Internalization in Technology Innovation: A Case of CRM Adoption

In today’s increasingly competitive economy, traditional marketing practice is thought to be out of date. Companies are driven to adopt the new practice defined by prevailing rationalized marketing concepts, because customer relationship management (CRM) is seen as the next marketing paradigm. Unfortunately, most CRM implementations do not produce expected results and even with technical feasibility many promised benefits of CRM have been rarely fulfilled. Using a case study, this paper examines why a company adopts a CRM technology but fails to buy into the technology’s real value and identifies the factors impeding the internalization process of technological innovation. The results of our case analysis show that the CRM technology diffused less rapidly than expected, because the underlying value of the CRM was incompatible with the company’s existing philosophy. This incompatibility has made the CRM deployment ceremonial. A discussion on the results of the case study is provided.

[1]  Pamela S. Tolbert,et al.  The Institutionalization of Institutional Theory , 1996 .

[2]  T. Kostova,et al.  Adoption of an Organizational Practice by Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations: Institutional and Relational Effects , 2002 .

[3]  Darrell K. Rigby,et al.  Avoid the four perils of CRM. , 2002, Harvard business review.

[4]  R. Zmud,et al.  Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach , 1990 .

[5]  L. Zucker.  The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. , 1977 .

[6]  Nicole Coviello,et al.  Towards a paradigm shift in marketing? An examination of current marketing practices , 1997 .

[7]  Pamela S. Tolbert,et al.  Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the Links between Action and Institution , 1997 .

[8]  Pamela S. Tolbert,et al.  Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880-1935 , 1983 .

[9]  Thomaz Wood,et al.  Adopting imported managerial expertise in developing countries: The Brazilian experience , 2002 .

[10]  Gregory G. Dess,et al.  Linking Two Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Orientation to Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Environment and Industry Life Cycle , 2001 .

[11]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[12]  E. Deci,et al.  Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. , 2000, Contemporary educational psychology.

[13]  M. Alvesson.  Organization: From Substance to Image? , 1990 .

[14]  Ke Te Le Mei Ru He Deng Yi.  Marketing management: analysis. planning. implementation and control , 2000 .

[15]  J. Laurenson.  Leadership in administration. , 1965, The New Zealand nursing journal. Kai tiaki.

[16]  R. Schroeder,et al.  Strategic, structural contingency and institutional explanations in the adoption of innovative manufacturing practices , 2004 .

[17]  P. Berger,et al.  Social Construction of Reality , 1991, The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society.

[18]  J. Creswell.  Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. , 1998 .

[19]  Henk Sol,et al.  Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences , 1997, HICSS 2015.

[20]  Pennie Frow,et al.  The role of multichannel integration in customer relationship management , 2004 .

[21]  Eric Abrahamson,et al.  Management Fashion: Lifecycles, Triggers, and Collective Learning Processes , 1999 .

[22]  W. Gibb Dyer,et al.  Better Stories, Not Better Constructs, To Generate Better Theory: A Rejoinder to Eisenhardt , 1991 .

[23]  Jiska Engelbert,et al.  Social construction of reality , 2016 .

[24]  L. Zucker.  Institutional Theories of Organization , 1987 .

[25]  E. Deci,et al.  The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality , 1985 .

[26]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.