Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Mar 4;16(3):e0243355. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243355

The determinant factors for the adoption of CRM in the Palestinian SMEs: The moderating effect of firm size

Omar Hasan Salah 1,*, Zawiyah Mohammad Yusof 2, Hazura Mohamed 2
Editor: Amira M Idrees3
PMCID: PMC7932763  PMID: 33662987

Abstract

CRM adoption can provide innumerable benefits to the SMEs performance, including solving customer problems in a timely manner, enhancing customer satisfaction by appointing an expert to solve issues and queries, and the like. This study aims to examine the moderating effects of the firm size in the adoption of CRM in the Palestinian SMEs. A quantitative approach was used to investigate the relationships between the variables, which are compatibility, IT infrastructure, complexity, relative advantage, security, top management support, customer pressure, and competitive pressure. A questionnaire was designed to collect data from 420 SMEs in Palestine. A total of 331 respondents completed and returned the survey. The Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM) approach was used to assess both the measurement and structural models. The Diffusion of Innovation Theory (DOI) and Technology, Organization, and Environment Framework (TOE) framework were employed to identify the determinant factors from the technological, organizational, and environmental perspectives. The findings and conclusions of this study provide show that the moderating effect of firm size has significant effect compatibility, top management support, customer pressure, and IT infrastructure factors.

1. Introduction

Information and communication technology (ICT) provides small and medium enterprises (SMEs) with strategic advantages in achieving goals and improved competitive edge. The term ICT is a combination of two terms: information technology (IT) and communications. Information technology refers to any computing technology, such as networks, hardware, software, communication devices, communication infrastructure [1], systems and solutions, and the internet IT can lower production and labor costs, add value to products and services, and increase a company’s competitive advantage. Some studies and reports have shown that IT is a means that could enhance the business process [2]. A system, or sometimes referred to as technology such as customer relationship management (CRM) systems, would be able to help in the materialization of such a determination [1,2]. Both scholars and practitioners have given CRM attention since the past two decades [3,4] due to the wide range of benefits it offers and many untold advantages it has. Such pertinent characteristics of CRM has made the system considered as an essential part of current businesses that seek to increase revenues and maintaining the company’s performance [5,6].

Customer relationship management (CRM) refers to the practices, strategies, and technologies used by firms and businesses for the management and analysis of customer interactions and data through the customer lifecycle [7,8]. It is the concept of using process, information, technology, and people to manage the organization’s interaction with customers [9]. The technology could be seen as an approach to marketing that has its origins in relationship marketing.

There are various definitions accorded to CRM. To some scholars, CRM is an organizational approach for understanding the behaviors of the customers in order to attract and retain them [10]. In this regard, CRM is essential for managing the relationship of the organization with customers that relate to the overall process of marketing [11]. As the fourth most used tool in business, which holds the key to understanding to create a sustainable customer relationship, CRM is the center of obtaining and maximizing the number of loyal customers [12]. Thus, CRM has gained the reputation of being a significant business tool from both academics and practitioners, although there are challenges in the adoption [13]. In relation to this, CRM is considered as technology when it serves as a tool. This is revealed from the technical definition where CRM emphasis is on the information system [14]. The technical definition of CRM by [15] indicates that CRM technology is a method that significantly uses information technology (IT), particularly the databases and the Internet, in controlling and integrating the entire company’s marketing effort and automating the specific customer-organization relationships [16]. This would, in turn, help the company to obtain and retain valuable information vis-à-vis increased knowledge. A company with sufficient and appropriate knowledge is more successful and equipped compared to the one with insufficient information to strategize their business. As technology, the CRM system consists of three major parts. These are: i) technologies employed for external customers operations which bring about a two-way communication between the customers and the firm, ii) technologies employed for internal operations like marketing, sales, and customer service, which direct activities to automation and facilitating activities and, iii) technologies that drive other technologies and allow firms to analysis and dissemination of data across organizational departments [17].

On the other hand, when the term is defined broadly (i.e., strategic definition), CRM is referred to as a way of managing and facilitating business processes and activities of the company [14]. The strategic definition usually inclusive of the supply chain, sales, outstanding orders, service and repair, unresolved issues, customer-organization interactions, customer service inclusive of stakeholders, and labor requirements.

2. Customer Relationship Management (CRM)

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is explained as a concept of use process, information, technology, and people to manage the organizations’ interactions with its customers [9]. By applying efficient and effective CRM technology, CRM employees in SMEs could retain existing customers, attract new customers, foster customer satisfaction, and increase profitability. The system is an enabler in achieving the objectives of gathering, categorizing, and saving the required customer data. Integration technology enables the development of customer-organization relationships through broader information of customer behavior.

As technology, the CRM system consists of three major parts. These are: i) technologies employed for external customers operations which bring about a two-way communication between the customers and the firm, ii) technologies employed for internal operations like marketing, sales, and customer service, which direct activities to automation and facilitating activities and, iii) technologies that drive other technologies and allow firms to analysis and dissemination of data across organizational departments [17].

2.1. CRM adoption

The increasing requirement for technology over the past thirty years and the increasing failures of system adoption has shifted focus to predict the use of a system [18]. Adoption is a stage that an individual goes through to decide to accept/reject a new idea/innovation [19]. The term describes the acceptance to use something novel or different.

CRM adoption is the willingness of the companies to adopt CRM in order to achieve different objectives such as enhancing a relationship with customers, understanding customer requirements, increasing customer loyalty, and improving revenues [20]. [18] revealed that user acceptance/rejection of technology is one of the main challenges that are faced by organizations in IS adoption. Technology rejection arises because of the lack of knowledge of new technology among adopters, lack of prediction of the consequences that the innovation will bring, or the status-conferring aspect of the technology [19]. The adoption of a CRM system is used to provide employees with the processing of customers’ information [21].

2.2. CRM solution providers

CRM is characterized as costly and complex innovation, and as such, it needs integrated information systems, costly infrastructure facilitation, and advanced technological skills and knowledge for its implementation and usage (Laketa et al. 2015) [22]. CRM technology should be authenticated before use and based on customer’s preferences, which are important in implementing a successful CRM. “This software consists of many multi-functional solutions that can sort out the information management of clients as well as the automation interaction processes of clients” (Faed et al. 2010) [23].

CRM systems differ from one to the next as CRM vendors follow varying technological standards for their development [24]. CRM solutions investments in the form of software, hardware, and services provide support to office functions in terms of marketing, selling, and services [25,26]. In relation to this, Rosman and Stuhura (2013) [27] noted that CRM technology relates to different organizational departments together, allowing the firms to interact efficiently with their customers. Among the main advantages offered by CRM technology is its capability of integrating major business functions, and the integration of customer service functions may exemplify this into one information system [28]. Hence, there are three CRM Solution Providers: SAP, Oracle Corporation, and Microsoft Corporation.

2.3. The drawback of CRM

Although the benefit of CRM adoption is acknowledged in helping companies or enterprises to success [29] but the effect of CRM technology adoption is more on the sales forces managing customer relationships, rather than selling products [30]. The initiative enables firms to keep track of issues that the customers face, oversee service response, and appropriate customer inquiries to an expert to answer [31]. Thus, the CRM system creation should be customer-centric from the beginning of system design.

Despite CRM has gained significant attention, it still suffers from conceptual and methodological flaws, as asserted by [32]. Inadequate studies have been carried out. Furthermore, these studies only focus on gaining a competitive advantage. Factors determining the success or failure of its adoption with respect to the developing countries [20,21] are yet to be undertaken. The root cause for the high failure rate is yet to be revealed [4,23].

SMEs in developing countries need to be competent since they are the backbone of the economy [24,25]. They are the core of entrepreneurial activity and innovative entities that facilitate new business operations and play a vital role by providing employment opportunities and boost economic development. Although CRM adoption is seen as capable of reaping such an objective, many SMEs are experiencing problems since there is no appropriate framework to guide the initiative [32].

2.4. Requirement for the adoption of CRM

The intensity of globalization, coupled with the increasing competition and ICT development, companies in the developing countries have been forced to concentrate on CRM for maximization of revenues. In light of this, SMEs have a key, and as such, they should be supported as agents of structural change, reducing marginalization and achieving the equitable distribution of income [33].

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD 2005) reports that SMEs constitute 95% of the total number of businesses. The majority of SMEs have been leveraging IT technology to support their processes. However, the IT adoption varies from that of major organizations owing to the fact that the former enterprises lack resources that the latter possesses [34].

An important characteristic and attribute that can be observed and understood from the previous works on CRM are that they have focused upon different industries such as the banking [22,35], the healthcare [36], and focused on the different levels and departments of organizations such as the call center [34,37]. There are limited studies that investigated the challenges of adopting a CRM strategy in SMEs in developing countries [33].

Currently, increasing ICT usage and development has opened up the Middle East countries economy into a global competition [32]. The CRM spending in this region has reached a rate of 10.7% [7]. It is “a customer-focused business strategy that dynamically integrates sales, marketing, and customer care service in order to create and add value for the company and its customers” [38,39]. The significance of CRM is reflected in many circumstances like increasing customer retention, making assumptions concerning the future transactions of customers, and providing an extensive overview of the customers and their requirements [40].

Moreover, customer relationship management (CRM) in the Middle East has become a key strategy for a small company, indicate the need for more SMEs to implement for effective business operations. It is evident that CRM also develops a high-performance strategy and facilitate value-added, technical, and innovative mechanisms to achieve the ultimate aim of obtaining a competitive edge over competitors [1,41].

CRM development took its root in the West but was soon followed by other countries in the other part of the world, especially the developing ones. However, not many studies were undertaken in the Middle East [32] except for a few studies on CRM in emerging markets [42]. This has resulted in the adoption of CRM in the Middle East is still lagging behind [32] except for Jordan, [35] where the market organization relationship has become the top predictors of organization performance. On the other hand, [43] links the CRM non-meeting of requirements in the Saudi Arabian service sector to the issues regarding customers’ expectations and needs. Organizations need to plan out a roadmap for the adoption of a CRM system in order to achieve their goals.

3. The Palestine market and SMEs

There is no universal definition that can be accepted by all about the term. Different researchers carry different ideas regarding the capital layout, several employees, sales turnover, and fixed capital investment upon which the definitions and categorizations of the concept are based on [44]. SMEs are categorized into classes based on some measurable quantitative indicators [45]. These enterprises form the heart of entrepreneurial activity and innovation as they play a key role in the economies of emerging nations through the provision of employment opportunities and increasing the development of the economy.

In the context of Palestine, the economy runs in an environment with internal and external risks challenges. The Palestinian territories have unemployment rates as high as 27% as of 2017 [46]. For example, in Gaza, the unemployment rate has reached 44%, in comparison to the West Bank (18%). Also, in 2017, only 41% of 15–29 years old employees remained active in the labor market, indicating the employees’ high pessimistic attitude towards employment opportunities [47].

Nonetheless, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) states that the ICT application adoption among Palestinians has experienced a gradual increase and gaining increasing acknowledgment [48]. ICT can function as a small business engine and benefit customer relationship management (CRM), which, in turn, could bring goals achievement to enhance competitiveness [3]. Since the majority of the Palestinian firms consist of SMEs [40,43], thus the adoption of CRM could materialize the goal achievement and enhance their competitiveness.

Palestine has a total of 14,359 enterprises where 99% of which belongs to the Palestinian SMEs. These SMEs employ 82% of the total workforce in the territory [49,50]. Tax revenue collected from SMEs forms 99% of business taxpayers aids to fund the nation’s growth and development. Despite the small market Palestine has, SMEs remain as the backbone of economic growth and offer the most job opportunities [51] to the people with hope that could help in eradicating poverty [52]. Only a small number of these SMEs have direct access to foreign markets as the result of Israel’s occupation, which has posed many problems and obstacles [43].

It is pertinent for SMEs in Palestine to adopt CRM for the efficient and effective management of customers, provides employees with easier processing of customers’ information, retains the existing clients, attracts new and prospective clients, and promote and sustain customer satisfaction. In addition, CRM has been utilized as a tool for interaction management with customers, users, and to meet sales and financial requirements in day-to-day activities [9]. Thus, prior to the adoption of the initiative, factors which contribute to the success of adopting CRM must be made known. The examination of the shortcomings in CRM adoption in Palestinian SMEs could reveal the current status of CRM system usage and to overcome the shortcomings that arise. This would finally help to empower the economic situation of Palestine.

A review of literature has indicated that there is a lack of studies dedicated to the business strategies adopted by SMEs [50], be it in general on specifically in Palestine. One way to leverage the capability of SMEs is to embark on the CRM initiative. Prior to the adoption of the initiative, factors which contribute to the success of adopting CRM must be made known. Some of these factors are specific for a certain country only while some are common in nature. The examination of the shortcomings in CRM adoption in Palestinian SMEs could reveal the current status of CRM system usage and to overcome the shortcomings that arise. This would finally help to empower the economic situation of Palestine.

4. Justification for the moderating effects of firm size on those eight factors

The literature review shows (Table 1) that eight factors influence the adoption of CRM in SMEs. Three factors were adapted from the DOI model, and five factors were extracted from the literature, and TOE was used for factor classification. Table 1 provides the definitions and sources of the factors.

Table 1. Factors influencing CRM adoption.

No Factor Source(s) Model/Theory
1 Compatibility The level to which an innovation is viewed to match the current values, prior experiences, and the current requirements of potential users. [53] DOI
2 IT Infrastructure infrastructure in IT is the whole collection of hardware, software, networks, data centers, facilities, and relevant equipment used for the development, testing, monitoring, managing, and supporting IS in an enterprise [54] Literature review
3 Complexity The level to which an innovation is viewed as difficult to understand and utilize [18] DOI
4 Relative Advantage The level to which an innovation is viewed as superior to the idea that came before it. [19] DOI
5 Security The ability to protect consumers’ information and transaction data to ensure their privacy [55] Literature review
6 Top Management Support the level of support and understanding of top management concerning the functioning of IS and their contribution to its activities [53] Literature review
7 Customer Pressure the end consumers’ (primary stakeholder group) requests and requirements for the firm to enhance its environmental and social performance [56] Literature review
8 Competitive Pressure The level of competitiveness in the industry within which the organization operates [57] Literature review

These factors were drawn from an extensive range of frameworks in the literature. CRM practitioners then evaluate these factors in SMEs for verification and recommendation of new factors. These factors are expected to maximize the rate of CRM adoption among SMEs in developing countries, particularly Palestine.

5. Justifications for using PLS

Most researchers argue in favour of choosing PLS as the statistical means for testing structural equation models [58] because of it:

  1. Fewer requests are made for sample size than other methods;

  2. Does not require regular -distributed input data;

  3. It can be applied for different sample sizes under the ‘10-times rule’ method (Hair et al. 2014) [59]. (The 10-times rule is based on the rule that the sample size should be larger than ten times the maximum number of inner or outer pointing at an LV in the model [60];

  4. Can be used in the complex structural equation when large numbers of variables are involved;

  5. Can handle both reflective and formative variables;

  6. is more suitable for theoretical development than theoretical testing; and

  7. It is particularly useful for prediction.

However, for prediction and explanation, when the phenomenon under study is relatively new, or when the theoretical model is complex with a large number of variables and indicator variables, a PLS approach is more preferred [59,61]. PLS is given the preference for several other SEM tools because PLS does not require a large sample size [58]. Also, PLS is more suitable when the objective of the study is causal predictive testing, rather than the testing of an entire theory

6. Moderating effect of firm size on CRM adoption

‘Firm size’ has been examined by several researchers in the field of innovation and has been considered to be a top indicator of organizational complexity [62]. The construct is measured through the number of employees in SMEs [6,22,2741,4354,6365]. Despite the fact that a negative relationship has been revealed by some researchers between firm size and technology adoption (e.g., cloud computing) [56], a positive relationship has been supported by majority of studies in different contexts, such as e-commerce [66], mobile reservation systems [67], e-marketing [68], ICT innovations [69], as well as adoption of ICTs [70]. A few other studies reported the lack of a significant relationship between firm size and technology adoption (e.g., cloud computing) [56]. The size of the firm is the most critical adoption driver and lends strong support [71].

In smaller organizations, innovation is expected to be promoted by the availability of cross-functional cooperation [62], where such firms can adopt innovative practices easily through their flexibility in adopting changes in the environment rife with emerging market consumers [60,72]. Nevertheless, large firms have a higher likelihood to adopt new technology like CRM and e-commerce [27] and [61,62].

Literature dedicated to the IS field indicates that the successful adoption of technologies largely depends on CSFs (e.g., firm size) [71]. Some other researchers revealed that such CSFs do not significantly relate to the successful adoption of technology (Table 2). Meanwhile, [73] contended that firm size has a moderating effect on the level of knowledge acquisition.

Table 2. The difference of CSF effect.

Author (Year) Significant factor Non-significant factor Comments
[74] Competitive pressure Firm size is eCRM adoption antecedents within the organizational context
[75] Compatibility Complexity Firm size is significantly positively related to MHRS adoption.
[76] Complexity
[66] Compatibility, security Firm size does not play any role in the continuance of website adoption.
[77] Complexity the adoption of Halal transportation.
[56] Compatibility, top management support Complexity, relative advantage, competitive pressure Firm size is not significant.
[68] Compatibility, competitive pressure Relative advantages Firm size is significantly positively related.
[78] Relative advantages, compatibility Firm size is significantly positively related.
[69] Relative advantage, compatibility, size, top management support Competitive pressure Firm size is significantly positively related to cloud computing adoption.
[75] Relative advantage The size of the organization is positively related to the adoption of CRMS.
[79] Product category Firm size is a significant factor in influencing CRM adoption.
[80] Top management support Customer pressure
[81] Compatibility, relative advantage, competitive pressure The size of the organization significantly influences cloud computing adoption in the MSMEs.
[82] Owner’s knowledge of IT while controlling for differences in firm attributes such as size.
[83] Competition
[84] Relative advantage Competitive pressure
[85] CRM adoption The size of the firm is a significant determinant of adoption.
[77] Customer pressure competitive pressure Complexity
[62] Organizational characteristics have the most influence on adoption, followed by a set of environmental factors Technology characteristics are not relevant to Malaysian companies The size of the firm is a topic investigated in many types of research works regarding innovations and is noted as an indicator of organizational complexity, although some studies show a negative relationship between size and innovations.
[86] IT Infrastructure The effects of its infrastructure on superior CRM capability are mediated through the capabilities of human analytics and business architecture

7. Theoretical background

7.1 Diffusion of Innovation Theory

[87] developed the Diffusion of Innovation Theory (DOI) in the middle of the 20th century, with innovation seen as ideas, customs, or objects perceived by the individual or adopting units as something new. It was contended that several innovative product characteristics affect their adoption. These include their ‘relative advantage’, compatibility, complexity, divisibility, and observability, as shown in Fig 1

Fig 1. Diffusion of innovation theory by [88].

Fig 1

Many studies adopted the innovation concept in different fields and the context in light of ‘relative advantage’, observability, trialability, and complexity from the perspective of DOI theory to explain novel idea/technology diffusion and the related changes in behaviors (acceptance/rejection). Such characteristics affect new technology adoption depending on product-specific features [89].

7.2 Technology, organization and environment framework

[90] propose an analytical method known as the TOE framework that has since become the most popular acceptance technology theory that underpins IS studies and end-user adoption at organizations level [71]. TOE is used to conduct a structured analysis of innovation in organizations and to differentiate between intrinsic innovation, organizational capabilities, and motivations, as well as extensive environmental contexts affecting the users [91,92]. TOE involves different contexts (technological, organizational, and environmental). Fig 2 presents the TOE framework developed by Tornatzky and Fleischer and their influence on decision-making regarding technological innovation.

Fig 2. Technology, organization and environment framework by [90].

Fig 2

7.3 Theoretical framework and research hypotheses

There are various information system (IS) theories/models developed to study the acceptance of new technology. This study uses TOE and DOI theories, which comprise of Technological context, Organizational Context, and Environmental context. The proposed framework is depicted in Fig 3.

Fig 3. Proposed conceptual framework for CRM adoption.

Fig 3

8. Factors influencing CRM adoption

8.1 Technological context

Technology, Organization, Environment (TOE) framework was proposed by [90] to conduct a structured analysis of innovation in organizations and to differentiate between intrinsic innovation, organizational capabilities, and motivations, as well as extensive environmental context affecting the users [91].

A technological context is important in enhancing the productivity of the organization [93,94]. Technological factors were examined using [85] diffusion theory, which asserts that adoption is affected by perceptions of five attributes of innovation, namely, ‘relative advantage’, complexity, compatibility, trialability, and observability.

In the context of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the rapid advancements in technology should take into consideration. SMEs have faced a considerable challenge in their attempt to keep abreast of technological innovations as their survival depends on information system (IS) use [93].

i. Compatibility

According to the DOI Theory, compatibility is a crucial technological feature perceived by the users. Compatibility drives the new system adoption decision. Several studies have been conducted to provide a description of the compatibility role and its determination of IT innovation adoption [5762,6679,81,82,85,95]. In relation to this, [69] reveal that innovation compatibility has a significant influence on the IS adoption among SMEs. Moreover, studies show that compatibility is significantly affected by CRM adoption and use [77,78,80].

[95] explains the importance of data integration to CRM adoption success. This indicates that CRM systems do not create the entire customer data alone but instead require other systems to convert data before feeding them to the CRM system. It is, therefore, crucial to ensure that the new CRM software is compatibility with the present operating systems in SMEs. In other words, compatibility between new technology and existing technology affects the firm’s adoption process [96]. Compatibility reflects the level to which CRM has aligned with the organizations past experiences and current needs [62].

The new perspective to be examined in this regard would be how multinational corporations address global CRM compatibility. This study is a cross-sectional snapshot of a dynamic and relatively new phenomenon, and thus, it contributes merely a single data point in shedding light on the use of CRM and its adoption [97]. Thus, in this study, the following hypothesis is proposed:

  • H1: Firm size moderates the relationship between compatibility and CRM adoption

ii. IT infrastructure

‘IT infrastructure’ brings about the development of major applications, ‘information sharing’ across products/services, and the implementation of transaction processing as well as inter-organizational systems [98]. It also plays a key role in reinforcing the capabilities of human analytic and business architecture [86].

Several studies emphasized that ‘IT infrastructure’ has increasingly become the core of business operations such as CRM [57] and [87,88]. CRM literature has dedicated the importance of ‘IT infrastructure’, staff knowledge and skills for effective utilization of IT resources, interaction, and manage customers information [89,90]. In other words, CRM investment calls for sufficient ‘IT infrastructure’ that can be justified in light of cost savings and generation of profitability [99]. More importantly, a value chain includes technological resources, ‘IT infrastructure’, and CRM processes can lead to organizational performance [17,65].

Moreover, Developments in hardware and software have equipped firms with various solution alternatives to support CRM. The business value that may not have been possible in the technology itself but rather from the capability of obtaining information from the entire customer touch-points, telesales, service departments, direct sales and channel partners [86]. New software system adoption may call for the enhancement or the addition of ‘IT infrastructure’ to install new CRM software [5]. CRM failures can be avoided if the CRM strategies are linked with the IT infrastructure and the firm’s stakeholders (employees, customers, channels) infrastructure [100]. Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

  • H2: Firm size moderates the relationship between ‘IT infrastructure’ and CRM adoption

iii. Complexity

Although CRM has been viewed as a pure technology a mistake, IT has a key role in successful CRM projects, and CRM technologies complexity positively correlates with the company’s level of advancement [101]. There are many reasons related to failed CRM objectives, with some being inevitable, while others can be clear [99]. In general, failed CRM projects are caused by complex technical and organizational issues that are related to system implementation [102].

CRM failure has been related in the literature to various CRM components and processes. For instance, the system complexity leads to differences among the tactical stress of stakeholders and the lack of consensus concerning the accurate CRM definition [103]. When considering the CRM adoption complexity and diversity, the proposed conceptual framework focuses on providing common requirements and conditions for CRM adoption among businesses.

The majority of related studies reveal a significant relationship between complexity and different fields such as e-commerce adoption [104], electronic record management [105], cloud computing [69], halal transportation services [77] and CRM adoption [106]. Contrasting to other characteristics of innovation, complexity negatively linked with the adoption probability [69]. Although complexity may not be significant as ‘relative advantage’, it has been evidenced to prevent the adoption of technology [87]. The study proposes the following hypothesis:

  • H3: Firm size moderates the relationship between complexity and CRM adoption

iv. Relative advantage

‘Relative advantage’ is among the five innovation characteristics that significantly impact the IT innovation adoption among firms [26,5762,6691,93,9598,107109]. [75] reveal that the ‘relative advantage’ significantly affected the adoption of CRM systems in hospitals. Moreover, [58] and [61,62,6679,81,82,85,95] consider a ‘relative advantage’, complexity, and compatibility as the most significant technological factors in determining the adoption of CRM.

Past research has examined ‘relative advantage’ and found it to be a major variable in innovation adoption [69,110]. The variable is one of the DOI factors which has been revealed to be a positive influence in the innovation adoption [62].

The ‘relative advantage’ of technology over another is a major antecedent of new technology adoption, and it plays a key role in innovation adoption [90]. In a related study, [111] combined TAM with IDT; their empirical findings indicated several guidelines to enhance CRM diffusion among organizations. Their findings also showed that complexity and compatibility influence CRM adoption indirectly via ‘relative advantage’, as a mediating variable, they argue that the ‘relative advantage’ has a key role being a predictor of CRM adoption among employees.

Even though the top predictors in the literature include perceived usefulness, ‘relative advantage’, cost, security, compatibility, complexity, and observability. The two technological and innovation characteristics that are significant in the level of organizations are ‘relative advantage’ and compatibility [66]. In a related study, [62] defines ‘relative advantage’ as the level to which the CRM technology develops customer information that could enable them to provide optimum customer services when compared to traditional methods to meet customer needs. Therefore, the study proposes the following hypothesis;

  • H4: Firm size moderates the relationship between ‘relative advantage’ and CRM adoption

v. Security

Security, another technological characteristic, is a significant determinant of the adoption of IT within organizations [112]. This factor was also left out from the existing frameworks despite its significance to the organizations’ performance and plays a key role in supporting CRM implementation and adoption [113,114].

Moreover, [115] revealed that security threat to be the top critical adoption barrier in various fields such as health information systems [116] and electronic commerce [66]. However, security was not found to be a major barrier to adopting a decision support system as reported by [117], security seemed to be a concern only when problems occurred. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

  • H5: Firm size moderates the relationship between security and CRM adoption

8.2 Organizational context

Organizational characteristics refer to parameters influencing the adoption decision of the innovation, and it reflects the highest effect on CRM adoption [62]. There are many theories and models proposed in IS disciplines that address technological, environmental, and organizational characteristics as robust predictors of technology adoption in different contexts [102,103]. For instance, halal warehouse adoption [118], CRM implementation [119], telecommunication [62] and human resources information systems [120].

In a related study, successful innovation implementation was found to be significantly related to the organization and environmental contexts [111]. Meanwhile, [121] argues that the main reason for the failure of CRM projects is considering CRM as a technological tool and not assuming the various organizational and cultural changes involved.

i. Top management support

Top management recognizes that customers are the core of businesses, and the success of a company relies on effective relationships management with customers. In order to meet customers’ expectations, companies should adopt oriented marketing strategies to a high-quality relationship with customers to ensure the company’s success [122].

Support from top management has a key role in the adoption of cloud computing, specifically in guiding resource allocation, services integration, and re-engineering of processes [123]. In other words, ‘top management support’ is an important factor that influences the IS function effectiveness in the organization [124]. [125] evidenced that top management as a factor that enables the sharing of knowledge among the members of the organization.

The adoption of CRM requires ‘top management support’. Successful CRM adoption is effective when top management is committed to change; hence implement the CRM initiative [26,5362,6693,95115] and [26,78,80,83,84,8693,96117]. ‘Top management support’ has been the topmost significant determinant of the maintenance of successful structural transformation and attitudes changes among employees to adopt CRM [126]. This is supported by [127] and [13], who contended that top management is responsible for creating an alignment between the new CRM system and the present business practices. Perhaps it is a critical factor to success in the adoption of the new technology [56]. [6,10,11,1325,2732,3441,4353,6365] asset that the lack of top management commitments becomes the main barrier to the success of the endeavor. Hence, the following hypothesis is suggested:

  • H6: ‘Firm size moderates the relationship between ‘top management support’ and CRM adoption

8.3 Environmental context

Environmental context is linked to the operational facilitators and inhibitors, with the significant among them are competitive pressure, the readiness of trading partners, government encouragement, and technological [71]. Even though DOI has been extensively employed by studies to examine the adoption of new technology at the organizational level, it does not include environmental issues [128]. The present study adopts the environmental context as a study variable, and thus, it uses the TOE framework rather than the DOI, as suggested by [129]. The TOE framework addresses the environmental context in predicting intra-firm innovation technology adoption.

i. Customer pressure

The firm has to be aware of the needs and demands of the customers. If a potential customer controls the relationship, this would mean the future of the firm business is in the customer’s hands. If the customer is satisfied (with little pressure), then the firm will likely consider its systems as being at a satisfactory level. Thus, there is an inverse relationship between perceived customer pressure and overall satisfaction [130].

[108] described ‘customer pressure’ as the demands and behaviors of customers that make companies adopt new technologies. It is the requests and requirements of primary stakeholders (end consumers and business consumers) regarding the organizations environmental and social performance to be improved [131]. ‘Customer pressure’ is the focal firm’s motivation to adopt ISO standards; hence, it has a positive relationship with quality control performance [132]. Thus, there is a significant and positive relationship between ‘customer pressure’ and the adoption intention of SMEs [133]. This is proven when [131] revealed that ‘customer pressure’ is a top determinant of the Firm’s Environmental Performance. It even has a significant effect on green innovation adoption among SMEs [92,104106,111,112,115124,134]. Hence, the next hypothesis of this study is as follows:

  • H7: Firm size moderates the relationship between ‘customer pressure’ and CRM adoption.

ii. Competitive pressure

Globalization, growth technology, and ‘competitive pressures’ lead organization leaders to adopt a suitable competitive strategy to achieve maximum market share [125,135]. A competitive market environment enhances innovation among organizations [136]. [84] explained that empirical studies have revealed that higher innovation adoption likelihood is linked to higher ‘competitive pressure’. In particular, [57] examined e-records management system adoption in higher professional education institutions and concluded that “the adopters are beneath higher ‘competitive pressure’ than the non-adopters.” A review of e-commerce adoption among SMEs in Malaysia revealed that adopters of e-commerce had a higher tendency to adopt innovative system In a highly competitive environment [64,84].

‘Competitive pressure’ is one of the main reasons for investing in CRM, and this is particularly true if CRM is viewed as an asset that allows organizations to increasingly focus on their customers [26,6793,95127,134,135]. Competitive put pressure on the organization to be more creative and forces its leaders to adopt strategies to increase market share [135].

When a rival company employs a CRM system, other companies of the same caliber have the urgency to adopt such a system as well. Hence, both ‘customer pressure’ and ‘competitive pressure’ are the top predictors of social CRM adoption [107]. In the Arab world case, particularly Saudi Arabia, ‘competitive pressure’ drives business organizations to keep track of their customers and identify their needs to provide service customization [137]. Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

  • H8: Firm size moderates the relationship between ‘competitive pressure’ and CRM adoption

9. Method

i. Data collection procedure and sample data

Data for this study was gathered from employees working in SMEs in Palestine. This includes general managers, heads of department, operational employees’ technology who are involved in activities related to CRM technology, and the adoption decision. The e-version of the questionnaire was uploaded to the survey website, coupled with an introduction page that provided the definitions of CRM and SMEs. An invitation letter was then followed, and the survey link to the SME employees.

From a total of 420 respondents who received the link, 331 (79%) filled and returned the survey. This response rate was achieved after countless efforts to encourage the participation of respondents in the study. According to [43], a response rate of 50% or more is sufficient and acceptable for analysis, 60% and over is good, and over 70% is excellent. Thus, the rate of response to this internet survey is acceptable in this study.

ii. Sample profile

The demographic data collected in this study are such as age, gender, educational level, job level, department, and organizational tenure. This is suggested even if the theoretical framework does not need the variables as the obtained data will shed insight into the sample characteristics in the report following data analysis [138]. The demographic variables and other background information are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Summary of the demographic profile.

Description Frequency Percentage
Gender Male
Female
262
61
81.1
18.9
Level of education Diploma
Bachelor’s Degree
Master’s Degree
Doctorate Degree
29
184
83
27
9.0
57
25.6
8.4
Type of company Information and Communications Technology (ICT)
Product company
Service company
Sales company
93
46
89
95
28.8
14.2
27.6
29.4
Position in organization
General manager
Head of the department
Operational employees
101
151
71
31.3
46.7
22
Number of employees in an organization 5–19
20–49
196
127
60.7
39.3
Years of experience <1 year
1–5 years
5–10 years
>10 years
6
70
49
198
1.9
21.6
15.2
61.3
Age 20–30 years old
31–40 years old
41–50 years old
51 and above
63
97
63
100
19.5
30
19.5
31

The actual study had 323 usable questionnaires, and the data obtained were exposed to confirmatory factor analysis and model testing. As shown in Table 5.4, the majority of respondents belong to the male group, with a percentage of 81.1%, followed by the female group (18.9%). The majority of respondents belong to a bachelor group with a percentage of 57%, followed by the postgraduate group, with a rate of 34%. The diploma group has a percentage of 9%. Respondent distribution and precedence of bachelor, postgraduate, diploma are normal in Palestine society. This study considers four main company types. The highest percentage of respondents are in the Sales company (29.4%), followed by respondents working in ICT companies (28.8%), then the service company (27.6 and lastly, product company 14.2%. The majority of the respondents are heads of department (46.7%), several are general managers (31.1%), while the rest are operational employees (22%).

Table 5. Summary of the tested hypothesis.

Hypothesis (firm size as a moderator) Results are consistent with previous researches finding
H1 Compatibility→ CRM adoption The hypothesis is supported. These results are in line with [56,67]
H2 IT infrastructure → CRM adoption The hypothesis is supported. These results are in line with [86]
H3 Complexity→ CRM adoption The hypothesis is not supported. These results are in line with [75]
H4 Relative advantage → CRM adoption The hypothesis is not supported. These results are in line with [75]
H5 Security → CRM adoption The hypothesis is not supported. These results are in line with [66]
H6 Top management support → CRM adoption The hypothesis is supported. These results are in line with [57,71]
H7 Customers pressure → CRM adoption The hypothesis is supported. These results are in line with [80]
H8 Competitive pressure→ CRM adoption The hypothesis is not supported. These results are in line with [69]

Since this study is focused on SMEs, where the number of employees ranges from 5 to 49, companies that have less than five or over 49 employees were excluded. Based on the number of employees, 60.7% of the respondents are working in SMEs that have 5–19 employees, while 39.3% of the respondents are working in companies that have 20–49 employees. The work experience of the respondents is classified into three groups, respondents with less than a year of experience constitute 1.9%, those with 1–5 years constitute 21.6%, those with 5–10 years constitute 15.2%, and employees with ten years of experience and over constitute 61.3%. The majority of the respondents are in the age group of 51 and above (31%) followed by the age group of 31–40 (30%), then the age group 41–50 (19.5%), while the rest are 20-30years old (19.5%).

10. Analysis of data and presenting results

I. Testing of the moderation effects of firm size

A moderator variable is one that affects the relationship between two variables. In other words, the impact of the independent variable on the dependent variable varies according to the level of the moderator [139]. In this study, SEM was used to examine the moderation effects of firm size on the impact of compatibility (CMP), complexity (CMX), competitive pressure (COP), customers pressure (CUP), relative advantage (RLA), security (SEC), top management support (TMS) and IT infrastructure (ITI) as independent variables on CRM adoption as the dependent variable.

Table 4 shows that the firm size has no statistical significance on competitive pressure, security, complexity, and relative advantage and CRM adoption This result thus fails to support H3, H4, H5 and H8. While, TMS, CMP, CUP, and ITI had a significant effect on CRM adoption as their p-values were all lower than the standard significance level of 0.05.

Table 4. Moderation effects of firm size.

Path Path Coefficient (β) t Statistics p-Value Hypothesis Result
H1 CMP * FS → CAD 0.049 1.805 0.036 Supported
H2 ITI * FS → CAD -0.058 2.030 0.021 Supported
H3 CMX * FS → CAD 0.044 1.155 0.124 unsupported
H4 RLA * FS → CAD 0.008 0.308 0.379 unsupported
H5 SEC * FS→ CAD -0.011 0.275 0.392 unsupported
H6 TMS * FS → CAD 0.048 1.703 0.045 Supported
H7 CUP * FS → CAD -0.066 2.350 0.010 Supported
H8 COP * FS →CAD -0.005 0.152 0.440 unsupported

11. Findings and discussion

This study primarily aims to examine the moderating effects of the firm size in the adoption of CRM in Palestinian SMEs. Categorized into technological, organizational, and environmental contexts. The study findings provided descriptions of the exogenous variables-endogenous variables relationship, using TOE framework, DOI theories. Table 5 lists the tested hypotheses and the results.

In a technological context, the findings show that both variables’ compatibility and IT infrastructure are related with the intention to adopt CRM. As for compatibility, the moderation effect of firm size has a positive indirect impact, while IT infrastructure has a negative on behavioral intention to use CRM technology as shown in Figs 4 and 5. This empirical finding is aligned with the findings reported by other scholars who found the significant role of compatibility and IT infrastructure on the adoption of technology [67].

Fig 4. Moderating effect of firm size on the impact of compatibility on CRM adoption.

Fig 4

Fig 5. Moderating effect of firm size on the impact of IT Infrastructure on CRM adoption.

Fig 5

In an organizational context, the findings indicate that firm size moderates the positive effect of top management support on CRM adoption, as shown in Fig 6. In any business, top management plays a vital role in the adoption process as it is the one that decides for the best of the organization [140]. ‘Top management support’ is the topmost significant determinant in the maintenance of successful structural transformation and attitudes changes among employees with more skills to adopt CRM [126].

Fig 6. Moderating effect of firm size on the impact of customer pressure on CRM adoption.

Fig 6

In an environmental context, the findings indicate that firm size moderates the negative effect of customer pressure intention toward CRM adoption, as shown in Fig 7. Empirical results show that competitive pressure is a top driver for the adoption and diffusion of IT [141]. Customer pressure urges firms towards adopting new technologies [80]. This result is aligned with another previous study, such as carried out by [80], who revealed the positive impact of customer pressure on the intention of e-commerce technology adoption in Saudia Arabia. Customer pressure was ranked as the third most determinant of adoption of e-customer relationship management among 12 variables by [142] study.

Fig 7. Moderating effect of firm size on the impact of top management support on CRM adoption.

Fig 7

Although firm size significantly moderates the relationship between ITI and CRM adoption, the direct effect of IT Infrastructure was not significant. This result is in line with prior research [86], who stated that there is indirect-only mediation and implies that although IT Infrastructure does not have a significant direct effect on Superior CRM, it does have a strong indirect effect. The following addresses the results of the path analysis of the moderation effects of firm size in relation to the hypotheses (H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, and H8) in the structural model:

  1. H1: firm size tools moderate the relationship between compatibility and CRM adoption (β = -0.049, t = 1.805, p-value = 0.036). Thus, H1 was supported.

  2. H2: firm size tools moderate the relationship between IT infrastructure and CRM adoption (β = -0.058, t = 2.030, p = 0.021). Thus, H2 was supported.

  3. H3: firm size tools did not moderate the relationship between complexity and CRM adoption (β = 0.044, t = 1.155, p = 0.124). Thus, H3 was not supported.

  4. H4: firm size tools did not moderate the relationship between relative advantage and CRM adoption (β = 0.008, t = 0.308, p = 0.0379). Thus, H4 was not supported.

  5. H5: firm size tools did not moderate the relationship between security and CRM adoption (β = -0.011, t = 0.275, p = 0.392). Thus, H5 was not supported.

  6. H6: firm size tools moderate the relationship between top management support and CRM adoption (β = 0.048, t = 1.703, p-value = 0.045). Thus, H6 was supported.

  7. H7: firm size tools moderate the relationship between customers pressure and CRM adoption (β = -0.066, t = 2.350, p = 0.010). Thus, H7 was supported.

  8. H8: firm size tools did not moderate the relationship between competitive pressure and CRM adoption (β = -0.005, t = 0.152, p-value = 0.440). Thus, H8 was not supported.

    Fig 8 displays the structural model for testing the moderation firm size generated by SMART-PLS.

Fig 8. The structural model for testing the moderation firm size.

Fig 8

To conclude, the new proposed framework would assist SMEs in Palestine to embark on the appropriate and complete CRM initiative. SMEs should use this framework to understand customer value, which could supersede the quality of the product. Thus, the concern of companies has shifted to meeting customer satisfaction, the attraction of potential customers, and maintaining present customers’ loyalties through CRM establishment [9,10,11,1321,2325,2732,63].

12. Conclusion

Companies, where CRM is incorporated as a business strategy, tend to grow faster than those which did not. This is due to the objective of the initiative whereby enhancing the customers’ relationships, which in turn leads to maximized revenue, optimized profit, improved productivity, and customer satisfaction become the ultimate aim. CRM also has the capability of integrating the entire company’s marketing efforts and automates specific customer-organization relationships. In this modern environment where business operations are dependable on the advances of technology, companies should be striving to adopt a system such as CRM in order to be more effective and efficient. As a system, CRM has many untold advantages and should be considered as worthy of investment in the long run.

This study attempts to examine the moderator effect of firm size on the effects of compatibility (CMP), complexity (CMX), ‘competitive pressure’ (COP), ‘customers pressure’ (CUP), ‘relative advantage’ (RLA), security (SEC), ‘top management support’ (TMS) and ‘IT infrastructure’ (ITI) as independent variables on CRM adoption as the dependent variable. The findings indicate that firm size moderate the relationship between top management support, compatibility, customer pressure, IT infrastructure, and CRM adoption. While firm size did not moderate the relationship between competitive pressure, security, complexity, and relative advantage and CRM adoption. Moreover, this study contributes to both academics and business practitioners by providing insights into factors moderation by firm size that affect CRM adoption in Palestinian SMEs, which has never been explored before. The findings of this study are limited to generalization toward Palestinian SMEs, and those neighboring countries similar to Palestine in culture and situation. The study, however, fell short of covering all the SME industry groups in Palestine. Thus, future studies may examine the effect of CRM technology in different industries, sectors, and economies.

Ethical approval

This study has been approved by UKM (Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia) Ethics Committee. If needed, verification of approval can be obtained either by writing to professor Zawiyah or Dr Hazura Mohamed. The date on which the study was carried out in 12/2019

Supporting information

S1 File

(SAV)

S2 File

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The study is financially supported by Center for Software Technology and Management, Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and Palestine Technical University–Kadoorie.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The study is financially supported by Research Grant GUP-2017-046, Universiti Kebangsaan Malay- sia, and the Public Services Department of Malaysia.

References

  • 1.ALZAGHAL Q. K. Q., “INCUBATORS SUCCESS MODEL AND THE MODERATING ROLE OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY TOOLS,” 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Nguyen T. H., “Information technology adoption in SMEs: an integrated framework,” Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 162–186, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mohamad S. H., Othman N. A., Jabar J., Majid I. A., and Kamarudin M. F., “the Impact of Customer Relationship Management on Small and Medium Enterprises Performance,” J. Technol. Manag. Technopreneursh., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 11–26, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Alshawi S., Missi F., and Irani Z., “Organisational, technical and data quality factors in CRM adoption—SMEs perspective,” Ind. Mark. Manag., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 376–383, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lee Y.-C., Tang N.-H., and Sugumaran V., “Open Source CRM Software Selection using the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Inf. Syst. Manag., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 2–20, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bukola A. A., Abosede A. G., and Adesola M. A., “Customer Relationship Management and Small and Medium Enterprises Performance: Pragmatic Evidence from Oyo State, Nigeria,” Asian J. Educ. Soc. Stud., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1–9, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Davies J. et al., “The Gartner CRM Vendor Guide, 2015,” Gartner, vol. G00271753, no. August, pp. 1–134, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Beglari S., “Effective Competitive Strategies of U.S. In Vitro Device Manufacturers,” Coll. Manag. Technol. This, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Iriqat R. A. M. and Daqar M. A. M. A., “The Impact of Customer Relationship Management on Long-term Customers’ Loyalty in the Palestinian Banking Industry,” Int. Bus. Res., vol. 10, no. 11, p. 139, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Carmen R. and Marius S., “Customer Loyalty Using Customer Relationship Management,” Manag. Strateg. J., pp. 285–288, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sinha R., “A Study on Customer Relationship Management Strategies (With Special Reference to Banking Service Providers, Mobile Service Providers and Hotel and Restaurant Service Providers),” vol. 08, no. 2, pp. 66–70, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Williams P., Ashill N., and Naumann E., “Toward a contingency theory of CRM adoption,” J. Strateg. Mark., vol. 25, no. 5–6, pp. 454–474, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Eid R. and El-Gohary H., “Testing and Validating Customer Relationship Management Implementation Constructs in Egyptian Tourism Organizations,” J. Travel Tour. Mark., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 344–365, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Vella J. and Caruana A., “Encouraging CRM systems usage: A study among bank managers,” Manag. Res. Rev., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 121–133, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chen Q. and Chen H.-M., “Exploring tChen, Q. & Chen, H.-M. 2004. Exploring the success factors of eCRM strategies in practice. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 11(4), 333–343. doi:10.1057/palgrave.dbm.3240232. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Harrigan P., Ramsey E., and Ibbotson P., “Exploring and explaining SME marketing: Investigating e-CRM using a mixed methods approach,” J. Strateg. Mark., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 127–163, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Keramati A., Mehrabi H., and Mojir N., “A process-oriented perspective on customer relationship management and organizational performance: An empirical investigation,” Ind. Mark. Manag., vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 1170–1185, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Zabadi A. M., “Adoption of Information Systems (IS): The Factors that Influencing IS Usage and Its Effect on Employee in Jordan Telecom Sector (JTS): A Conceptual Integrated Model,” Int. J. Bus. Manag., vol. 11, no. 3, p. 25, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rogers E. M., Singhal A., and Quinlan M. M., “Diffusion of Innovations,” An Integr. Approach to Commun. Theory Res., pp. 1–25, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chen Q., Zhang M., and Zhao X., “Industrial Management & Data Systems,” 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Al-Weshah G. A., Al-Manasrah E., and Al-Qatawneh M., “Customer relationship management systems and organizational performance: Quantitative evidence from the Jordanian telecommunication industry,” J. Mark. Commun., vol. 7266, pp. 1–21, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Laketa M., Sanader D., Laketa L., and Misic Z., “Customer relationship management: concept and importance of banking sector,” UMTS J. Econ., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 241–254, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Faed A., Radmand P., and Talevski A., “The critical success factors for implementation of CRM and knowledge management in a work setting,” Proc.—Int. Conf. P2P, Parallel, Grid, Cloud Internet Comput. 3PGCIC 2010, pp. 140–148, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Awasthi P. and Sangle P. S., “Adoption of CRM technology in multichannel environment: a review (2006‐2010),” Bus. Process Manag. J., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 445–471, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Iriana R., Buttle F., and Ang L., “Does organisational culture influence CRM’s financial outcomes?,” J. Mark. Manag., vol. 29, no. 3–4, pp. 467–493, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Šebjan U., Bobek S., and Tominc P., “Organizational Factors Influencing Effective Use of CRM Solutions,” Procedia Technol., vol. 16, pp. 459–470, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rosman R. and Stuhura K., “The Implications of Social Media on Customer Relationship Management and the Hospitality Industry,” J. Manag. Policy Pract., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 18–26, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Reddick C. G., “Customer Relationship Management (CRM) technology and organizational change: Evidence for the bureaucratic and e-Government paradigms,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 346–353, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Nguyen B. and Mutum D. S., “A review of customer relationship management: Successes, advances, pitfalls and futures,” Bus. Process Manag. J., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 400–419, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Josiassen A., Assaf A. G., and Cvelbar L. K., “CRM and the bottom line: Do all CRM dimensions affect firm performance?,” Int. J. Hosp. Manag., vol. 36, pp. 130–136, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Xu Y., Yen D. C., Lin B., and Chou D. C., “Adopting customer relationship management technology,” Ind. Manag. Data Syst., vol. 102, no. 8, pp. 442–452, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Jaber F. N. and Simkin L., “Understanding customer relationship management (CRM) adoption in an Arab Middle Eastern context,” Behav. Inf. Technol., vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1020–1036, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kyengo M. A., Ombui J. W., Iravo K., “Determinants of Customer Relationship Management Strategies on the Performance of Small and Medium Enterprises in Westlands Nairobi City,” Int. Acad. Journals, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 17–28, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Alrousan M. and Jones E., “Affecting E-CoA Conceptual Model of Factorsmmerce Adoption by SME Owner / Managers in Jordan M,” Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 269–308, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Akroush M. N., Dahiyat S. E., Gharaibeh H. S., and Abu-Lail B. N., “Customer relationship management implementation: An investigation of a scale’s generalizability and its relationship with business performance in a developing country context,” Int. J. Commer. Manag., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 158–191, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Laohasirichaikul B., Chaipoopirutana S., and Combs H., “Effective customer relationship management of health care: a study of hospitals in Thailand,” J. Manag. Mark. Res., vol. 6, pp. 1–12, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Abou-Shouk M. A., Lim W. M., and Megicks P., “Using competing models to evaluate the role of environmental pressures in ecommerce adoption by small and medium sized travel agenets in a developing country,” Tour. Manag., vol. 52, pp. 327–339, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Mendoza L. E., Marius A., Pérez M., and Grimán A. C., “Critical success factors for a customer relationship management strategy,” Inf. Softw. Technol., vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 913–945, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Chalmeta R., “Methodology for customer relationship management,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 79, no. 7, pp. 1015–1024, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Fouad N. and Al-Goblan N., “Using customer relationship management systems at university libraries,” IFLA J., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 158–170, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Abdullateef A. O., Sanuri S., Mokhtar M., and Yusoff R. Z., “The impact of CRM Dimensions on Call Center Performance,” OR Spectr., vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 184–194, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Valmohammadi C., "Customer relationship management: Innovation and performance," International Journal of Innovation Science.,vol 9, no 4, pp. 374–395. 10.1108/IJIS-02-2017-0011, 2017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kangu M. A. K., “THE ROLE OF CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT DIMENSIONS ON CUSTOMER LOYALTY IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY IN KENYA (Business Administration) JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE,” 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Gbandi E. C. and Amissah G., “Financing options for small and medium enterprises in Nigeria,” Eur. Sci. J., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 327–340, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Berisha G. and Pula J. S., “Defining Small and Medium Enterprises: a critical review,” vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 17–28, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.World Bank, “Palestine’s Economic Outlook,” Available at http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/westbankandgaza/publication/economic-outlook-april-2018, pp. 1–3, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Baidoun S., Lussier R., Burbar M., and Awashra S., “Prediction model of business success or failure for Palestinian Small Enterprises in the West Bank.,” J. Enterpreneursh. Emerg. Econ., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 82–100, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Trust T. P., “The ICT sector in the Palestinian Territory,” no. August, pp. 2–5, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Sultan S. S., “Enhancing the competitiveness of Palestinian SMEs through clustering,” EuroMed J. Bus., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 164–174, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ismail Mohammad Ramadan H. and bin Ahmad S., “The Moderating Effect of Environment Uncertainty on the Relationship between Distinctive Capabilities and Performance of Manufacturing SMEs in Palestine: A Conceptual Framework,” www.ijbmm.com Int. J. Bus. Mark. Manag., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 2456–4559, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Atout A., “Determinants of Small Business lending in Palestine,” 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Alfoqahaa S., “Critical success factors of small and medium-sized enterprises in Palestine,” J. Res. Mark. Entrep., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 170–188, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Salah O. H., Yusof Z. M., and Mohamed H., “A conceptual framework of crm adoption among palestinian smes,” J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol., vol. 97, no. 8, pp. 2254–2267, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Mukred M., Yusof Z. M., Alotaibi F. M., Mokhtar U. A., and Fauzi F., “The Key Factors in Adopting an Electronic Records Management System (ERMS) in the Educational Sector: A UTAUT-Based Framework,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 35963–35980, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Mukred M. and Yusof Z. M., “The DeLone–McLean information system success model for electronic records management system adoption in higher professional education institutions of yemen. In International Conference of Reliable Information and Communication Technology,” Int. Conf. Reliab. Inf. Commun. Technol., no. 812–823, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Alhammadi A., Stanier C., and Eardley A., “The Determinants of Cloud Computing Adoption in Saudi Arabia,” Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. (CS IT), pp. 55–67, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Mukred M., Yusof Z. M., and Mokhtar U. A., A Framework for Electronic Records Management System Adoption in the Higher Professional Education: Individual, Technological and Environmental Factors, vol. 843. Springer International Publishing, 2018. 10.1515/dmpt-2018-0012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Urbach N. and Ahlemann F., “Lekkende borsten, gammele kleppen en kleverige matjes,” vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 5–40, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Hair J. F. Jr, Hopkins L., Georgia M., and College S., “Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research,” 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Goodhue D., Lewis W., and Thomps R., “QÍarterjy,” vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 883–908, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Chin W. W., Handbook of Partial Least Squares. 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Chavitoshi M., Tze A., and Jee M. H., “A CRM adoption model for Malaysian telecommunication and finance companies,” J. Inf. Syst. Res. Innov., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 119–125, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Rahimi R., “Customer relationship management (people, process and technology) and organisational culture in hotels: Which traits matter?,” Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag., vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1380–1402, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Adam A., Jizat J. E., and Nor M. A., “Internal Factors within Entrepreneurs that Influence The Acceptance and Use of Social Commerce among SMEs in Malaysia,” DeReMa J. Manaj., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 35–45, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Azad N. and Ahmadi F., “The customer relationship management process: its measurement and impact on performance,” Uncertain Supply Chain Manag., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 43–50, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Ramayah T., Ling N. S., Taghizadeh S. K., and Rahman S. A., “Factors influencing SMEs website continuance intention in Malaysia,” Telemat. Informatics, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 150–164, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Wang Y. S., Li H. T., Li C. R., and Zhang D. Z., “Factors affecting hotels’ adoption of mobile reservation systems: A technology-organization-environment framework,” Tour. Manag., vol. 53, pp. 163–172, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.El-Gohary H., “Factors affecting E-Marketing adoption and implementation in tourism firms: An empirical investigation of Egyptian small tourism organisations,” Tour. Manag., vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 1256–1269, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Alshamaila Y., Papagiannidis S., and Li F., “Cloud computing adoption by SMEs in the north east of England: A multi-perspective framework,” J. Enterp. Inf. Manag., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 250–275, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Alam S. S. and Mohammad Noor M. K., “ICT Adoption in Small and Medium Enterprises: an Empirical Evidence of Service Sectors in Malaysia,” Int. J. Bus. Manag., vol. 4, no. 2, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Awa H. O., Ukoha O., and Emecheta B. C., “Using T-O-E theoretical framework to study the adoption of ERP solution,” Cogent Bus. Manag., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Chin P. R., W. W., & Newsted, “Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. Statistical strategies for small sample research,” pp. 307–341., 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Jayasingam S., Ansari M. A., and Jantan M., “Influencing knowledge workers: the power of top management,” Ind. Manag. Data Syst., vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 134–151, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Cruz-Jesus F., Pinheiro A., and Oliveira T., “Understanding CRM adoption stages: empirical analysis building on the TOE framework,” Comput. Ind., vol. 109, pp. 1–13, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Hung S. Y., Hung W. H., Tsai C. A., and Jiang S. C., “Critical factors of hospital adoption on CRM system: Organizational and information system perspectives,” Decis. Support Syst., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 592–603, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Vasseur V. and Kemp R., “The adoption of PV in the Netherlands: A statistical analysis of adoption factors,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 41, pp. 483–494, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Ngah A. H., Zainuddin Y., and Thurasamy R., “Customer Relationship Management Practices: The Impact on Organizational Performance in SMEs of Food Manufacturing Industry,” Eur. J. Bus. Manag., vol. 6, no. 13, pp. 2222–2839, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Saedi A. and Iahad N. A., “An Integrated Theoretical Framework for Cloud Computing Adoption by Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises,” PACIS 2013 Proc., no. November 2016, pp. 1–12, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Ko E., Kim S. H., Kim M., and Woo J. Y., “Organizational characteristics and the CRM adoption process,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 65–74, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Al-Somali S. A., Gholami R., and Clegg B., “Determinants of B2B e-commerce adoption in Saudi Arabian firms,” Int. J. Digit. Soc., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 406–415, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Raut R. D., Gardas B. B., Jha M. K., and Priyadarshinee P., “Examining the critical success factors of cloud computing adoption in the MSMEs by using ISM model,” J. High Technol. Manag. Res., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 125–141, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Chao C. A. and Chandra A., “Impact of owner’s knowledge of information technology (IT) on strategic alignment and IT adoption in US small firms,” J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 114–131, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Zeynep Ata U. and Toker A., “The effect of customer relationship management adoption in business‐to‐business markets,” J. Bus. Ind. Mark., vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 497–507, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Sin K. Y., Osman A., Salahuddin S. N., Abdullah S., Lim Y. J., and Sim C. L., “Relative Advantage and Competitive Pressure towards Implementation of E-commerce: Overview of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs),” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 35, no. October 2015, pp. 434–443, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Newby M., Nguyen T. H., and Waring T. S., “Understanding customer relationship management technology adoption in small and medium-sized enterprises: An empirical study in the USA,” J. Enterp. Inf. Manag., vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 541–560, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Coltman T., Devinney T. M., and Midgley D. F., “Customer Relationship Management and Firm Performance,” Univ. Wollongong, Fac. Bus., vol. 26, pp. 205–219, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Rogers E. M., Diffusion of innovations. 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Rogers E. M., Diffusion of innovations. 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Chang H. H., Huang C. Y., Fu C. S., and Tse Hsu M., “Information Technology & People Article information:,” Inf. Technol. People, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 366–382, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Tornatzky M., L. & Fleischer, “The Processes of Technological Innovation,” 1990. [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Dedrick J. and West J., “An Exploratory Study into Open Source Platform Adoption,” Proc. 37th Annu. Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., vol. 8, no. C, p. 80265b, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Mangula I. S., Van De Weerd I., and Brinkkemper S., “A Meta-analysis of IT Innovation Adoption Factors: The Moderating Effect of Product and Process Innovations,” Twenty First Pacific Asia Conf. Inf. Syst. Langkawi, no. November, pp. 1–15, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 93.HOTI E., “THE TECHNOLOGICAL, ORGANIZATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMEWORK OF IS INNOVATION ADAPTION IN SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES. EVIDENCE FROM RESEARCH OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS ERIND,” Int. J. Bus. Manag., vol. III, no. 4, pp. 1–14, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Kumar Piaralal S., Nair S. R., Yahya N., and Karim J. A., “An Integrated Model of the Likelihood and Extent of Adoption of Green Practices in Small and Medium Sized Logistics Firms,” Am. J. Econ., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 251–258, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Nam D., Lee J., and Lee H., “Business analytics use in CRM: A nomological net from IT competence to CRM performance,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., no. 96, pp. 0–1, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Ahmad I. and Mohan Agrawal A., “An Empirical Study of Problems in Implementation of Electronic Commerce in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,” Int. J. Bus. Manag., vol. 7, no. 15, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Rodriguez M., Peterson R. M., and Krishnan V., “Impact of CRM technology on sales process behaviors: empirical results from US, Europe, and Asia,” J. Business-to-bus. Mark., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Gorla N., Somers T. M., and Wong B., “Organizational impact of system quality, information quality, and service quality,” J. Strateg. Inf. Syst., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 207–228, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Payne A., Handbook of Crm: Achieving Excellence in Customer Management. 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Sen A. and Sinha A. P., “IT alignment strategies for customer relationship management,” Decis. Support Syst., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 609–619, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Alt R. and Puschmann T., “Successful practices in customer relationship management,” Proc. Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., vol. 37, no. June 2014, pp. 2665–2673, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Goodhue D. L., Wixom B. H., and Watson H. J., “Realizing business benefits through CRM: Hitting the right target in the right way,” MIS Q. Exec., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 79–94, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Pedron C. D. and Caldeira M., “Customer relationship management adoption: using a dynamic capabilities approach,” Inf. Syst., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 265–281, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Ahmad S. Z., Abu Bakar A. R., Faziharudean T. M., and Mohamad Zaki K. A., “An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting e-Commerce Adoption among Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises in a Developing Country: Evidence from Malaysia,” Inf. Technol. Dev., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 555–572, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Mukred M., Yusof Z. M., Mokhtar U. A., and Fauzi F., “A framework for electronic records management system adoption in the higher professional education: Individual, technological and environmental factors,” Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput., vol. 843, pp. 840–849, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Steel M., Dubelaar C., and Ewing M. T., “Developing customised CRM projects: The role of industry norms, organisational context and customer expectations on CRM implementation,” Ind. Mark. Manag., vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 1328–1344, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Ahani A., Rahim N. Z. A., and Nilashi M., “Firm Performance through Social Customer Relationship Management: Evidence from Small and Medium Enterprises,” 2017 Int. Conf. Res. Innov. Inf. Syst., pp. 1–6, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Hasani T., Bojei J., and Dehghantanha A., “Investigating the antecedents to the adoption of SCRM technologies by start-up companies,” Telemat. Informatics, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 655–675, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Kumar V. and Reinarzt W., “Customer Relationship Management,” p. 399, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Frygell L., Jonas Hedman L., and Carlsson S., “Implementing CRM System in a Global Organization National vs. Organizational Culture,” Proc. 50th Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., pp. 4586–4595, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Wu I. L. and Wu K. W., “A hybrid technology acceptance approach for exploring e-CRM adoption in organizations,” Behav. Inf. Technol., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 303–316, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Ghobakhloo M., Hong T. S., Sabouri M. S., and Zulkifli N., “Strategies for Successful Information Technology Adoption in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises,” Information, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 36–67, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Rapp A., Trainor K. J., and Agnihotri R., “Performance implications of customer-linking capabilities: Examining the complementary role of customer orientation and CRM technology,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 1229–1236, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Diffley S. and McCole P., “Extending customer relationship management into a social context,” Serv. Ind. J., vol. 35, no. 11–12, pp. 591–610, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Sin Tan K., Choy Chong S., Lin B., and Cyril Eze U., “Internet‐based ICT adoption: evidence from Malaysian SMEs,” Ind. Manag. Data Syst., vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 224–244, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Mukred A., Singh D., and Safie N., “A review on the impact of information culture on the adoption of health information system in developing countries,” J. Comput. Sci., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 128–138, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Shibl R., Lawley M., and Debuse J., “Factors influencing decision support system acceptance,” Decis. Support Syst., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 953–961, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Ngah A. H., Zainuddin Y., and Thurasamy R., “Applying the TOE framework in the Halal warehouse adoption study,” J. Islam. Account. Bus. Res., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 161–181, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Lawson-Body A., Willoughby L., Mukankusi L., and Logossah K., “The critical success factors for public sector CRM implementation,” J. Comput. Inf. Syst., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 42–50, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Troshani I., Jerram C., and Rao Hill S., “Exploring the public sector adoption of HRIS,” Ind. Manag. Data Syst., vol. 111, no. 3, pp. 470–488, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Garrido-Moreno A. and Padilla-Meléndez A., “Analyzing the impact of knowledge management on CRM success: The mediating effects of organizational factors,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 437–444, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Peltier J. W., Zahay D., and Lehmann D. R., “Organizational Learning and CRM Success: A Model for Linking Organizational Practices, Customer Data Quality, and Performance,” J. Interact. Mark., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Oliveira T., Thomas M., and Espadanal M., “Assessing the determinants of cloud computing adoption: An analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors,” Inf. Manag., vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 497–510, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Ragu-Nathan B. S., Apigian C. H., Ragu-Nathan T. S., and Tu Q., “A path analytic study of the effect of top management support for information systems performance,” Omega, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 459–471, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Asrar-ul-Haq M. and Anwar S., “A systematic review of knowledge management and knowledge sharing: Trends, issues, and challenges,” Cogent Bus. Manag., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Finnegan D. J. and Currie W. L., “A multi-layered approach to CRM implementation: An integration perspective,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 153–167, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Sigala M., “Customer Relationship Management (Crm) Evaluation: Diffusing Crm Benefits Into Business Processes,” Ecis, no. 2004, pp. 172–183, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Oliveira T. and Martins M., “Literature review of Information Technology Adoption Models at Firm Level,” Electron. J. Inf. , vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 110–121, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Ngah A. H., Zainuddin Y., and Thurasamy R., “Barriers and enablers in adopting of Halal warehousing,” J. Islam. Mark., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 354–376, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Chong S., “Success in electronic commerce implementation,” J. Enterp. Inf. Manag., vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 468–492, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Gualandris J. and Kalchschmidt M., “Customer pressure and innovativeness: Their role in sustainable supply chain management,” J. Purch. Supply Manag., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 92–103, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Ueki Y., “Customer pressure, customer-manufacturer-supplier relationships, and quality control performance,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 2233–2238, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Maduku D. K., Mpinganjira M., and Duh H., “Understanding mobile marketing adoption intention by South African SMEs: A multi-perspective framework,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 711–723, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Lian J. W., Yen D. C., and Wang Y. T., “An exploratory study to understand the critical factors affecting the decision to adopt cloud computing in Taiwan hospital,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 28–36, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Nizar Hidayanto A. and Budiardjo E. K., “The critical success factors for customer relationship management implementation: a systematic literature review,” Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 131–174, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Hendrik S. H., Ludwig F. L., and Ulrich R., “Medical Value as a New Strategy to Increase Corporate Viability: Market Chances and Limitations in the Diagnostic Industry,” J. Entrep. Organ. Manag., vol. 04, no. 01, pp. 1–8, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Almotairi M. A. and Saud K., “CRM Implementation in Saudi Banking Sector,” vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 107–115, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Sekaran U., Research methods for business, vol. 65, no. 3. 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 139.fazura Ali, “MASTER DATA MANAGEMENT ADOPTION MODEL IN MALAYSIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT,” vol. 16, no. December, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Ngah A. H., Zainuddin Y., and Thurasamy R., “Modelling of Halal Warehouse Adoption Using Partial Least Squares,” Int. J. Contemp. Bus. Manag., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 71–86, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Oliveira T. and Martins M. F., “Understanding e‐business adoption across industries in European countries,” Ind. Manag. Data Syst., vol. 110, no. 9, pp. 1337–1354, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Sophonthummapharn K., The adoption of techno-relationship innovations: A framework for electronic customer relationship management, vol. 27, no. 3. 2009. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Amira M Idrees

10 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-33183

The Determinant Factors for the Adoption of CRM in the Palestinian SMEs: The Moderating Effect of Firm Size

PLOS ONE

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 26 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Amira M. Idrees, Associate Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Please refer to the attached referee report for the detail comments on the submitted paper pertaining to the overall writing, the discussions on the methods/findings, and all the other comments about the paper.

Reviewer #2: There are many reasons why the studies on the adoption of CRM are interesting and, therefore, it is relevant that contributions be made in this field. In the paper a series of contributions have been made in this regard, and especially in the analysis the moderating effects of the firm size in the adoption of CRM. However, for the publication of this paper I recommend making the following modifications:

The English level of the article is standard, but could be improved by a native translator with knowledge in economic scientific literature.

The paper does not follow the basic structure of the work in PLOS ONE: introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion and conclusions (optional). This is especially serious in the Analysis of data and presenting results section, in which authors are cited in the presentation of results. The discussion should appear in your particular section and not integrated with the results.

In method, it is not specified when the study has been carried out, at least clearly. Likewise, it is necessary to provide data on the degree of viability of the proposed model and information on its adjustment.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE reviewer report PONE-D-19-33183.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Amira M Idrees

16 Sep 2020

PONE-D-19-33183R1

The Determinant Factors for the Adoption of CRM in the Palestinian SMEs: The Moderating Effect of Firm Size

PLOS ONE

Dear Author

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by one month. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Amira M. Idrees, Associate Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Reviewer’s report: Studies on CRM are very important because their implementation incompanies digitally systematize the commercial function of companies,which in this complex stage derived from COVID-19, can be very relevantfor the management of companies. However, for publication I recommendmaking the following modifications:Abstract:The authors must clearly specify the objective of the study at thebeginning of the study, and then expose the importance and need for it,without going into the definition of the concept of CRM within thisabstract. The results are presented but no mention is made of the finalconclusions.Introduction:The structure of the article must have four very clear sections:introduction, method, results and discussion and conclusion. Authorsshould make any necessary adjustments to provide this clarity.Material and methods- The name of the Ethics Committee that supervised the study must bestated.- The date on which the study was carried out is not specified, at leastclearly.- The methodology used (The Partial Least Square-Structural EquationModel (PLS-SEM)) is not justified, nor does it seem to be specified in thetext or it is not made clearly.- It is necessary to justify better because the case of Palestine is beingstudied.DiscussionThe discussion is pretty sparse. It is well linked with previous studies, butit is necessary to show a greater richness that more clearly shows thecontribution of this work.

- Personally, I have understood the entire exposition in English of the pa-per, but I am not a native English speaker. I consider it appropriate thatsomeone from your journal check the writing in this language.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 4;16(3):e0243355. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243355.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


18 Sep 2020

Comments :1- Abstract: The authors must clearly specify the objective of the study at the beginning of the study, and then expose the importance and need for it, without going into the definition of the concept of CRM within this abstract. The results are presented but no mention is made of the final conclusions. Page 1

2- Introduction: The structure of the article must have four very clear sections: introduction, method, results and discussion and conclusion. Done

3- Authors should make any necessary adjustments to provide this clarity. Material and methods- The name of the Ethics Committee that supervised the study must be stated and The date on which the study was carried out is not specified, at least clearly. 21

4- The methodology used (The Partial Least Square-Structural EquationModel (PLS-SEM)) is not justified 7-8

5- It is necessary to justify better because the case of Palestine is being studied. 20

76-PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. Done

Decision Letter 2

Amira M Idrees

21 Oct 2020

PONE-D-19-33183R2

The Determinant Factors for the Adoption of CRM in the Palestinian SMEs: The Moderating Effect of Firm Size

PLOS ONE

Dear Author(s)

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 05 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Amira M. Idrees, Associate Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Dear Author,

Re: Manuscript “The Determinant Factors for the Adoption of CRM in the Palestinian SMEs: The Moderating Effect of Firm Size”

Reviewer’s report:

The authors have made significant improvements to the text. At the end of each section, the status of each of the aspects mentioned in the previous review is exposed:

Abstract:

The authors must clearly specify the objective of the study at the beginning of the study, and then expose the importance and need for it, without going into the definition of the concept of CRM within this abstract. The results are presented but no mention is made of the final conclusions: This aspect is resolved.

Introduction:

The structure of the article must have four very clear sections: introduction, method, results and discussion and conclusion. Authors should make any necessary adjustments to provide this clarity. In this regard, authors must place point 5. justifications for using PLS within the Method section.

Material and methods

- The name of the Ethics Committee that supervised the study must be stated. This aspect is resolved. The date of the study must appear in the Method section.

- The date on which the study was carried out is not specified, at least clearly. As stated in the previous section, the date of the study must appear in the Method section.

- The methodology used (The Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM)) is not justified, nor does it seem to be specified in the text or it is not made clearly. The authors have presented the characteristics of this methodology, but it would still be necessary to adapt these characteristics to the case studied.

- It is necessary to justify better because the case of Palestine is being studied. It is understood that the authors explain this in point 3 3.

THE PALESTINE MARKET AND SMES.

Discussion

The discussion is pretty sparse. It is well linked with previous studies, but it is necessary to show a greater richness that more clearly shows the contribution of this work. This aspect is resolved with what is stated in the text.

- Personally, I have understood the entire exposition in English of the paper, but I am not a native English speaker. I consider it appropriate that someone from your journal check the writing in this language.

Best regards

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 4;16(3):e0243355. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243355.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


28 Oct 2020

Comments Page

The structure of the article must have four very clear sections: introduction, method, results and discussion and conclusion. Authors should make any necessary adjustments to provide this clarity. In this regard, authors must place point 5. justifications for using PLS within the Method section. 17

- The name of the Ethics Committee that supervised the study must be stated. This aspect is resolved. The date of the study must appear in the Method section. 17

he methodology used (The Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM)) is not justified, nor does it seem to be specified in the text or it is not made clearly.. 17

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments.docx

Decision Letter 3

Amira M Idrees

20 Nov 2020

The Determinant Factors for the Adoption of CRM in the Palestinian SMEs: The Moderating Effect of Firm Size

PONE-D-19-33183R3

Dear Author(s),

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Amira M. Idrees, Associate Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Amira M Idrees

2 Dec 2020

PONE-D-19-33183R3

The Determinant Factors for the Adoption of CRM in the Palestinian SMEs: The Moderating Effect of Firm Size

Dear Dr. Salah:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Amira M. Idrees

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (SAV)

    S2 File

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS ONE reviewer report PONE-D-19-33183.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES