Adopting xRM in Higher Education: E-Services Outside the Classroom

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A very interesting article with useful figures. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I want to thank you so much for your positive feedback in the name of all my colleagues and coauthors!

We have uploaded the revised version of our manuscript following the comments of other reviewers.

 

We wish you all the best!

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled, Adopting xRM in Higher Education: E-services Outside the Classroom, investigates students engagement with IT as student relationship management (SRM). However, the title of the paper uses xRM where x is anything. SRM has been well research and there are a number of institutional system available to do so. The title should be changed to reflect the actual content of the paper.  

1. What is the search basis for this statement? "Only one study, conducted by Seeman & 55 O'Hara [22], has tackled university – student relationship from the perspective of information technology." There are a number of publications on Student Relations Management, University & IT. please add more relevant literature and clarify what is new based upon a more extensive literature search. The paper by O'Hara has been cited 159 times, DOI:10.1108/10650740610639714. examples below

• http://minib.pl/en/concept-of-student-relationship-management-in-higher-education/
• https://blog.fullfabric.com/student-relationship-management
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332085872_The_Synthesis_of_the_Student_Relationship_Management_System_Using_the_Internet_of_Things_to_Collect_the_Digital_Footprint_for_Higher_Education_Institutions

The analysis of the data with the respective models does provide a proper framework. 

Have the authors considered university student IT usage and efficacy? There are a number of publications on this topic in the literature. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, we would like to thank you for your useful and kind comments, and for your effort to help us improve the paper. We are very grateful. We have accepted all the suggestions and corrected the manuscript. All the corrections are colored in red. We did our best and we hope that you will be satisfied.

In the following text, we give explanations to the comments and recommended revisions. You may find the new version of the manuscript in the attachment.

 

Point 1: The paper entitled, Adopting xRM in Higher Education: E-services Outside the Classroom, investigates students engagement with IT as student relationship management (SRM). However, the title of the paper uses xRM where x is anything. SRM has been well research and there are a number of institutional system available to do so. The title should be changed to reflect the actual content of the paper.

What is the search basis for this statement? "Only one study, conducted by Seeman & 55 O'Hara [22], has tackled university – student relationship from the perspective of information technology." There are a number of publications on Student Relations Management, University & IT. please add more relevant literature and clarify what is new based upon a more extensive literature search. The paper by O'Hara has been cited 159 times, DOI:10.1108/10650740610639714. examples below

http://minib.pl/en/concept-of-student-relationship-management-in-higher-education/

https://blog.fullfabric.com/student-relationship-management

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332085872_The_Synthesis_of_the_Student_Relationship_Management_System_Using_the_Internet_of_Things_to_Collect_the_Digital_Footprint_for_Higher_Education_Institutions

The analysis of the data with the respective models does provide a proper framework.

Response 1: We have completely rewritten and reconstructed the Introduction part aiming to explain the research background in more clear manner. The idea of the paper was to provide a comprehensive model for managing not only students, but the other stakeholders as well, i.e. to address the stakeholder management from the broader perspective. xRM extends the approach and strategy of the CRM concept. xRM is still a new concept in literature, and so far, it has not found its place in higher educational settings. Simply put, xRM extends the approach and strategy of the CRM concept. We tried to elaborate on this in new version of the Introduction.

 

Point 2:  Have the authors considered university student IT usage and efficacy? There are a number of publications on this topic in the literature.

Response 2: Our study explores the usage of student IT services by analyzing various indicators among which one is Performance expectancy, which is being translated to efficacy. Our findings show that there is no significant relationship between Performance Expectancy and students’ behavioral intention to use student IT services. This finding resembles results from the study that has a similar focus (Using the UTAUT2 model to analyze students’ ICT adoption) conducted by Attuquayefio and Addo. Furthermore, it is aligned with other studies such as the case of healthcare environment web-based system adoption, mobile learning, and learning management system adoption context. Although the mean of indicators for Performance expectancy construct is relatively high (4.26), our findings show that students do not perceive the use of IT services as a factor that can affect their performance in their study life. The results of the analysis are further elaborated in the Discussion and Conclusions part.

 

Kind regards,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper “Adopting xRM in Higher Education: E-services Outside the Classroom” investigates an interesting topic. However, there remain issues that need to be addressed.

 

1. The description of the abstract should be improved. For example, the results should be modified and added important information about students expect for Higher Education Institutions (HEI) to provide XRM in the new version. The author(s) should try to describe constructive and helpful comments that have improved the abstract. Especially to respond to the conclusion.

 

2. In the 1.introduction section, some problems need to be solved. If the situation not changes, it would be confusing the reader. For Example: On page1, lines 28-32, " Acceptance and usage of novel opportunities emerging from fast-changing digital technologies are one of the blazing challenges companies are nowadays facing [1]. Higher Education Institutions (HEI) have to deal with tectonic shifts when it comes to how they interact with their users: students and their parents, teaching and non-teaching staff, donors, and alumni [2]. "

The description of these parts should be improved. The author(s) should describe constructive and helpful about the company and Higher Education Institutions (HEI). For Example: Describe the similarity or connection between the company and Higher Education Institutions (HEI).

 

3. In the 1.introduction section, On page 2, lines 51-63, It describes much reason to represent the starting point of this research. But the reviewer could not find any main purpose or viewpoint about this study. Suggest joining to explain the influence between Higher Education Institutions (HEI) and students, and present the value and purpose of this research. Suggest the author(s) should rewrite and reconstruct this part.

 

4. About Section 1.1 Theoretical background, The author(s) should change Section 2. Literature Review and Research Hypotheses. And added a subtitle 2.1 xRM on line 66.

 

5. On page 3, line 101. We suggest the author(s) should add a subtitle 2.2

 Higher Education Institutions' xRM Model. That would be let readers know more about this point of view.

 

6. About Section 1.2 Evaluation of the model and UTAUT2 approach, The reviewer suggests the author(s) should change Section 2.3 UTAUT2. It would be better and let readers know the subject content.

 

7. On page 5, Figure 2. Research Model. Please modify and enlarge the graph, because it is not clear to see. And it would be better in figure 2.

 

8. On page 5, lines 166-186, about hypotheses contents. It should provide some definitions and clarifying the notions of seven constructs-Performance expectancy (PE), Effort expectancy (EE), Social influence (SI), Facilitating conditions (FC), Habit (HT), Behavioral intention (BI), and Use behavior (USE). The author(s) need to put them(the definitions) in this study are explained. When describing the definition, please add the point of view of this research. And for each hypothesis, please explain the content based on or cited the literature. The reviewer suggests the author(s) should rewrite and reconstruct this part.

 

9. On page 5, About Section 2. Materials and Methods, The reviewer suggests the author(s) should change Section 3. Materials and Methods.

 

On page 5, About Section 2.1 Sample size, The reviewer suggests the author(s) should change Section 3.1 Sample size.

 

On page 7, About Section 2.2 Questionnaire design, The reviewer suggests the author(s) should change Section 3.2 Questionnaire design.

 

10. On page 8, About Section 3. Results, The reviewer suggests the author(s) should change Section 4. Results.

 

11. And in 4. Results, Please explain and describe the analysis tools used. ( Why choose to use PLS-SEM? )

And please add this paragraph to explain the common-method variance (CMV) of this research. It would be better let readers to understand whether the CMV's situation in this study is not serious.

 

12. On page 10, About Section 3.1 Measurement model, The reviewer suggests the author(s) should change Section 4.1 Measurement model.

 

13. ON page 11, About the analysis of discriminant validity, Suggest the authors could try to use HTMT. It would be better to present the situation of discriminant validity. The authors could reference the below literature.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. & Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 43, 115–135 (2015).

 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

 

14. On page 12, About Section 3.2 Structural model, The reviewer suggests the author(s) should change Section 4.2 Structural model.

 

15. ON page 12, This study applied PLS to analyze the research model. But finally, it does not provide about Model Fit. Suggest the authors could try to show the Goodness of Fit (GOF) and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). That would be let readers understand this study's Model Fit.

 

16. On page 13, Figure 5. Structural model. Please modify and disable the seven constructs' detail items, because it is not easy to see the results. Just show it like Figure 2. Just let readers understand the research results. And that would be better in figure 5.

 

17. On page 13, About Section 5. Discussion, The reviewer suggests the author(s) should change Section 5. Discussion and Conclusions.

And added a subtitle 5.1 Discussion on line 346.

 

18. On page 14, About Section 6. Conclusions, The reviewer suggests the author(s) should change Section 5.2 Conclusions.

 

19. On page 14, Section 5.1 Discussion. About Hypothesis 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10, the result illustrates it was not supported. But according to most related studies shows that these hypotheses should have a positive effect. Suggest the authors should explain the result in more detail. And could try to find some literature or study to extended and illustrated explicitly not support reason. It would be better to let the reader know why to happen the situation. (F For example, whether the environment of the company or school will cause relevant impacts. ...etc.)

 

20. On page 14, lines 407-413. " There were a few limitations in this study. The sample was relatively uniform as Age, ........................................................

..........................We would assume that results could differ from field to field. "

The reviewer suggests the author(s) should add another description of 5.3 Limitations and Future Research. And it could add more limitations and suggestions for Future Research.

 

21. Finally, Suggest the author(s) must confirm the relevant section number. If the section number or name should be changed, please try to re-check all the names and numbers in this study.

 

Basically, I think that the aim and methodology of this paper are relevant to Sustainability. But, some parts including abstract, theoretical background, hypotheses formulation, discussion, and conclusion need to be revised.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, we would like to thank you for your useful and kind comments, and for your effort to help us improve the paper. We are very grateful. We have accepted all the suggestions and corrected the manuscript. All the corrections are colored in red. We did our best and we hope that you will be satisfied.

We give explanations to the comments and recommended revisions in the attachment. Also, we will upload the new version of the manuscript in the application.

 

Kind regards,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is within the scope of the journal. It is well written and well structured. It is easy to read.

However, some improvements are needed:
a) Tables are outside the page margins. They should be made smaller. The same goes for the figures.
b) The conclusions and future work should be extended and better explain what the next steps in the research described would be.
c) The discussion should better explain the advantages and highlights of the results obtained, and be compared with other studies in order to show the advances and limitations of the research described.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, we would like to thank you for your useful and kind comments, and for your effort to help us improve the paper. We are very grateful. We have accepted all the suggestions and corrected the manuscript. All the corrections are colored in red. We did our best and we hope that you will be satisfied.

In the following text, we give explanations to the comments and recommended revisions. You may find the new version of the manuscript in the attachment.

 

Point 1: Tables are outside the page margins. They should be made smaller. The same goes for the figures.

Response 1: Thank you, we have now modified tables and figures to be smaller and inside the margins.

 

Point 2: The conclusions and future work should be extended and better explain what the next steps in the research described would be.

Response 2: According to your comments we have completely rewritten and reconstructed the Discussion, Conclusions, Limitations and Future Research part. Certain part well extended in a big extend and restructured.

 

Point 3: The discussion should better explain the advantages and highlights of the results obtained and be compared with other studies in order to show the advances and limitations of the research described.

Response 3: We’ve completely rewritten the discussion and added much more details on the contribution of the paper.

 

Kind regards,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Revision is much improved in response to the reviewers' comments. Recommend to publish as received. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I want to thank you so much for your positive feedback in the name of all my colleagues and coauthors!
Once again, thank you for your useful and kind comments and for your time and effort to help us improve the paper. 

 

Kind regards,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer ’s Comments

I greatly appreciate the authors' efforts to improve this manuscript. And the author has streamlined the research structure and can show the value of research. Indeed, it has improved. However, there still remain issues that need to be addressed. 

1. On page 1, line 29. We suggest the author(s) should write " Many people are aware that Information and communications technology (ICT) plays important role in the higher education context." That would be better to read the ICT term the first time.

2. On page 5, Figure 1. xRM model of the higher educational institution. Please modify and adjust the range of the "STAKEHOLDERS" graph, because some of those do not match the range. And if adjust it, that would be better in figure 1.
(Please see the attached file)

3. On page 8, line 338. Table 1. Descriptive statistics. we suggest IN the talbe1, the label of "Moderating variables" should re-write "Demographic variables". Because, in this study, it doesn't use the Moderating variables.

4. On page 9, line 337. The authors showed Figure 3, but don't explain the figure. Or the authors should add supplementary notes in lines 330 to 335.
EX: The multivariate extreme values are shown in Figure 3.

5. On page 9, line 353. The authors showed Table 2, but don't explain the table. Or the authors should add supplementary notes in lines 352 to 353.
EX: Each construct of questionnaire items is shown in Table 2.

6. On page 9, line 337. Section 2.2 Questionnaire design should be modified Section 3.2 Questionnaire design. 
(The author(s) should try to re-check the section number in this study.)

7. On page 10, line 372, The title of the Use item, the reviewer suggests should re-write USE BEHAVIOR item. And lines 372 to 373. The Code US1 US2 ..., the reviewer suggests should re-write USE1 USE2... . The authors should use uniform abbreviations.
(Suggest the authors need to pay more attention to when to use full names or abbreviations to present them in this study. And The author(s) should try to re-check the uniform abbreviations and full names format in this study.)

8. On page 13, lines 432 to 434. The Constructs of Use , the reviewer suggests should re-write Use behavior. The authors should use uniform abbreviations.
(The author(s) should try to re-check the full names in this study.)

9. On page 13, lines 432 to 434. The authors show table 5, but in this study, the reviewer can't find table 5 description. Please recheck the related description of table 5.

10. On pages 14 to 15, Table 8. Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). The Constructs of Use, the reviewer suggests should re-write Use behavior. The authors should use uniform abbreviations.
(The author(s) should try to re-check the full names in this study.)

11. On page 16, Section 4.2 Structural model. According to the first version Research model and this version compare, this study reduces variables and the result is complete the same. The reviewer suggests the authors should check the relevant data correctly. Or the authors forget to correct the result data. We have presented the relevant pictures and data in the following comparison.
(Please see the attached file)
 
12. On page 17, Figure 5. Some information in the picture is not very clear. Some data seems vague and unclear. Suggest the authors can adjust the font size of the information data to present it. ( Suggest delete H1......H8, just show the Standardized path coefficients and significance. )
And please add the value of R2 on BEHAVIORAL INTENTION and USE BEHAVIOR. That would be better for the reader.

13. On page 17, Figure 5. The name of Structural model, suggests a change to Figure 5. Standardized path coefficients and significance of inner model. That would be better for the reader.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your constructive comments which helped us a lot to improve the manuscript! Thank you so much for the positive feedback!
We have updated our text with the suggestions you have given and we hope that you will find the answers satisfying. You can find the document with the answers in the attachment.

Best regards,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx