Difference Test of CRM Strategic Factors by university type for building customer strategy of university

대학의 고객경영전략 수립을 위한 대학유형별 CRM 전략 요소의 차별성 분석

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.

본 연구는 최근 대학경영에 있어서 '고객'이라는 개념의 인식과 고객지향적 경영전략의 중요성이 확대됨에 따라 대학산업에 적합한 전사적 CRM 전략을 본격적으로 논의하기위한 토대로써 대학의 유형별 CRM 전략 요소의 차이점을 검증하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 CRM 전략의 핵심 프레임워크인 CRM 프로세스(CRM Process)와 고객자산가치 운영요소(Customer Equity Drivers) 이론을 중심으로 대학경영에 적합한 CRM 전략요소 측정도구를 개발하고, 대학의 평가순위과 대학의 소재 지역에 따라 구분되는 12가지 대학유형간의 차이를 다변량 분산분석 (MANOVA)을 통해 검정하였다. 분석결과, CRM 프로세스 활동과 고객자산가치 요소들의 수준이 대학의 평가순위 그룹유형에 대해서는 유의한 차이가 있지만, 대학의 소재 지역 그룹유형에 대해서는 통계적으로 유의한 차이가 존재하지 않았다. 즉, 관계획득활동과 관계강화활동이 상위권 대학과 하위권 대학에서 유의하게 차이가 나는 것을 알 수 있었고, 고객자산가치 요소 중 상위권 대학의 브랜드가치와 관계가치는 중위권 대학 및 하위권 대학과 유의한 차이가 발견되었으며, 또한 상위권 대학의 제품/서비스 가치(구매가치)는 하위권 대학의 구매가치와, 그리고 중위권 대학의 브랜드 가치는 하위권 대학의 브랜드 가치와도 분명한 차이가 존재한다는 것을 알 수 있다.