International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences
© 2012 Available online at www.irjabs.com
ISSN 2251-838X / Vol, 3 (11): 2294-2302
Science Explorer Publications
K-Mean Clustering Method For Analysis Customer
Lifetime Value With LRFM Relationship Model In
Banking Services
Mohsen Alvandi1, Safar Fazli2, Farzaneh Seifi Abdoli3
1. Member of scientific board, Imam Khomeini International University, Iran, Qazvin
2. Member of scientific board, Imam Khomeini International University, Iran, Qazvin
3. Department of social science, Imam Khomeini International University, Iran, Qazvin
Corresponding Author email: seifi.management89@gmail.com
ABSTRACT: In today’s businesses, achieving customers satisfaction have critical role in
organization's goals. On the other hand, all of customers hasn’t equal share in profitability of
organization. Therefore, identification key customers will be more sensitive. Calculate the lifetime
value assist organizations to rank customers based on their contribution to profitability. The
purposeofthispaperisintroduced a model to calculate customer lifetime value (CLV) based on LRFM
customer relationship model which consists of four dimensions: relation length (L), recent transaction
time (R), buying frequency (F), and monetary (M) in banking services. We proceed with this
clustering analysis to classify customers in order to set marketing strategies.Inthisresearch, K -
M e a n clustering methodas o n e o f t h e main problems in unsupervised learning
emphasizes.Achieving this, we used crisp method and implemented them on real data from an
Iranian state bank. Validity of clustering process analyzed with R-Squared index. The
results show nine cluster patterns between customers. Finally, in terms of this clustering, we
proposed customer strategies. Thus, this study considers useful for customer relationship
management.
Keywords: Crisp method,Customer lifetime value (CLV), K-Mean clustering,LRFM model,RS
index
INTRODUCTION
Customers are ultimate source of growth in all businesses. Many
o r g a n i z a t i o n s have come to the conclusion t h a t understanding of their customers who are faced with is
valuable and important. If all customers be similar, businesses would be so simple. However, Customers in
various ways, such as preferences, price sensitivity, absorbtion rate, response to marketing tactics and sales
and use appropriate communication paths are quite different(Elahi&Heidari, 2005).Some of organizations in
rating their customers are wrong and in cases such as high investment on less valuable customers, low
investment on high valuable customers, wasting critical resources and in attention to growth, profitability and
competitive opportunities have mistakes. So more attention to customer relationship management (CRM) is
required, because the main goal of CRM system is to understand profitable customers, to create and sustain
relation with them (Gupta & Lehmann 2007). To cultivate the full profit potentials of customers, many
companies already try to measure and use customer value in their management activities (Gloy et al. , 1997).
In this paper we considered LRFM customer relationship model which consists of four dimensions:
relation length (L), recent transaction time (R), buying frequency (F), and monetary (M) to cluster customers,
analyzing and calculating CLV of different clusters. Then cluster with homogeneous CLV incorporate and
construct a special cluster. Finally we ranking these cluster based on their CLV scores. There are two types of
data in this study: transactional data, consist of relation length (L), recent transaction time (R), buying
frequency (F),monetary (M) and customer lifetime value (CLV) and behavioral data, consist of: account
number, customer type, account type, account status, first transaction and last transaction.
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 3 (11), 2294-2302, 2012
Literature review
This section will survey past research concerning customer relationship management and customer value
analysis and RFM and LRFM models.
Customer Relationship Management
Linoff(1999) point out that the objective of CRM is to keep customers that contribute to the enterprise,
which is also a continuous improvement process. Spengler (1999) proposes that CRM should really be called
Contact Management, which represents the specific collection of all information on the interaction between the
customer and the company. Swift (2001) explains that CRM is a behavior in which an enterprise tries to understand
and reach customers through full interaction; moreover, it is a business strategy that enhances customer loyalty
and profit gaining.Dong, Swain, and Berger (2007) shows that maximization of customer equity, which is a core
objective of customer–company relationship management. Lin (2007) points out the customer satisfaction model
and concept. Krasnikov and Jayachandran (2008) find that marketing capability has a larger influence than
research and development ability on enterprise performance and management strategy of customer relationship,
and maintenance are the main ability of marketing. Richards and Jones (2008) point out an intuition and general
concept and claim that to increase customer relationship management should improve the business administration
performance. King and Burgess (2008) point out some successes and failures factors influence customer
relationship management.
Customer Value Analysis
Berger and Nada (1998) explain the importance of maintaining a customer by comparing customer lifetime
value and the necessary cost of attracting a new customer. Mani, Drew, Betz, and Datta (1999) and Crowder,
David, and Wojtek (2007) regard that the customer lifetime value is composed of two independent factors: tenure
and value. They point out that CLV is an important concept in the work of customer classification, selection, and
retention, because different strategies may apply to different customers. Brown (2000) proposes that not all
customers are worth keeping, and uses value-based segment theory to determine the limitation resources and
efforts to maintain a specific customer’s loyalty. He claims that customer value analysis is the foundation of
customer relationship management. Kotler (2000) defines Customer Lifetime Value (abbreviated as CLV) as the
profit net present value (NPV) that one can obtain in a customer’s lifetime. Kim, Jung, Suh, and Hwang (2006)
define customer lifetime value as the net income amount of the business during the entire life cycle of a customer.
He emphasizes long-term continued income and cost, instead of the profits from a specific trading activity.
Siddharth S. Singh, SharadBorle, and Dipak C. Jain (2009) proposed a flexible Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)
based data augmentation framework for forecasting lifetimes and estimating customer lifetime value (CLV) in such
contexts. Dries F. Benoit and Dirk Van den Poe (2009) show that in the common situation where interest is in a top-
customer segment, quantileregression outperforms linear regression. The method also has the ability of
constructing prediction intervals. Combining the CLV point estimate with the prediction intervals leads to a new
segmentation scheme that is the first to account for uncertainty in the predictions. Reinartz and Kumar (2000)
propose the idea of customer relation length, and examine its influence on customer loyalty and profitability. They
suggest increasing relation length to improve customer loyalty. Benoit and den Poel (2009) led to an interest in
understanding and estimating customer lifetime value and relation method. Glady, Baesens, and Croux (2009)
propose the approach for predicting customer lifetime value with the Pareto/NBD model.
RFM AND LRFM MODELS
RFM model is a well-known customer value analysis method widely applied to segment customers (Chang
et al. , 2010). Some literature has attempted to develop new RFM models to test whether they perform better than
the traditional RFM models by taking additional variables into account (Hosseini et al. , 2010). For example, Ching-
Hsue Cheng, You-Shyan and Chen (2009) firstly utilizes RFM model to yield quantitative value as input attributes;
next, uses K-means algorithm to cluster customer value; finally, employs rough sets to mine classification rules that
help enterprises driving an excellent CRM. Miglautsch (2000) and Kaymak (2001) use the RFM model as a way to
measure customer lifetime value, and made extensive use of estimated customer value at present. Before carrying
out database marketing, enterprises must focus research on the customers’ historical trade records in order to
obtain references for prediction and as the basis of decisions. Yeh et al. (2008) selected targets for direct
marketing from a database using a modified RFM model, namely RFMTC, by adding two parameters, i.e., time
since first purchase (T) and churn probability (C). Also Hsiao-ping tsai (2011) propose a new frame work called
GRFM (for group RFM) analysis to alleviate the problem. The new measure method takes into account the
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 3 (11), 2294-2302, 2012
characteristics of the purchased items so that the calculated the RFM value for the customers are strongly related
to their purchased items and can correctly reflect their actual consumption behavior.In this regard, in this paper,
RFM model is extended as LRFM model by taking length (L) into account.
Theoretical background
Customer lifetime value
The value of a customer is the value the customer brings to the firm over his/her lifetime. Some recent
studies (Kumar&Reinartz, 2006) have shown that past contributions from a customer may not always reflect his or
her future worth to the firm. Hence, there is a need for a metric which will be an objective measure of future
profitability of the customer to the firm (Berger & Nasr, 1998). Customer lifetime value takes into account the total
financial contribution- i.e., revenues minus costs- of a customer over his or her entire lifetime with the company and
therefore reflects the future profitability of the customer. Customer lifetime value (CLV) is defined as the sum of
cumulated cash flows- discounted using the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC)- of a customer over his or
her entire lifetime with the company (Grover &Vriens, 2006).
Based on the approach of estimating CLV, there are different definitions for this term.Some researchers
have recommended CLV as a metric for selecting customers and designing marketing programs
(Blattberg&Deighton, 1996). However, there is no empirical evidence as to the usefulness of CLV compared with
that of other customer based metrics. Jain and Singh determined that many models have been proposed in CLV
literature dealing with all kinds of issues related to
CLV. The following selection of models provides summaries of some key models addressing some major
research opportunities in CLV research and applications. Based on the threefold stream of research related to
CLV, they divided them into three corresponding categories (Jain & Singh, 2002)]:
1. Models for calculation of CLV: This category includes models that are specifically formulated to calculate
the CLV and/or extend this calculation to obtain optimal methods of resource allocation to optimize CLV.
These are applied models and more relevant to practitioners who wish to use CLV as a basis for making
strategic or tactical decisions.
2. Models of customer base analysis: Such models take into account the past purchase behavior of the entire
customer base in order to come up with probabilities of purchase in the next time period. These models
take into consideration the stochastic behavior of customers in making purchases and therefore these
models look at each customer individually in order to compute the probability of purchase in the next time
period. Models in this category can provide input for the calculation of CLV.
3. Normative models of CLV: These models have been proposed and used mainly to understand the issues
concerning CLV. Managers depend on many commonly held beliefs in making decisions regarding CLV.
As an example, it is believed that long lifetime customers are more profitable. Numerous researchers and
practitioners have provided many reasons in support of this belief. Normative models provide us an
opportunity to explore this issue without the “noise” encountered by empirical studies. Such models provide
valuable insight for policy-making.
This paper works on normative model of Der-Chiang Li, Wen-Li Dai, and Wan-Ting Tseng (2011).
Gupta et al. described six modeling approaches in CLV issue(Gupta et al. , 2006)]:
1. RFM modeling: RFM models create “cells” or groups of customers based on three variables- Recency,
Frequency, and Monetary value of their prior purchases.
2. Probability modeling: The focus of the model-building effort is on telling a simple paramorphic story that
describes (and predicts) the observed behavior instead of trying to explain differences in observed
behavior as a function of covariates (as is the case with any regression model).
3. Economic modeling: Many econometric models share the underlying philosophy of the probability models.
Specifically, studies that use hazard models to estimate customer retention are similar to the NBD/Pareto
models except for the fact that the former may use more general hazard functions and typically incorporate
covariates.
4. Persistence modeling: The major contribution of persistence modeling is that it projects the long-run or
equilibrium behavior of a variable or a group of variables of interest.
5. Computer science modeling: These models are based on theory (e.g., utility theory) and are easy to
interpret. In contrast, the vast computer science literature in data mining, machine learning, and
nonparametric statistics has generated many approaches that emphasize predictive ability.
6. Diffusion/Growth Modeling: Based on customer equity (CE).
In this study we uses LRFM modeling (advanced of RFM modeling) of Gupta’s categories.
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 3 (11), 2294-2302, 2012
LRFM model
This study uses transaction data as the basis for the work of data mining (DM). It applies the LRFM
customer relationship model (Chang &Tsay, 2004) to cluster customers into meaningful groups. Where four
attributes are included as: (1) recent transaction time: referring to the time of the customer’s last transaction; (2)
frequency of buying; (3) monetary value: the total value bought during a period; and (4) relationship length. The
definition of the LRFM model used in this study shows in Table 1.
Table 1.Data form with four variables
Variable name Data content
1 Transaction length The interval is between the first and last exchange with a customer
2 Recent transaction time From the last transaction time until now measured in years
3 Annual frequency The average number of transactions a customer had per two year
4 Average monetary value The average monetary value is in each transaction in two year
METHODOLOGY
This study is a applied research aspect of purpose and a descriptive-survey aspect (Khaki, 1390) of
method of research. The case study concerns a state bank of Iran. Data were collected at two-year period.
RESEARCH METHOD
Data mining and crisp methodology
There are different methodologies for implementing data mining projects but one of the powerful methods
is CRISP (Cross Industry Standard Process for Data Mining) methodology. As a process model, CRISP provides
an overview of the data mining life cycle. CRISP uses six phases to describe the process from gathering business
requirements to deploying the results (Larose, 2006):
1. Business Understanding: This phase typically involves gathering requirements and meeting with expert
personnel to determine goals rather than working with data.
2. Data understanding: The data understanding phase of CRISP involves taking a closer look at the data
available for mining. This phase includes collecting initial data, describing data, exploring data, and
verifying data quality.
3. Data preparation: Data preparation is one of the most important and often time consuming aspects of data
mining projects and includes selecting data, cleaning data, constructing new data, and integrating data.
4. Modeling: The data which was spent time preparing are ready to bring into data mining algorithms, and the
results begin to shed some light on the business problem posed. Selecting modeling techniques,
generating a test design, building the models, and assessing the model construct this phase.
5. Evaluation: In this phase, evaluating the results, review process, and determining the next steps are done.
6. Deployment: Deployment is the process of using the new insights to make improvements within the
organization.
Data formation for establishing the LRFM model
This study uses customer lifetime value as the quantitative indicator, and principally uses the LRFM
(Chang &Tsay, 2004) model to do the measurement. The definition of the LRFM model used in this study shows in
Table 1. The source data is the real transaction data in the bank, which has 298 observed values collected in the
file. In order to avoid periodic LRFM difference, we standardize the data first, and then calculate weights of the
customer relationship length, recent transaction time, buying frequency, and monetary values with Shannon
entropy.
Clustering analysis
This paper applies a K-Mean method of cluster analysis to the case bank data to group customers. The
first stage is separate raw data into 16 clusters as favorite. Second stage consist of calculate the distance of each
customer to the center of its cluster and Calculate the error function. This process stop with No getting changed in
cluster members or not getting reduced the error function. For this we used apersonal computer with a Pentium 4
processor and SPSS software.
Group description
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 3 (11), 2294-2302, 2012
Marcus (1998) proposes a customer value matrix, shows inFigure 2, which uses customer buying
frequency (F) and monetaryvalue (M) as the two axes. Two other indicators are customer relationshiplength (L) and
customer recent transaction time (R), thesetwo indicators relate to customer loyalty, and therefore this is defined as
the customer loyal matrix.
Figure 1. illustrates research methodology of this study regard to crisp methodology.
Figure2. Customer value matrixes (Marcus, 1998)
Marcus (1998) claims that the longer a customer relationship, the higher the loyalty; and the shorter the
recent transaction time, the greater the customer loyalty. Through buying frequency and monetary value one can
form four quadrants in the first plane; and customer relation length and customer recent transaction time, one can
form another four quadrants in the second plane. Consequentially, using the customer value and customer loyal
matrices one can form 16 quadrants to explain the result of clustering.
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 3 (11), 2294-2302, 2012
This study refers to Sung and Sang’s (1998) customer segment description and uses the up symbol ( ) to
represent when the group’s average value is larger than the total average value; and the down symbol ( ) to
represent when the group’s average value is smaller than the total average value.
Chang and Tsay (2004) further propose customer classification by summing the 16 groups to five kinds of
customer groups, as Figure 3 shows, including:
(1) core customers: including high value loyal customers (LRFM ), high frequency buying customers
(LRFM ), and platinum customers (LRFM ); (2) potential customers: including potential loyal customers
(LRFM ), potential high frequency customers (LRFM ), and potential consumption customers (LRFM );
(3) lost customers: including high value lost customers (LRFM ), frequency lost customers (LRFM ),
consumption lost customers (LRFM ), and uncertain lost customers (LRFM ); (4) new customer groups:
including high value new customers (LRFM ), frequency promotion customers (LRFM ), spender
promotion customers (LRFM ), and uncertain new customers (LRFM ); (5) consuming resource customers:
including low consumption cost customers (LRFM ), high consumption cost customers (LRFM ).
Figure 3.Customer clustering on a customer loyalty matrix basis (Chang &Tsay, 2004).
Experimental analysis
The case study is a status bank in Iran over 32 years of financial history. This case bank as a development
bank, is one of the main instruments and institutions to contribute to economic growth and economic development
through the development of the mining industry. This study aim finding answers for the following question: 1) How
are K-Mean clustering of customers with LRFM model?, 2) How is CLV rank of each cluster customers and integrity
rate of them?and 3) what are appropriate strategy in face of each cluster of customers?
CLV ranking
Integrity rate of each cluster calculated with this formula:
(1)
Where are mean values of the four variables.
RS index
Since clustering is an unsupervised process in data, It is necessary to validate the clustering process by a
variety of criteria that are evaluated in order. We used RS index to this process. The motivation RS (R Squared)
index (sabhash, 1996), described on Equation 2, index is to measure the dissimilarity of clusters. Formally it
measures the degree ofhomogeneity degree between groups. The values of RS range from 0 to 1 where 0 means
there are no difference among the clusters and 1 indicates that there aresignificant difference among the clusters.
&
! "#$% ! (3)
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 3 (11), 2294-2302, 2012
'' )
! !
Where,
referring to the sum of squares between groups,
referring to the sum of squares within group,
referring to the total sum of squares, of the whole data set,
d = the number ofvariables(data dimensionality),
n = is the number of data values of j dimension,
*+ = is the mean of data values of j dimension.
RESULTS
This study used K-Mean clustering method for grouping customers and with providing a comprehensive
picture of customer lifetime value, ranked customers of bank. so it can assist managers of bank branches to
identification profitable customers and prioritize them. The final cluster centers after 35 consecutive iterations are
shown on table 2.
Table 2.Final cluster centers
cluster L R F M
1 0. 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 0.002 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 0. 0.001 0.0 0.00
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 0.0010655 0.0142945 0.0048885 0.0040380
10 0.0009539 0.0009471 0.0014322 0.0026405
11 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00
12 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
13 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 3
14 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.00
15 0. 0.00 0.00 0.00
16 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
We anticipated that have 16 clusters between customers of bank, but after K-Mean clustering results
showed that the pattern of some clusters are completely equal so customers of this group merged and changed to
a unique and new cluster. Table 3 shows results. For example cluster numbers of 3,8 and 11 followed L R F M
pattern, so after merging them we have a new cluster (C) with 67 customers.
According to the results of clustering that was presented on table 2, data were divided into 9 clusters (A,
B, C…, I).we should ranking CLV score of these clusters regard as equation 1. Table 4 shows results of ranking
CLV after calculating integrity rate.
For testing validity of clustering RS index was calculated followed by equations 2,3 and 4. So results show
that value of this index is 0.85.
This value is near to 1, so reliability of data clustering is high.
DISCUSSIONS
For the first time we studied the LRFM customer relationship model in Iran and especially in banking
industry. Also for the first time weighting variables be happened with Shannon entropy. On the other hand,
validation of clustering process with RS index is one of the other innovations of this study. In this section first
wediscuss results of ranking customers and then appropriate strategy for each of cluster.
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 3 (11), 2294-2302, 2012
Customers with L R F M pattern: These customers are in the highest rating category of CLV, So bank
must provide specific services for these valuable customers. Cluster A called potential loyal customers.
Customers with L R F M pattern: These are valuable customers for bank but their loyalty is low, so may
in the future turn to other banks. CLV score of this group is high between our customers. Cluster B is called
platinum customers.
Customers with L R F M pattern: This pattern show that these customers have low length of relation and
frequency, high distance between transaction and monetary value is low also. CLV score of this group is low, so
these customers are not valuable for bank. Cluster C called uncertain lost customers.
Customers with L R F M pattern: these customers have long length of relationship but recency,
frequency and monetary value of them does not follow a specific pattern. Lowest score of CLV belong them in this
study. These customer recently joined to bank, so should be protect if want to have a long relation in future. Cluster
D called low consumption cost customers.
Customers withL R F M pattern:according to high L, R and F, if monetary of these customers increase
can be expected that CLV score increase until highest in future. Cluster E called potential high frequency
customers.
Customers withL R F M pattern: these customers have highest CLV after cluster A, so are valuable for
bank. Although length of relation and frequency are low but recency and monetary are high. Cluster F called
consumption lost customers.
Customers with L R F M pattern:these customers join us recently so have L, R, F and M in the lowest
value. CLV score of this group is low also. Bank should have some persuasive plans for preserve of them. Cluster
G called uncertain new customers.
8- Customers with L R F M pattern: these customers have high loyalty but for low monetary and length
of relationship CLV score of them is very low. So bank should propose specific options for increase their monetary.
Cluster H called frequency promotion customers.
9- Customers with L R F M pattern: customers of this group have high transaction with bank but
monetary and recency value of them are low. This group has high CLV score in our study so Bank need to provide
better services for maintenance them.Cluster I called high frequency buying customers.
Table 3.Merged cluster with similar pattern
Cluster Cluster L R F M Number of pattern
No name customers
,5 A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 3 L R F M
B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 1 L R F M
11 8 C 30880 70740 29030 110480 67 L R F M
D 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 11 L R F M
96 E 0.0044794 0.0095611 0.0106152 0.0036846 44 L R F M
7 F 0.00 0.0 0.001 0. 1 L R F M
0 14 G 0.0026364 0.0012878 0.0009644 0.0090361 128 L R F M
2 H 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 2 L R F M
13 15 16 I 0.0042517 0.0025979 0.0096451 0.0119352 41 L R F M
Total 0.0037030 0.0043260 0.0060210 0.0275760
average
Table 4.Ranking of CLV
Cluster Number of Integrating rate Percent % CLV ranking
name customers
A 1 0.0517037 40.15899& 9
B 1 0.0122477 9.512961% 7
C 67 0.0061078 4.744014% 3
D 11 0.0024485 1.901785% 1
E 46 0.0070771 5.496883% 5
F 1 0.0316380 24.57368% 8
G 128 0.0035451 2.753529% 2
H 2 0.0067953 5.278005% 4
I 41 0.0071843 5.580147% 6
100%
REFERENCE
Berger PD, Nasr N I. 1998. Customer lifetime value: Marketing models andapplications. Journal of Interactive Marketing; 1(12).
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 3 (11), 2294-2302, 2012
Blattberg RC, Deighton J. 1996. Manage marketing by the customer equity test. Harvard business
Chang EC, Huang HC, Wu HH. 2010. Using K-means method and spectral clustering technique in an outfitter’s value analysis. Journal of
Quality & Quantity; 44(4), PP. 807–815.
Chang HH, Tsay S F. 2004.Integrating of SOM and K-mean in data miningclustering: An empirical study of CRM and profitability evaluation.
Journal ofInformation Management; 11(4), 161–203.
Elahi S, Heidari B. 2005. Customer Relationship Management. Tehran: commercial publishing company.
Gloy BA, Akridge JT, Preckel PV. 1997. Customer lifetime value: An application in the rural petroleum market. Journal of Agricultural Economics
& Resource Management; 13(3), pp. 335–347.
Grover R, Vriens M. 2006.The Handbook of Marketing Research: Uses, Misuses, and Future Advances. SAGE publications.
Gupta S, Lehmann DR.2003. Customers as assets. Journal of Interactive Marketing,; 17(1), PP. 9-24.
Gupta S, Hanssens D, Hardie B, Kahn W, Kumar V, Lin N. 2006.Modeling customer life-time value. Journal of Service Research; 9(2), PP. 139-
155.
Hosseini SMS, Maleki A, Gholamian MR. 2010. Cluster analysis using data mining approach to develop CRM methodology to assess the
customer loyalty. Journal of Expert Systems with Applications; 37, PP. 5259–5264.
Jain D, Singh SS. 2002. Customer lifetime value research in marketing: a review and future directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing; 16(2),
PP. 34-46.
Khaki GH.1390. Methodology of research. Tehran: baztab publishing. Page 236.
Kumar L, Reinartz WJ. 2006. Customer relationship management: A data based approach. New York: Wiley.
Larose DT. 2006. Data mining methods and models. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey: Hoboken.
Marcus C. 1998.A practical yet meaningful approach to customer segmentation.Journal of Consumer Marketing; 15(5), 494–504
review;74(4), PP. 136-144.
Subhash Sh. 1996.Applied multivariate techniques.John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
