Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations

AHP MODELING FOR CRM EVALUATIONSBetül Gökçe, Münir Geden, Nihan Tanrıöver

Outline

Objective Literature Survey What we have done before? Survey Methodology and Tools Excel Framework for Calculations Criteria Weights Alternatives’ Rankings Decision Matrix What we have learned?

Objectives

Best selection depends on organizational needs and priorities

Determining the most suitable product

Preventing unnecessary costs and inefficiencies

Customization of evaluation Easy way of gathering information

Literature Survey

Criteria Groups

Main References # of Literature Reviewed

SOFTWARE EVALUATION TECHNIQUES

Fuzzy based S. Jadhav & M. Sonar(2009), I. Friedrich & J. Sprenger & H. Breitner(2010), Wei&Chien&Wang

3

Weighted Scoring

S. Jadhav & M. Sonar(2009), I. Friedrich & J. Sprenger & H. Breitner(2010), Wei&Chien&Wang

4

Analytic Hierarchy Process

E. Colombo & C. Francalanci(2004),S. Jadhav & M. Sonar(2009), I. Friedrich & J. Sprenger & H. Breitner(2010), Wei&Chien&Wang 19

SOFTWARE EVALUATION CRITERIA

Quality ISO/IEC9126, Gartner, E. Colombo & C. Francalanci(2004), ISO/IEC9126, A. Jadhav & M. Sonar,(2009), YeongSeok-JungHyun(2005), Keil&Tiwana(2006)

10

Vendor ISO/IEC9126, Gartner, Keil&Tiwana(2006), S. Jadhav & M. Sonar(2009), Dunne-Gartner(2005)

5

Cost ISO/IEC9126, Gartner, Keil&Tiwana(2006), S. Jadhav & M. Sonar(2009)

4

Functional Suitability

I. Friedrich & J. Sprenger & H. Breitner(2010), ISO/IEC9126, Gartner, Karlsson J. (1998), E. Colombo & C. Francalanci(2004), Dunne-Gartner(2005), S. Jadhav & M. Sonar, (2009), I. Friedrich & J. Sprenger & H. Breitner(2010)

14

What is AHP?

The Analytical Hierarchy Process is a decision making model that aids us in making decisions in our complex world.

Thomas L. Saaty(The Founder)

AHP is used around the world in a wide variety of decision situations, in fields such as government, business, industry, healthcare, and education. (NASA, Xerox, General Motors)

S• Defining the decision problem

• Setting up a decision hierarchy

• Employing the pair-wise comprasion

• Estimating relative weights of elements

• Check the consistency

F• Come to a final decision based on the results

Hierachy Model (Three Level)

Goal

Criteria B

Criteria C

Alternative Z

Alternative Y

Alternative X

Criteria A

CriteriaD

Pairwise Comparison

Hierarchy Tree

Selection of CRM Package

Quality

Portability

Maintability

Efficiency

Usability

Reliability

Functionality

Vendor

Product Commitment

Reputation

Financial Stability

Market Share

Cost

License

Training

Implementation

Maintenance

Functional Suitability

Sales

Campaign

Lead/Opportunity

Customer Service

Alternatives

Survey – Criteria Weights

We have made a survey through Google Forms to determine criteria weights

Vendor Criteria & Cost Criteria CRM Project Manager

Quality & Functional Suitability Basis and Development Team

Due to consistency checks in calculations, survey re-made several times.

Survey – Alternative Selection

Alternative Selection Survey

Vendor Criteria & Cost Criteria CRM Project Manager

Quality & Functional Suitability Basis and Development Team

Normalization of Quantative Public Data of Market Share, Licence Cost, Training Cost

Excel Framework

Evaluation Criteria and Weights

CRM Selectio

n 1.00

Vendor.22

Cost.13

Technical.48

Functional

.16

Main Criteria Groups

n=4

nmax =4,17

R=0,90

CI=0,06

CR=0,06

Vendor

Vendor Criteria

1.00

Product Commit

ment .16

Financial Stability

.11

Market Reputati

on .55

Market Share

.17

Vendor Criteria Priority Vector Final Weights

0,16 0,04

0,11 0,03

0,55 0,12

0,17 0,04

n=4

nmax =4,22

R=0,90

CI=0,07

CR=0,08

Microsoft 0,17Oracle 0,07SAP 0,76




Cost

Cost Criteria

1.00

Licence

.50

Training

.10

Implementation

.07

Maintenance

.33

Cost Criteria Priority Vector Final Weights0,50 0,070,10 0,010,07 0,010,33 0,04

n=4

nmax =4,15R=0,90CI=0,05

CR=0,06





Technical Quality

Technical

1.00

Portability

.29

Maintainability

.17

Efficiency

.10

Usability

.37

Reliability

.07

Technical Criteria Priority Vector Final Weights

0,29 0,14

0,17 0,08

0,10 0,05

0,37 0,18

0,07 0,04

n=5

nmax =5,17

R=1,12

CI=0,04

CR=0,04






Functional CRM Modules

Functional

1.00

Sales.43

Campaign

.21

Lead Opportuni

ty .17

Customer Service

.19

Functional Criteria





Priority Vector Final Weights0,43 0,070,21 0,030,17 0,030,19 0,03

n=4nmax =4,14

R=0,90CI=0,05

CR=0,05

Hierarchy Tree WeightsSelection of

CRM Package

1.00

Technical Quality 0.48

Portability0.14

Maintability 0.08

Efficiency0.05

Usability0.18

Reliability0.04

Vendor0.22

Product Commitmen

t 0.04

Reputation0.12

Financial Stability

0.03

Market Share 0.04

Cost0.13

Licence0.07

Training0.01

Implementation0.01

Maintenance 0.04

Functional Suitabiliy

0.16

Sales0.07

Campaign0.03

Lead/Opportunity

0.03

Customer Service

0.03

Decision Matrix

11%40%49%

What we have learned?

Survey Importance of selecting the right criteria Importance of scaling (both for evaluation and understanding) To express the information in a clear way to get the accurate results

Analytical Hierarchy Process Decision makers had to re-evaluate alternatives when the number of

criteria or alternatives are changed. Depends on decision maker capacity - subjective

THANK YOU

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations

Education

Transcript of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations