DEAN OF AWANG HAD SALLEH GRADUATE SCHOOLUNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIAPERMISSION TO USEIn presenting this project in partial fulfillment of the requirements for apostgraduate degree from the Universiti Utara Malaysia, I agree that the UniversityLibrary may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission forcopying of this project in any manner in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may begranted by my supervisor(s) or in their absence by the Dean of Awang Had Salleh GraduateSchool. It is understood that any copying or publication or use of this project or partsthereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is alsounderstood that due recognition shall be given to me and to Universiti Utara Malaysia forany scholarly use which may be made of any material from my project.Requests for permission to copy or to make other use of materials in this project, inwhole or in part, should be addressed toDean of Awang Had Salleh Graduate SchoolCollege of Arts and SciencesUniversiti Utara Malaysia06010 UUM SintokKedah Darul AmanMalaysiai

ABSTRAKProjek ini bertujuan untuk melaksanakan perbandingan terhadap attribut kebolehgunaan bagiPengurusan Hubungan Pelanggan (CRM) dalam institusi pengajian tinggi terutamanya KolejKomuniti. Kajian ini tertumpu kepada dua perisian CRM – SugarCRM dan Vtiger. Fungsi CRMdisenaraikan menerusi kajian literasi. Penilaian kebolehgunaan bagi kedua-dua sistem telahdilaksanakan melalui ujian kebolehgunaan dan analisis perbandingan. Pengguna dimintamenjawab Kaji Selidik Selepas Ujian (PTQ) sejurus selepas menggunakan kedua-dua sistemCRM untuk mengetahui kepuasan subjektif mereka. Analisis perbandingan yang dilakukanberdasarkan keputusan penilaian ini dapat membantu Kolej Komuniti bagi memberi garispanduan dalam memilih antara dua penyelesaian CRM tersebut. Penemuan ini berdasakanperspektif Pegawai Khidmat Pelanggan dan pelajar sepenuh masa selepas menggunakan sistemCRM. Kesemua Kolej Komunti di Malaysia masih belum menggunakan CRM. Maka, denganempat belas minggu yang ada, kajian ini telah dilakukan di lima buah Kolej Komuniti di WilayahUtara. Dengan melihat pelajar sebagai pelanggan utama memberikan kelebihan yang kompetitifdan memperbaiki kebolehan kolej untuk menarik, mengekalkan dan berkhidmat kepadapelanggan. Kejayaan sesebuah organisasi bergantung kepada kebolehan mereka menguruspelanggan dengan efektif. Disebabkan keperluan menggunakan CRM di dalam sesebuahorganisasi, CRM telah berkembang.ii

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study is to perform comparison study on usability attribute of CustomerRelationship Management (CRM) in a Higher education mainly for Community College. Thisstudy focus on two CRMs software – SugarCRM and Vtiger. CRM functionalities are listeddown from literature. Usability evaluation of both systems was done by conducting usability testand comparison analysis of both systems was performed. The test users were asked to answerPost Test Questionnaire (PTQ) after using both CRM systems to know their subjectivesatisfaction. The comparison analysis base on the evaluation result may help as a guideline forCommunity Colleges while selecting between the two CRM solutions to be implemented in thecolleges. The finding is base on Customer Service Officers’ and the full time students’perspective after using the CRM systems during usability testing. Currently, entire communitycollege in Malaysia has not implement CRM. Hence, with the available time of fourteen weeks,this study was conducted in five Northern Region Community Colleges. Viewing students asmain stakeholder provides competitive advantages and enhances the colleges’ ability to attract,retain and serve its customers. The success of an organization is depending on their ability tomanage their customers effectively. Due to the need of deploy CRM in one organization, CRMwill become more pervasive.iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTFirst of all I would like to express my graceful to Allah because of His love I had completed thisproject report.I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to my supervisor of this project,Assoc. Prof. Nazib Bin Nordin who had giving me guidance and assistance in completing this project.I am thankful to my husband and family who had given me support and courage throughout myacademic years.I also want to express my appreciation to all my friends who always been by my side giving supportand assistance while I’m doing this project.Not forgotten the test users, thanks for participating in the usability test.Lastly, thanks to everyone who involved either direct or indirect in making this project complete.iv

TABLE OF CONTENTSPERMISSION TO USEiABSTRAK . . iiABSTRACT .iiiACKNOWLEDGMENTS .ivLIST OF TABLE .viiiLIST OF FIGURES .xCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION . 11.1Problem Statement .21.2Project objective .31.3Scope . .31.4Significance of the study 41.5Structure of the report 5CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW . 62.1Open Source .62.2Customer Relationship Management .92.2.1Customer Relationship Management in Higher Education 102.2.2SugarCRM .122.2.3Vtiger .132.3Usability .142.4Community College .162.5Concluding the chapter 17CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .183.1Goal and Objective .193.2Test User’s Selection . 19v

3.3Task 203.4Evaluator 203.5Method of Data Collection 213.6Pre-testing . 223.7Conducting the Usability Test 223.8Conclusion of the chapter .24CHAPTER 4 : ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON .254.14.2SugarCRM . 264.1.1Effectiveness .284.1.2Efficiency 344.1.3Satisfaction .36Vtiger .374.2.1Effectiveness .394.2.2Efficiency 444.2.3Satisfaction .454.3Comparison Analysis of SugarCRM and Vtiger 464.4Conclusion of the chapter . 52CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION .535.1Conclusion . 535.2Finding 535.3Suggestion .545.4Future Work .55REFERENCE . 56APPENDICES .62Appendix A 62SugarCRM Task: Student .62Vtiger Task: Student .63vi

SugarCRM Task: Customer Service Officer .64Vtiger Task: Customer Service Officer .65Appendix B . 66Data Collection Form .66Appendix C . 67Post Test Questionnaire: SugarCRM .67Post Test Questionnaire: Vtiger .70vii

LIST OF TABLESTable 2.1: Open Source vs. Commercial (Piroscâ et al., 2009) 7Table 2.2: Why organizations are using OSS (Walli, Gynn, & Rotz, 2005) .9Table 2.3: Software Factors (Monem, H. et al., 2011) .16Table 4.1: SugarCRM average test result on first attempt by student .27Table 4.2: SugarCRM average test result on second attempt by student .27Table 4.3: SugarCRM average test result on first attempt by Customer Service Officer. 27Table 4.4:SugarCRM average test result on second attempt by Customer ServiceOfficer .27Table 4.5: SugarCRM : Student’s learnability summary (in percentage) .29Table 4.6: SugarCRM : CSO’s learnability summary (in percentage) .30Table 4.7: SugarCRM : Student’s memorability summary (in percentage) .30Table 4.8: SugarCRM : CSO’s memorability summary (in percentage) . 31Table 4.9: SugarCRM : Student’s error free ratio summary (in percentage) .32Table 4.10: SugarCRM : CSO’s error free ratio summary (in percentage) .33Table 4.11: SugarCRM : Student’s Effectiveness summary (in percentage) .33Table 4.12: SugarCRM : CSO’s Effectiveness summary (in percentage) . 33Table 4.13: SugarCRM: Student’s effectiveness summary (in percentage) .34Table 4.14: SugarCRM: CSO’s effectiveness summary (in percentage) .34Table 4.15: SugarCRM: Student’s efficiency summary (in minutes) .35Table 4.16: SugarCRM: CSO’s efficiency summary (in minutes) 36Table 4.17: SugarCRM; student’s satisfaction; result from PTQ of SugarCRM .36Table 4.18: SugarCRM; CSO’s satisfaction; result from PTQ of SugarCRM .37Table 4.19: Vtiger average test result on first attempt by student 37Table 4.20: Vtiger average test result on second attempt by student .38Table 4.21: Vtiger average test result on first attempt by CSO .38Table 4.22: Vtiger average test result on second attempt by CSO 38viii

Table 4.23: Vtiger: Student’s learnability summary (in percentage) .39Table 4.24: Vtiger: CSO’s learnability summary (in percentage) .39Table 4.25: Vtiger: Student’s memorability summary (in percentage) .40Table 4.26: Vtiger: CSO’s memorability summary (in percentage) . 40Table 4.27: Vtiger: Student’s error free ratio summary (in percentage) .41Table 4.28: Vtiger: CSO’s error free ratio summary (in percentage) .42Table 4.29: Vtiger: Student’s Effectiveness summary (in percentage) .42Table 4.30: Vtiger: CSO’s Effectiveness summary (in percentage) .43Table 4.31: Vtiger: Student’s effectiveness summary (in percentage) .43Table 4.32: Vtiger: CSO’s effectiveness summary (in percentage) .44Table 4.33: Vtiger: Student’s efficiency summary (in minutes) .44Table 4.34: Vtiger: CSO’s efficiency summary (in minutes) .44Table 4.35: Vtiger; student’s satisfaction; result from PTQ of Vtiger .45Table 4.36: Vtiger; CSO’s satisfaction; result from PTQ of Vtiger .45Table 4.37: Student; Comparison based on Nielsen’s definition (in percentage) .46Table 4.38: CSO; Comparison based on Nielsen’s definition (in percentage) .47Table 4.39: Student; Comparison based on ISO 9241’s definition (in percentage) .49Table 4.40: CSO; Comparison based on ISO 9241’s definition (in percentage) . 50Table 4.41: Student; Summative usability comparison (in percentage) 51Table 4.42: CSO; Summative usability comparison (in percentage) .51ix

LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1.1: ISO/IEC 9126 (Yilmaz, E., 2011) .2Figure 1.2: Strategy Overview (Chen & Popovich, 2003, Berfenfeldt, 2010) .4Figure 2.1: What is the most important advantage in the use of open source?(Computer Economics, 2005) .8Figure 2.2: SugarCRM interface 13Figure 2.3: Vtiger interface 14Figure 3.1: Method of data collection (Ranjit Kumar, 1999, 2005 & 2011) .21Figure 3.2: Project Methodology Flow .23Figure 4.1: Student: Comparison based on Nielsen’s usability definition 47Figure 4.2: CSO; Comparison based on Nielsen’s usability definition .48Figure 4.3: Student; Comparison based on ISO9241’s usability definition andsummative usability .49Figure 4.4: CSO; Comparison based on ISO9241’s usability definition and summativeusability .50x

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTIONIn today’s competitive world, the success of an organization is depending on their ability tomanage their customers effectively. Customers nowadays are very demanding on higher level ofaccess to information about the organization. There is no exception for higher educationinstitutions. As one of the higher education institution, Community Colleges should embark thesteps to improve their conventional method on managing customer-centric activities to acomprehensive way.Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is parameter-adjustable software packages that areadopted by organization to manage all aspects of customer interactions within the organizationand hence improve the ability of the organization to handle customer-centric activities. CRMapplication is a more comprehensive view of entire customer life cycle (Gary B. Grant and GregAnderson, 2002). Therefore, Community Colleges are proposed to take advantage of theemerging of CRM application to drive better growth of their services.There are a lot of study and comparisons drawn on Open Source CRM software (Bruceet al.,2006, Hakala, 2007, Dengate, 2009, Bucholtz, 2010, Yilmaz E., 2011). In general, thecomparison focuses on functionality, ease of use, security, extensibility, C9126, there are six criterias in the quality model. The product quality model is aninternational standard for the evaluation of software quality. The fundamental objectiveISO/IEC9126 is to respond on some such human biases like changing priorities after the projectstart or not having any clear definition of “project success” that may adversely affect the deliveryand perception of a software development project. It is clearly stated in the Figure 1.1 thatusability is one of the important criteria in the quality model. However, the focus on usability ofCRM is inadequate (Monem, H. et al., 2011). Besides, it takes time, effort and cost to implement1

The contents ofthe thesis is forinternal useronly

REFERENCEArnett, D. B., German, S. D. & Hunt, S. D. (2003). The identity salience model of relationshipmarketing success: the case of nonprofit marketing. Journal of Marketing 67(2) 89-105.Barnum, C.M. (2002). Usability Testing and Research, The Allyn & Bacon Series in TechnologyCommunication. New York: Pearson Education.Berfenfeldt, J. (2010). Customer Relationship Management, 2010:111 CIV - ISSN: 1402-1617 ISRN: LTU-EX--10/111—SEBernardino, J. & Tereso, M. (2011). OPEN SOURCE CRMSYSTEMS FOR SMES, Polytechnicof Coimbra – ISEC, Coimbra, Portugal.Bevan, N. (1995) Measuring usability as quality of use. Software Quality Journal 4, 115-150.Bruce, G., Robson P. & Spaven R. (2006). OSS opportunities in open source software — CRMand OSS standards BT Technology Journal,. 24(1)Bucholtz, C. (2010). The Top 10 Open Source CRM Applications, The CRM Strategy RoomRetrieved on 10 February 2012 58/the-top-10-open-source-crmapplications/Chen, I. & Popovinch, K. (2003). Understanding Customer Relationship Management. PeopleProcess and Technology. MCB Up Limited.Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed MethodsApproaches, Second. Sage Publication, Inc.56

Daradoumis, T., Rodríguez-Ardur, I., Javier Faulin, J., Angel A. Juan, A.A., Fatos Xhafa, F. &Martínez-López, F.J. (2010). CRM Applied to Higher education: Developing an eMonitoring System to Improve Relationships in e-Learning Environments. InternationalJournal of Services Technology and Management, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp. 103-125,2010.Deck, S. (2001). What is CRM? Retrieved on 30 March 2012 01/whatiscrm.htmE.S. Raymond. (1998). Homesteading the Noosphere. First Monday, 3(10), Retrieved on 30March 2012, from 10/raymond/index.html.Elaine D. S. & Margaret O'Hara, (2006). "Customer relationship management in highereducation: Using information systems to improve the student-school relationship",Campus-Wide Information Systems, Vol. 23 Iss: 1, pp.24 – 34. Retrieved on 30 March2012 icleid 1558953&show abstractFolmer, E. & Bosch, J. (2004). “Architecting for usability: a survey,” Journal ofSystems and Software, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 61-78Frekjmr E., Hertzum, M. & Hornbmk, K. (2000). Measuring Usability: Are Effectiveness,Efficiency, and Satisfaction Really Correlated?Gary B. Grant & Greg Anderson. (2002). Customer Relationship Management, A Vision forHigher Education, 23.Hakala, D. (2007). Inside CRM, Retrieved on 11 March 2012 rce-solutions-121307/Imran Bin Idris. (2009). Taklimat Jabatan Pengajian Politeknik Dan Kolej Komuniti (jppkk),Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi, Malaysia.57

Ingrid Marson. (2004). Vtiger launches open source CRM. Retrieved 16 February 2012, 182958/Integrated Technologies Corporation (2005). “CRM benefits”, Retrieved on 30 March 2012 up/CRM/Benefits.htmISO 9241-11:1998 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals(VDTs) -- Part 11: Guidance on usability. Retrieved on 30 March 2012 from catalogue/catalogue tc/catalogue detail.htm?csnumber 16883Jabatan Pengajian Kolej Komuniti. 2012. Retrieved on 14 February 2012 -kami/senarai-kolej-komuniti.htmlJai Asundi. (2005). The Need for Effort Estimation Models for Open Source Software Projects.Jane Hemsley-Brown, Izhar Oplatka. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace: Asystematic review of the literature on higher education marketing, International Journal ofPublic Sector Management, Vol. 19 Iss: 4, pp.316 – 338. Retrieved on 30 March ?articleid 1558953&show abstractKim, E.E. (2003). An Introduction to Open Source Communities, , Blue Oxen Associates,Technical report, BOA-00007.Kincaid, J. (2002). Customer relationship management: getting it right. Upper Saddle River,Prentice Hall PTR.King, S. F. (2007). Citizens as customers: exploring the future of CRM in UK localgovernment. Government Information Quarterly 24(1) 47-63.58

Koch, S. and Schneider, G. (2000). Results from Software Engineering Research into OpenSource Development Projects Using Public Data, Vienna University of Economics andBA, Augasse 2-6, A-1090 Vienna, Austria.KPT. (2011). Community College Overview. Retrieved 16 February 2012, komuniti.htmlLewis, J. R. (1993). IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometricevaluation and instructions for use, Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact., vol. 7, no.Measuring usability - balancing agility and formality: for stakeholders needsin software development (Licentiate by Jeff Winter) - Electronic ResearchMonem, H., Hussin, A.R.C., Sharifian, R. & Shaterzadeh, H. (2011). CRM softwareimplementation factors in hospital: Software & patient perspectives, SoftwareEngineering (MySEC), 2011 5th Malaysian Conference in, pp 159-164.Muhammad Qadir & Muhammad Adnan. (2010). Comparative Analysis of two Open SourceNetwork Monitoring Systems: Nagios & OpenNMS, Blekinge Institute of Technology,SE – 371 79 Karlskrona, Sweden.Neville, K., Adam, F. & McCormack, C. (2002). Mentoring Distance Learners: AnAction Research Study – The European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2002), Gdañsk, Poland.Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. San Diego: Academic Press.Open Source Initiative. Definition of Open Source. Retrieved 16 February 2012, from, S. L., Tan, C. W. & Lim, E.T.K. (2006). Customer relationship managem