## 4 Results
### Measurement Model Evaluation
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Construct** & **Items** & **Leadings** & **CA** & **Rho\_a** & **Rho\_c** & **AVE** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{MITC} & We understand the IT needs and expectations within our company (MITC1). & 0.754 & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & We have the capacity to meet the IT needs and expectations within our company (MITC2). & 0.885 & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & We have the ability to leverage IT as a core strategic competence (MITC3). & 0.920 & 0.921 & 0.944 & 0.940 & 0.759 \\ \cline{2-7}  & The IT strategy is aligned with the business strategy (MITC4). & 0.892 & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & We have the capability to continuously update the IT strategy in accordance with changes in the business environment (MITC5). & 0.894 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{TITTC} & We possess IT technical knowledge and skills (TITC1). & 0.889 & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & We understand the role of IT in improving business performance (TITC2). & 0.873 & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & We have our scheme for IT standardization (TITC3). & 0.893 & 0.927 & 0.937 & 0.944 & 0.773 \\ \cline{2-7}  & We have the capacity to integrate IT (TITC4). & 0.899 & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & We understand IT trends (TITC5). & 0.839 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{HCS} & In our company, employees undergo training programs on new software and systems (HCS1). & 0.902 & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & In our company, employees undergo training programs on new equipment and tools (HCS2). & 0.894 & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & In our company, we prefer to hire qualified individuals who can effectively use new technologies and systems (HCS3). & 0.901 & 0.918 & 0.927 & 0.942 & 0.802 \\ \cline{2-7}  & In our company, we emphasize the use of information and communication technologies to support communication flow with our customers and suppliers (HCS4). & 0.884 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{EO} & In the last two years, our company has typically initiated actions to which competitors later responded (EO1). & 0.710 & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & In the last two years, our company has been very often the first to introduce new products/services, administrative techniques, and operational technologies (EO2). & 0.790 & 0.712 & 0.750 & 0.818 & 0.531 \\ \cline{2-7}  & In the last two years, our company has had a strong inclination towards high-risk projects (with chances of very high returns) (EO3). & 0.705 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{FP} & Our company has experienced considerable growth in customer satisfaction over the last two years (FP1). & 0.852 & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & Our company has experienced considerable growth in its competitive position in the market over the last two years (FP2). & 0.905 & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & Our company has seen significant improvements in product/service quality over the last two years (FP3). & 0.886 & 0.901 & 0.906 & 0.927 & 0.718 \\ \cline{2-7}  & Our company has seen significant improvement in product/service innovation over the last two years (FP4). & 0.746 & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & Our company has experienced considerable growth in its overall financial performance over the last two years (FP5). & 0.839 & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Loadings, Cronbach’s Alpha (CA), composite reliability (Rho_A, Rho_C), average variance extracted (AVE). To assess discriminant validity, the Fornell-Larcker criterion test was utilized [64]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [64] suggest that discriminant validity can be assessed by examining whether the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) is greater than the correlations among other constructs. As shown in Table 4, all the values on the diagonal exceed the correlations between constructs. The results indicate adequate discriminant validity.