STRATEGIC ROLE OF CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT (CRM) POLICIES IN ENHANCING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES IN KENYA

Abstract

Private universities in Kenya face increasing competition, necessitating strategic tools to enhance their competitiveness. This study examined the strategic role of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) policies in improving institutional competitiveness. CRM policies were defined as structured guidelines and institutional practices designed to enhance stakeholder engagement, student satisfaction, service quality, and technological integration. Key policy constructs included customer experience, staff training, stakeholder engagement, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), and data protection. A cross-sectional descriptive design targeted 36 private universities, with data collected from 204 respondents across 17 institutions through questionnaires, interviews, and focus group discussions. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS v30 and AMOS v29, employing Pearson correlation, multiple regression, hierarchical regression, and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Findings showed a strong, positive, and statistically significant relationship between CRM policies and competitiveness (r = .612; ? = .341; p = .001), with CRM policies explaining 57.7% of the variance. Significant predictors included student satisfaction, stakeholder engagement, and data protection. However, staff training and stakeholder participation were not statistically significant, revealing gaps in internal engagement and communication. Qualitative results indicated policy fragmentation, low awareness, and limited DEI inclusivity. The study concludes that CRM policy effectiveness depends not only on technology but also on leadership, culture, and structural readiness. Recommendations include integrating CRM into strategic plans, strengthening staff capacity, and fostering inclusive, student-centered policy development to enhance service quality, loyalty, and institutional competitiveness.