Technology Acceptance Model in U.S. Extension: CRM Adoption

QUALITATIVE INVESTIGATION OF TAM

66

success, the effect of CRM success on innovation capabilities, and the impact of knowledge

management on innovation capabilities through CRM as a mediator. Knowledge management

was examined through six factors, including acquisition, diffusion, application, knowledge from

customers, about customers, and for customers (Migdadi, 2020). The conceptual model shows

that these six factors affect the five factors of CRM success, which include information sharing,

customer involvement, long-term partnership, joint problem-solving, and technology-based

CRM. Consequently, those factors have an impact on the five factors of innovation capabilities

that include innovations in products, processes, administration, marketing, and service. A

questionnaire was designed and directed at general managers of organizations in the services

sector using a series of five-point Likert scales to assess the degree of implementation of

knowledge management, CRM, and innovation capabilities and received 193 valid responses.

The findings of this study show that knowledge management influences CRM success and

subsequently affects innovation capabilities. Additionally, knowledge management impacts

innovation capabilities through the mediating role of CRM systems and CRM success.

Customer Loyalty, Satisfaction, and Engagement

Elfarmawi (2019) examined the correlation between CRM system usage, product

innovation, and customer satisfaction. The specific problem was to determine the benefits of

using a CRM system for customer satisfaction and product innovation and sought insights into

the effects of CRM on innovation, leadership, business organizations, customers, and education

(Elfarmawi, 2019). A quantitative method with correlational design was used to link the use of

CRM systems to product innovation and customer satisfaction in small and medium-sized

organizations in the United States. The sample included individuals working as top managers,

middle managers, and first-line managers; the respondents ( N = 97) participated in an online

Powered by