![Page 1: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042700/557d4959d8b42ae3298b4897/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
AHP MODELING FOR CRM EVALUATIONSBetül Gökçe, Münir Geden, Nihan Tanrıöver
![Page 2: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042700/557d4959d8b42ae3298b4897/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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?
![Page 3: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042700/557d4959d8b42ae3298b4897/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042700/557d4959d8b42ae3298b4897/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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
![Page 5: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042700/557d4959d8b42ae3298b4897/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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
![Page 6: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042700/557d4959d8b42ae3298b4897/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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
![Page 7: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042700/557d4959d8b42ae3298b4897/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Alternatives
![Page 8: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042700/557d4959d8b42ae3298b4897/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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.
![Page 9: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042700/557d4959d8b42ae3298b4897/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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
![Page 10: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042700/557d4959d8b42ae3298b4897/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Excel Framework
![Page 11: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042700/557d4959d8b42ae3298b4897/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
![Page 12: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042700/557d4959d8b42ae3298b4897/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
Microsoft 0,26Oracle 0,08SAP 0,66
Microsoft 0,23Oracle 0,35SAP 0,42
Microsoft 0,18Oracle 0,07SAP 0,75
![Page 13: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042700/557d4959d8b42ae3298b4897/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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
Microsoft 0,62Oracle 0,14SAP 0,24
Microsoft 0,62Oracle 0,14SAP 0,24
Microsoft 0,48Oracle 0,28SAP 0,24
Microsoft 0,37Oracle 0,35SAP 0,28
![Page 14: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042700/557d4959d8b42ae3298b4897/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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
Microsoft 0,59Oracle 0,08SAP 0,33
Microsoft 0,18Oracle 0,11SAP 0,70
Microsoft 0,27Oracle 0,12SAP 0,61
Microsoft 0,59Oracle 0,07SAP 0,34
Microsoft 0,17Oracle 0,07SAP 0,76
![Page 15: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042700/557d4959d8b42ae3298b4897/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Functional CRM Modules
Functional
1.00
Sales.43
Campaign
.21
Lead Opportuni
ty .17
Customer Service
.19
Functional Criteria
Microsoft 0,58Oracle 0,07SAP 0,35
Microsoft 0,31Oracle 0,11SAP 0,58
Microsoft 0,19Oracle 0,08SAP 0,72
Microsoft 0,26Oracle 0,07SAP 0,67
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
![Page 16: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042700/557d4959d8b42ae3298b4897/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042700/557d4959d8b42ae3298b4897/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Decision Matrix
11%40%49%
![Page 18: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042700/557d4959d8b42ae3298b4897/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling for CRM Evaluations](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042700/557d4959d8b42ae3298b4897/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
THANK YOU