MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031165633 · doi:10.1177/097215090200300107

Learnings from Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Implementation in a Bank

2002· article· en· W2031165633 on OpenAlexaff
M.P. Gupta, Sonal Shukla

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Business Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCustomer relationship managementBusinessProfitability indexMarketingWork (physics)Customer retentionProcess managementKnowledge managementFinanceComputer scienceEngineeringService qualityService (business)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article attempts to highlight the learnings from Customer Relationship Management (CRM) imple mentation in the banking sector. CRM systems are particularly relevant to Retail Financial Services companies, allowing much of the management of the customer relationship to be automated with the objective of maximizing the profitability of individual customer relationships whilst minimizing the cost of managing those relationships. The study is supported by a case study of CRM systems in a major Japanese Bank- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi and also a field survey of scenario in Indian banking sector. The various issues examined include organizational information, the CRM strategy, strategic changes resulting from CRM implementation, implementation priorities for the banks and the factors indicating the performance after CRM implementation. The study revealed that CRM is gradually picking up and is definitely considered as a viable proposition by banks in improving services to their customers. One of the major challenges experienced during implementing CRM is resistance to change. To get CRM to work, high commitment is required in those who are implementing it.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Business ReviewSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207