## 3 Results and Findings
### Results of Empirical Study
#### 3.2.4 Quantitative Analysis  
The model used in this study is partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). In this research, a two-step process was used, i.e., the measurement model and the structure model. In the first step, to assess the measurement model, we had to check the correctness and reliability of the construct. In the second step, the structural model was tested which indicated the relationship between the constructs. As the model assessment offers a further authentication of results for path coefficients related to direct effects, a stable sampling technique was used in this study [59]. a: Measurement Model  
The conceptual model introduced in this research study is formative and comprises eleven exogenous constructs identified as discussed earlier and one endogenous construct, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Item** & **Mean** & **Std. Dev** & **Skewness 3** & **Kurtosis** \\ \hline CRM1 & 1.93 & 0.835 & 0.929 & 1.122 \\ \hline CRM2 & 1.86 & 0.853 & 1.156 & 1.760 \\ \hline CRM3 & 2.74 & 1.204 & 0.239 & \(-\)0.808 \\ \hline CRM4 & 2.11 & 1.933 & 0.821 & 0.541 \\ \hline CRM5 & 2.82 & 1.308 & 0.391 & \(-\)0.975 \\ \hline CRM6 & 1.93 & 0.835 & 0.929 & 1.122 \\ \hline CRM7 & 2.49 & 1.160 & 0.445 & \(-\)0.755 \\ \hline CRM8 & 2.82 & 1.308 & 0.391 & \(-\)0.975 \\ \hline CRM9 & 2.59 & 1.011 & 0.203 & \(-\)0.543 \\ \hline CRM10 & 2.46 & 1.075 & 0.271 & \(-\)0.717 \\ \hline CRM11 & 2.74 & 1.111 & 0.113 & \(-\)0.898 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Descriptive statistics of CRM factors. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c l c c} \hline \hline
**Organization Information** & **Participants** & **Frequency** & **Percentage** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Nature of project**} & Software development & 121 & 59.9 \\ \cline{2-4}  & Web development & 66 & 32.6 \\ \cline{2-4}  & Other & 15 & 7.4 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Number of employees**} & 10–25 employees & 28 & 13.9 \\ \cline{2-4}  & 26–50 employees & 26 & 12.9 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-4}  & 51–80 employees & 33 & 16.3 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-4}  & More than 80 & 115 & 56.9 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Organization-related information of the conducted questionnaire. i.e., CRM issues in the GSD environment. Therefore, PLS Model B is more productive for a solid evaluation of the formative measurement stated by the authors of [83]. That is why, in this research study, the algorithm of the formative model was PLS Model B and was used for the assessments. To assess the verification of the formative construct, a variance inflation factor (VIF) was obtained. The following are the criteria for the evaluation of VIF:  
* For the acceptance of VIF, it must be less than five and the ideal value is lower than three [84]. * The acceptability value of tolerance is equal to, or less than, 0.989 [82]. * For the estimation of the reliability of the formative, construct the loading and weights of the index, and their amount of importance is to be inspected and rechecked [85]. * The acceptability of an item having a factor loading of more than \(>\)0.50 is recommended [82]. Table 7 shows that all the formative constructs experience that the criteria of VIF, tolerance, loading, and the weights of the indicators of the constructs are significant. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Items** & **Loadings** & **Weights** & **Significance** & **Full Colinearity** & **Tol** & **VIF** \\ \hline LC1 & 0.719 & 0.356 & \(<\)0.001 & 1.376 & 0.557 & 1.796 \\ LC2 & 0.824 & 0.449 & \(<\)0.001 & & 0.486 & 2.058 \\ LC  
Therefore, formative constructs are valid, which is shown by this. Furthermore, the assessment of the measurement model shows statistically significant results. b: Structural Model  
The path coefficients with effect size and R2 coefficient value of the endogenous construct, i.e., CRM issues and \(T\)-values, were computed using Wrap PLS 7.0 for the hypothesis and assessment of the structural model.