## 3 Results and Findings
### Results of Empirical Study
#### 3.2.4 Quantitative Analysis
The threshold of the \(T\)-value should be more significant than 1.64 or 1.96 [73], and it could be calculated by the path coefficient divided by standard errors. For the threshold, the \(P\)-value was \(<\)0.05 [63]. The algorithm used for assessing the structural model was Wrap 3, tested as the finest algorithm for computing the path coefficient of the formative model type. The significance of hypothesis testing, effect size, \(T\)-values, and path coefficients are discussed in detail in Table 8.  
From the above-mentioned table, the following results are concluded:  
* Clearly, a lack of communication significantly influenced CRM with a path coefficient value of 0.248, \(T\)-value of 3.875 at \(P<0.01\). * Language difference also filled the above-mentioned criteria and had a significant impact on CRM with a path coefficient value of 0.144, \(T\)-value 2.215 at \(P\) is 0.01. * In contrast, technology and policies, rules, and regulations did not significantly impact CRM, as they did not satisfy the criteria by having very low values, i.e., TI's \(T\)-value was 1.575 at \(P\) 0.06 with path coefficient 0.104. Similarly, PRG's \(T\)-value was 0.492 at \(P\) 0.031 with a path coefficient of 0.033, which is unacceptable. * Delay in services also significantly impacted the endogenous construct with a \(T\)-value of 3.056 at \(P<0.01\) with a path coefficient of 0.199. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Items** & **Loadings** & **Weights** & **Significance** & **Full Colinearity** & **Tol** & **VIF** \\ \hline CRM1 & 0.73 & 0.186 & \(<\)0.001 & 3.934 & 0.882 & 2.231 \\ CRM2 & 0.48 & 0.13 & \(<\)0.001 & & 0.875 & 1.143 \\ CRM3 & 0.435 & 0.137 & \(<\)0.001 & & 0.855 & 1.169 \\ CRM4 & 0.599 & 0.175 & \(<\)0.001 & & 0.679 & 1.472 \\ CRM5 & 0.583 & 0.194 & \(<\)0.001 & & 0.983 & 1.017 \\ CRM6 & 0.73 & 0.186 & \(<\)0.001 & & 0.710 & 1.409 \\ CRM7 & 0.437 & 0.118 & \(<\)0.001 & & 0.855 & 1.170 \\ CRM8 & 0.583 & 0.194 & \(<\)0.001 & & 0.901 & 1.110 \\ CRM9 & 0.513 & 0.165 & \(<\)0.001 & & 0.783 & 1.277 \\ CRM10 & 0.468 & 0.145 & \(<\)0.001 & & 0.686 & 1.457 \\ CRM11 & 0.571 & 0.168 & \(<\)0.001 & & 0.667 & 1.499 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Hypothesis Testing** & **Path Coefficient** & **SE** & **\(T\)-Value** & **\(p\)-Value** & **ES** & **Results** \\ \hline H1:LC\(\rightarrow\) CRM & 0.248 & 0.064 & 3.875 & \(P<0.01\) & 0.148 & Supported \\ H2:LD\(\Rightarrow\) CRM & 0.144 & 0.065 & 2.215 & 0.01 & 0.079 & Supported \\ H3:CD\(\rightarrow\) CRM & 0.113 & 0.066 & 1.712 & 0.04 & 0.058 & Supported \\ H4:DEL\(\Rightarrow\) CRM & 0.199 & 0.065 & 3.056 & \(P<0.01\) & 0.119 & Supported \\ H5:EXP\(\Rightarrow\) CRM & 0.300 & 0.064 & 4.687 & \(P<0.01\) & 0.139 & Supported \\ H6:TI\(\rightarrow\) CRM & 0.104 & 0.066 & 1.575 & 0.06 & 0.018 & Not supported \\ H7:CC\(\rightarrow\) CRM & 0.128 & 0.067 & 1.939 & 0.03 & 0.050 & Supported \\ H8:PRG\(\rightarrow\) CRM & 0.033 & 0.065 & 0.492 & 0.031 & 0.017 & Not supported \\ H9:TD\(\rightarrow\) CRM & 0.153 & 0.066 & 2.353 & \(P<0.01\) & 0.077 & Supported \\ H10:MU\(\Rightarrow\) CRM & 0.117 & 0.066 & 1.772 & 0.04 & 0.063 & Supported \\ H11:GD\(\rightarrow\) CRM & 0.121 & 0.066 & 1.833 & 0.03 & 0.065 & Supported \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Evaluation of formative structural model. The lack of experience and domain knowledge also met the above-mentioned criteria and significantly impacted CRM with the path coefficient value of 0.300, \(T\)-value 4.687 at \(P<0.02\). * The lack of coordination and collaboration significantly impacted the endogenous construct with a path coefficient of 0.128, \(T\)-value 1.939 at \(P\) is 0.03. * Time zone difference significantly impacted the endogenous construct by satisfying the given criteria with path coefficient value 0.153, \(T\)-value 2.353 at \(P<0.01\).