QUALITATIVE INVESTIGATION OF TAM
160
Several limitations and delimitations were uncovered. First, the focus on CES as a whole
provides context for CRM adoption but does not necessarily capture the nuances of specific state
needs. Additionally, the roles of the study participants may limit insights into variations of CRM
usage based on specific job functions. The use of self-reported qualitative data may also
introduce the potential for response bias, and the temporal context of this study, consideration a
rapidly changing digital landscape, suggests a need for a potential longitudinal approach to
capture evolving challenges and opportunities. Lastly, future research that includes a longitudinal
approach or comparative state-by-state analyses alongside quantitative measures could better
enhance the qualitative insights. Factors such as employee resistance and exploring alternative
solutions to CRM technologies may offer additional opportunities for a deeper understanding.
Powered by FlippingBook