MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207976664 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14100496

Minimising Risk—The Application of Kotter’s Change Management Model on Customer Relationship Management Systems: A Case Study

2021· article· en· W3207976664 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Danny Sittrop, Cheryl Crosthwaite

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChange management (ITSM)Process managementAgile software developmentProcess (computing)Knowledge managementComputer scienceManagement scienceOperations managementBusinessEngineeringLean manufacturing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implementing a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system requires significant consideration with respect to change management and the associated business risks. This paper describes how to best achieve the change goal and minimize these risks. The research question under investigation is: “How can Kotter’s change management model be used effectively to enhance the value and utilisation of a CRM system”. Kotter’s eight-stage change model is the adopted change model used by the organisation under study. As business intelligence (BI) is a growing field within industry and academia alike, limited substantive research has been done regarding how to manage the change process itself within a BI project. Often research either focuses on the technical development (e.g., agile methodology) or the change process from a holistic perspective. However, both are needed to effectively manage the risk of failure. The research design for this study was that of a single organisation case study. The research questions were addressed by using a deductive research style. To allow for multiple perspectives and triangulation of the data, a mixed-methods approach (Quant + QUAL) was used. Outcomes of the research showed that whilst there was some success in the implementation of Kotter’s change model, it could have been significantly improved if the competencies identified in this research were considered and incorporated prior and during the change journey. Building on Kotter’s classic work with change management, this research fills the gap by describing the pertinent competencies required in managing the change process, identifying common pitfalls and investigating the common threads between the ‘data to outcome’ process and the change management process to better mitigate the risk This paper adds value to current change literature/models by defining and describing the importance of these competencies when embarking on a change program related to BI tools and systems and how these competencies are incorporated into Kotter’s model.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicQuality and Supply ManagementFrench-language works237,207