A Case Study on Key Success Factors in Delivering e-CRM Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 10 years, a number of studies have pointed out that many e-CRM projects fail to deliver the expected benefits. In the business-to-business e-CRM market, many customers have faced issues with technology implementation, management of organizational change, and/or e-CRM effectiveness. However, none of these studies mentioned PeopleSoft. In fact, PeopleSoftâs e-CRM has been a best-of-breed solution. The purpose of this case study is to explain the determinants of the success of PeopleSoftâs e-CRM. This study was carried out in PeopleSoftâs Canadian subsidiary in 2004 (before the acquisition by Oracle). The findings reveal the superiority of PeopleSoft on the financial, marketing, and technological dimensions. In fact, the sustainable competitive advantage of PeopleSoftâs e-CRM lies in what is called a value-based business model. This unique business model is based on a 100% Internet architecture, a pricing model customized according to the value delivered to the customer (not the number of users), and the sharing of e-CRM risk with customers. This case study describes a striking reality: PeopleSoftâs CRM vision is the key success factor. Other e- CRM vendors, including Siebel, lack a vision for selling their e-CRM technology.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".