[originally developed for a course in customer relations management by JD Eveland PhD] 

Let's begin by thinking briefly about just what we mean by technology in general, and information technologies in particular. Unless we clearly understand what we mean by these terms, we'll have a hard time seeing how the new technological environment within which CRM is practiced both differs from and is like the traditional practice of the field. The root idea of technology is simply the concept of a tool -- something outside ourselves that we use to help us accomplish things that our bodies or minds can't (or can't as easily) accomplish unaided. The term "technology" more specifically refers to a class or category of tools that we define on the basis of similarities to facilitate talking about the tools and their properties.

The ambiguity in the meaning of "technology" results from the varying bases for defining "similarity". A tool has two essential qualities: its basic structure (a physical object, or a defined set of actions) and its function (the uses to which it is put). It's hard to think of one without also implicitly at least thinking of the other -- although not necessarily in unique ways. Most physical objects can be put to many uses, and most needs for tools can be met with a number of different objects. Of course, some tools work better for some purposes than others. While it is probably possible to open a can of soup with a hammer, a can opener is likely to work a great deal better; if you have a nail that needs pounding, either a can opener or a can of soup will have some effect,but a hammer will probably be better.

When we talk about technologies, we often neglect to specify whether we are classifying the tools in question by structure or by function. If pressed, we can distinguish between a structure-based category of technologies such as "metal hand tools" and a function-based category such as "pounding tools", but faced with a hammer, such fine distinctions often elude us. Dealing with hammers, this doesn't make a lot of difference usually. But faced with something like "CRM technologies", most of us would be hard-put to say just what that term refers to.

For purposes of this course, we will maintain a certain ambiguity in the way we use the term.  Consider the organizational function of customer relations management -- the whole set of procedures, activities, tools,personnel, and other things involved in the fine art of keeping one's customers and clients as satisfied participants in the firm. If we don't maintain our customers, our organizations generally don't last. Some organizations have an easier time of it than others; governments for example generally don't have a lot of competitors, and it's hard to find a replacement supplier. On the other hand, there are an awful lot of grocery stores out there, and it's pretty easy to walk from Ralph's to Von's if you don't like the service. Guess which industry tends to worry more about customer relations management -- government or grocery stores? Are you likely to find more caring and concern about your needs and requirements at your local Winn-Dixie or at the field office of the Internal Revenue Service? The point of such largely rhetorical questions is not to criticize government employees or exalt grocery baggers -- simply to observe that members of organizations tend to reflect in their actions and behavior the institutional requirements of their employers, and some organizations have to pay much more attention to CRM than others.

In other courses in this program, you have undoubtedly been introduced to the concept of the organization as a "sociotechnical system", in which the technical system consisting of all the tools and techniques and procedures both shapes and is shaped by the social system consisting of the organizational members, their respective roles and functions, their formal and informal relationships with one another and with the outside world, and the processes that they carry out through the technical mechanisms. It's easy to see using this vocabulary that you can't change either the technical system or the social system in any meaningful way without at the same time, changing, either inadvertently or by design, the other system as well.  If for some reason you are unclear on the nature and function of sociotechnical language, there is a brief summary of this approach available here, together with some additional reference links.

Clearly, it's better to change things by plan than by accident; this does require considerable knowledge of the system and its interactions, a sensitivity to the change process, a willingness to take certain necessary risks to achieve long-term gains, and resources and commitment devoted to processes that always take time to generate positive effects (although costs often pile up faster and more visibly). Moreover, more or less, by definition, sociotechnical changes are really never "finished" or often even stabilized, but almost inevitably lead to further changes in response to technological evolution, social, environmental, and economic conditions, and the raft of seen and unseen consequences experienced as a result of the change process.

So our starting point must be the idea that technology is a social process as well as an engineering product, although the emphasis and attention to the relative features may change over time.  CRM as a process has been practiced about as long as human beings have been engaged in commerce, documentably at least 4-5,000 years, perhaps more. But systematic attention to CRM as a concept is rather more recent, having only really emerged in the last couple of decades as a visible part of corporate strategy.  There's no question that a large part of this visibility relates to the prominence and cost of information technologies that support current-day CRM; if CRM were still a matter of index cards and penciled notes, it would hardly receive as much attention in the business press as it has. Attention must be considered as a mixed blessing in this case, since a lot of the effect has been to concentrate the intention on the supporting technologies instead of on the process itself and the nature of the organizational systems that implement it. In this course, we will try to shift the balance to some degree, by emphasizing the process itself and discussing the technology less as the core of CRM than as a set of tools from which CRM managers pick and choose those that work best for them in the context of their own organizations and the requirements they face.