scalability, complexity, limited processing speed, and lack of technology fitness in terms of growth and implemented capacity of the KCRM projects. The knowledge requirements of different business units were not being successfully transferred into data entities. Poor data quality at GTCOM resulted from accumulation of much data inaccuracies over the years, and there is a need for conducting an urgent cleansing of these data. 3. Agree or disagree with authors' thesis: I agree with the authors thesis, the conclusion of which is that the company did not succeed in implementing KCRM as a business strategy, but did succeed in implementing it as a transactional processing system. Note connections to concepts or experiences outside the text: Several KM enabling ICT tools are identified to carry out KM roles. These include Knowledge Portals, Electronic Document Management Systems, Academic Publishing, Academic Contents and Exchanges, Database Management Systems (DBMS), Data Warehouse, Data Mining, Groupware, Communities of Practices (CoP), Social Communities of Interests, and Individual Communities of Interests.

4.