• CRM연구
• /
• v.3 no.2
• /
• pp.43-68
• /
• 2010

One of the recent research trends that universities are increasingly adopting the concept of 'customer' and the customer-oriented strategy has urged us to research enterprise-wide CRM strategy adaptable to university administration. As the first step of CRM strategy for university management, we try to validate the difference of CRM strategic factors among university types. Drawing upon both CRM process and customer equity drivers, which have been recognized as core frameworks for CRM strategy, we developed those survey instruments adoptable into university industry, and validated statistically-significant difference among 12 types of university group constructed by the levels of university evaluation and the location of the universities. We collected 261 responses from 177 universities from all over the country and analyzed the data to see the levels of CRM processes consisting of customer acquisition, retention, and expansion, and customer equity drivers consisting of value equity, brand equity, and relationship equity by using multivariate ANOVA(MANOVA). The result confirms the explicit differences of the levels of CRM processes and customer equity drivers between the groups by university evaluation levels(high/middle/low). However, the analysis failed to show the significant differences of those between the group by university locations(the capital/the suburbs/the six megalopolises/other countries). More specifically, the level of activities for customer acquisition and retention of the universities in the higher-graded group are significantly different from those in the lower-graded group from the perspective of CRM process. In terms of customer equity drivers, the levels of both brand equity and relationship equity of the higher-graded group are significantly higher than those of both middle and lower-graded group. In addition, we found that the value equity between the higher and lower-graded groups, and the brand equity between the middle and lower-graded groups are different each other. This study provides an important meaning in that we tried to consider CRM strategy which has been mainly addressed in profit-making industries in terms of non-profit organization context. Our endeavors to develop and validate empirical measurements adoptable to university context could be an academic contribution. In terms of practical meaning, the processes and results of this study might be a guideline to many universities to build their own CRM strategies. According to the research results, those insights could be expressed in several messages. First, we propose to universities that they should plan their own differentiated CRM strategies according to their positions in terms of university evaluation. For example, although it is acceptable that a university in lower-level group might follow the CRM process strategy of the middle-level group universities, it is not a good idea to imitate the customer acquisition and retention activities of the higher-level group universities. Moreover, since this study reported that the level of universities' brand equity is just correlated with the level of university evaluation, it might be pointless for the middle or lower-leveled universities if they just copy their brand equity strategies from those of higher-leveled ones even though such activities are seemingly attractive. Meanwhile, the difference of CRM strategy by university position might provide universities with the direction where they should go for their CRM strategies. For instance, our study implies that the lower-positioned universities should improve all of the customer equity drivers with concerted efforts because their value, brand, and relationship equities are inferior compared with the higher and middle-positioned universities' ones. This also means that they should focus on customer acquisition and expansion initiatives rather than those for customer retention because all of the customer equity drivers could be influenced by the two kinds of CRM processes (KIm and Lee, 2010). Surely specific and detailed action plans for enhancing customer equity drivers should be developed after grasping their customer migration patterns illustrated by the rates of acquisition, retention, upgrade, downgrade, and defection for each customer segment.