{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030838992036456337, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019965258194779706, 'mean_word_length': 4.99027027027027, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 1, '<': 16, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 14, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 10, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Enterprise resource planning and customer relationship management value

Purpose – This paper develops and tests a theoretical model to measure the impact of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems and moderating relationships of system and process integration on business value. Design/methodology/approach – ERP and CRM systems are analysed with the Resource-Based View (RBV) theory and measured by their impact on business value, having in consideration the moderation of system and process integration. The model was tested and analysed with data collected by Microsoft, from firms that have adopted both ERP and CRM systems in their


Introduction
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems have been applied by many firms of varying size around the world as a key part of their organizational architecture. ERP systems support day-today business operations and decision-making processes (Gattiker andGoodhue, 2005, May et al., 2013), and are expected to provide seamless integration of processes across functional areas (Mabert et al., 2003). However, these IT resources streamline and integrate internal business processes to improve efficiency only within a firm's boundaries (Davenport, 1998).
Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems have exploded on the enterprise space in recent years, and some studies claim that they are the ultimate solution to the information exchange problem among firms (Gartner, 2013, Extraprise, 2008, Chang et al., 2014. CRM extends the original value proposition of ERP, allowing firms to build interactive relationships with their customers and bring together their previously separated information at very low cost Frow, 2006, Iriana andButtle, 2006).
Research states that CRM systems encompass the external part of the extended enterprise, and ERP encompasses the internal part (Gartner, 2013, Extraprise, 2008, Alshawi et al., 2011. That is, while CRM applications extract customer information from customer facing processes, ERP applications leverage the information to configure product offerings, scheduling, and fulfilment processes (Hitt et al., 2002). As more firms realize that they need to know their customers very profoundly in order to compete or survive, integrating CRM with ERP becomes a critical topic Frow, 2005, Ryals, 2005). Integrated CRM and ERP systems automatically communicate customer and process-related information to each other (Rai et al., 2006), increase interdepartmental connectedness, facilitate the dissemination of market intelligence amongst multiple departments and locations, and improve the entire organization's responsiveness to consumer demands (Liu et al., 2013).
Moreover, some researchers suggest that IT value is better captured when taking into consideration moderator relationships on the link between IT resources and business value (Liu et al., 2013, Mishra andAgarwal, 2010). Although few, some IS researchers have identified ERP and CRM integration as one of the most important fields for future IT value research (King and Burgess, 2008, Alshawi et al., 2011, Davenport, 1998, Kim et al., 2015, Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002, Liu et al., 2013, Melville et al., 2004) and claim that system integration is a key factor that shapes how IT is applied to digitize business processes and generate value. Some researchers point out that business process integration plays an important role for return on investment on improvements in both ERP (Roh andHong, 2015, Narayanan et al., 2011, Samaranayake, 2009) and CRM (Osarenkhoe and Bennani, 2007, Light, 2003, Nguyen and Mutum, 2012, Liu et al., 2013. Motivated by these issues, this study develops and tests a theoretical model grounded in a wellestablished IS theory, Resource-Based View (RBV). We investigate the impact of the joint ERP and CRM systems value by taking into consideration the moderating relationships of system and process integration. In doing so, we contribute to the IT value literature by examining the complementarity value of the integration of these two resources. Our work focuses on answering the following research questions (RQs): RQ1 -Are ERP and CRM systems drivers of business value? RQ2 -Are systems and processes integration drivers of business value? RQ3 -Do systems and processes integration work as moderators of ERP and CRM systems in business value creation?
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we provide a literature review on ERP and CRM business value, followed by an overview of RBV theory of the firm that underpins our research model. In Section 3 we present the proposed research model and hypotheses. In Section 4 we explain the research methodology and operationalize the variables.
Section 5 has the results and analysis. In Section 6 we discuss the results, present the managerial implications, contributions, limitations, and directions for future work. In the last section we present the concluding remarks.

Literature review
The purpose of this section is to position our literature review with regard to existing knowledge about the ERP and CRM value. More precisely, we first review the three streams of published studies that build our knowledge: (1) The ERP business value, (2) the CRM business value, and (3) the role of systems and process integration on business value. Then we set the RBV theory of the firm as the theoretical framework for linking the ERP and CRM to business value.
However, several researchers have expressed concerns about the lack of research on the combination of IT resources such as CRM with ERP systems that deliver most business value (Mithas et al., 2011, Aral et al., 2005, Aral and Weill, 2007, Liu et al., 2013, Alshawi et al., 2011, Chen and Popovich, 2003, Hendricks et al., 2007.

The role of systems and process integration on business value
According to several researchers (Rai et al., 2006, Hsu, 2013b, Barki and Pinsonneault, 2005, Ranganathan and Brown, 2006, the benefits of IT integration of business applications such as ERP and CRM can be attained on two levels: systems integration and process integration.
Systems integration refers to the degree of linkages between different computer-based information systems and databases. It is the process of linking together different software applications such as the ERP and CRM to work in a coordinated manner (Melville et al., 2004, Liu et al., 2013, Francalanci and Morabito, 2008. The business value of systems integration is data quality and data integration. Firms can work more intelligently with data because it eliminates double data entry, increases data accuracy, and data become visible across the firm (Ram et al., 2013, Hsu, 2013b, Bharadwaj et al., 2007, Laframboise and Reyes, 2005.
Process integration represents the extent to which the business processes of two departments are tightly coordinated and standardized through the firm's information system (Barki and Pinsonneault, 2005, Chen and Popovich, 2003, Francalanci and Morabito, 2008. The business value of ERP and CRM process integration is that integrated myriad business processes save time and expense. Firms can then make decisions more quickly with fewer errors and greater  (Samaranayake, 2009, Narayanan et al., 2011; more precisely, automate common business processes such as contact and account integration, product integration, order and quote management, and order/invoice tracking (Roh and Hong, 2015, Nguyen and Mutum, 2012, Osarenkhoe and Bennani, 2007.
Systems integration is a prerequisite and facilitator of business process integration. However, two departments or subsidiaries might both achieve a high level of system integration, but their process integration level might vary due to a reluctance to share information (Chen and Popovich, 2003, Hsu, 2013b, Rai et al., 2006. Literature suggests that it is only when system and process integration are measured in conjunction with a firm's IT resources that these will have a positive impact on business value (Rai et al., 2006, Ranganathan and Brown, 2006, Dong and Zhu, 2008, Boulding et al., 2005, Hendricks et al., 2007, Hsu, 2013b.

The RBV and business value
A potential framework for extending the theoretical basis of IT value is the Resource-Based View (RBV) of the firm, which is rooted in economics and management rationales (Melville et al., 2004). When the firm resources are valuable, non-imitable, and non-substitutable, they can explain the differences in business value (Rhodes et al., 2009, Zhu andKraemer, 2005). The RBV has been used in the IS literature to explain IT business value, in which firm-specific sets of resources determine the firm's performance (Zhu and Kraemer, 2005, Uwizeyemungu and Raymond, 2012, Ruivo et al., 2012, Ruivo et al., 2015. Some researchers have emphasized that an IT resource, such as ERP, is likely to affect business value only when it is deployed to create unique integrative complementarities with other IT resources, such as CRM systems (Rai et al., 2006, Wade andHulland, 2004). Integrative complementarity represents the enhancement of resource value, because a resource produces greater returns when integrated with another resource, than by itself (Wade and Hulland, 2004, Melville et al., 2004, King and Burgess, 2008.
Although business components such as ERP and CRM systems that go into the firm's infrastructure are commodities-like, the process of integrating these components makes a firmspecific system difficult to be substituted and understood by competitors (Bharadwaj, 2000, Zhu and Kraemer, 2005, King and Burgess, 2008.
Upon review of earlier research streams, we conclude that while the reported studies have expanded the business value of ERP and CRM understanding, the results look at these systems only separately. No study was found that assesses the joint value of ERP and CRM grounded in the RBV theory. The present study uses the RBV as a frame of reference to develop a theoretical model to understand the extent to which ERP and CRM integration contributes to business value. We next define the model variables and hypotheses.

Research model and hypotheses
Focusing on the process-oriented view about the business value creation of IT (Zhu andKraemer, 2005, Picoto et al., 2014), we advance the above stream and develop a research model to understand the impact of ERP and CRM systems moderated by system and process integration on business value. Our research model is illustrated in Figure 1.
<Insert Figure 1 here> We theorize that "Business value" is driven by four antecedent variables: ERP system, CRM systems, system integration, and process integration, and that it is moderated by two variables: system integration and process integration. These variables are hypothesized to measure the impact of ERP and CRM integration on business value. Business value is a second-order variable of three dimensions: impact on operations, impact on procurement, and impact on sales, which are grounded in the value chain analysis that has been broadly used in the IS literature to study the business value of IT (Zhu andKraemer, 2005, Picoto et al., 2014). We next present the hypotheses of the model.

Hypotheses for direct relationships
Taking into consideration the theoretical background presented above, whereas ERP systems focus on internal process and are expected to affect a firm's internal operations by decreasing internal costs (Gattiker and Goodhue, 2005), CRM systems focus on external, intra-firm process efficiency and effectiveness by decreasing coordination costs and reaping the benefits of customer relationships (Goodhue et al., 2002). In this line we postulate the following: H1: Firms with greater ERP system functionality are more likely to generate higher business value.
H2: Firms with greater CRM system functionality are more likely to generate higher business value.
Integrating ERP and CRM might be a technically complex process. An ERP system generally embodies firm's business logic, in which the routines, rules, and procedures such as procurement, fulfilment, and approvals are made over electronic transactions that are expanded and enhanced when technically tied with other systems (Hsu, 2013b, Gattiker andGoodhue, 2005). CRM functions must generally adapt to the business logic, and therefore a successful integration between ERP and CRM systems is considered to be valuable, heterogeneously  (Gattiker and Goodhue, 2005, Goodhue et al., 2002, Liu et al., 2013. In this line we postulate the following: H3a: Firms with greater system integration are more likely to generate higher business value.
H4a: Firms with greater process integration are more likely to generate higher business value.

Hypotheses for moderator relationships
Several earlier studies consider that moderating relationships best explain the IT integration value (Liu et al., 2013, Melville et al., 2004, Boulding et al., 2005. In addition to incorporating whether ERP and CRM are integrated into the entire value chain (as proxy) we also consider that there are two moderators that will reinforce the positive relationship between ERP and CRM systems and the business value of the firm's information system: system integration and process integration. Whereas system integration is the IT component that creates the correct links between different information systems and databases, process integration is the extent to which the business processes of the two systems are tightly linked and standardized into what could be described as a single information system. Given that ERP and CRM are strategic initiatives that involve both business and IT, their impact on a business value should also be examined in the systems and business process settings in which the firm operates specifically, because it is a richer field in which to build competitive advantages, which is consistent with RBV rationales. Hence, we postulate the following four hypotheses: H3b: System integration moderates the relationships of ERP system on business value, such that it is stronger amongst the firms with high system integration level.
H3c: System integration moderates the relationships of CRM system on business value, such that it is stronger amongst the firms with high system integration level.

H4b: Process integration moderates the relationships of ERP system on business value, such that it is
stronger amongst the firms with high process integration level.

H4c: Process integration moderates the relationships of CRM system on business value, such that it
is stronger amongst the firms with high process integration level.

Research methodology
To test our research model a survey instrument was designed to collect data on each of the variables in the model.

Data
In accordance with Zhu and Kraemer (2005), theory development usually progresses to empirical testing, and hence a questionnaire was designed to investigate the ERP and CRM business value (see Appendix). A web-based survey was developed from the literature by choosing appropriate items. A group of five established academic researchers reviewed the instrument for content validity (Venkatesh et al., 2012). The initial questionnaire was pilot tested in 50 firms, randomly selected from Microsoft database using both ERP and CRM systems, in Lisbon area (15) and Madrid area (35), to assess any item's difficulty or ambiguity and to test the reliability and validity of the scales. The 30 firms that responded (11 from Lisbon and 19 from Madrid) were contacted for a telephone interview to ask for their opinions on the questionnaire and to identify any items that they found to be confusing or ambiguous. Some items were revised for clarity. This phase provided preliminary evidence on the reliability and validity of the scales.
In accordance with Hwang (2005), a socio-technical approach of enterprise systems involves the integration of business process and technical aspects such as systems integration to overcome uncertainty. Moreover, Hofstede's (2001) cultural dimensions study concluded that Portugal and Spain (composing the Iberian region) are the countries with the highest uncertainty avoidance rate. We therefore selected these two countries as a proxy (Leidner and Kayworth, 2006). It should be noted that the goal of studying these two countries was to understand the relationships of the proposed model. Careful attention was given to ensure the validity and reliability of the findings. That is, the sample was carefully and systematically identified; primary data were used; pilot-test was developed prior to the web-survey; data were stratified by industry area and firm size, and collected and stored in a systematic manner; and the results were revised, verified, and analysed with advanced statistics (Zhu and Kraemer, 2005). Our future research will be to test the model for firms in different areas and from different countries.
Firms eligible for inclusion in the study were selected from Microsoft database. After filtering by country (Portugal and Spain) and using both ERP and CRM systems in their daily business activities, we obtained a final list with 400 firms. 150 firms from Portugal and 250 from Spain received the web-survey in September 2015 from Microsoft. In order to increase content validity and response rate, we indicated that the respondents should be individuals with ERP and CRM knowledge within the firms, and we offered to share the results of the research to improve the response rate and increase content validity. To the non-respondents a follow up email was sent three weeks after the first e-mail. 125 valid responses were returned (93 early and 32 later), resulting in a response rate of 31.25%. To test non-response bias we compared early and late respondents groups based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test and found no 10 statistically significant differences between the two groups (Ryans, 1974). We used Harman's one-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) to examine the common method bias, showing that the first factor explains 37.6% of the variance. This means that none of the factors explain the majority of the variance. To ensure the generalization of the survey results, the sampling was stratified by firm size, by industry type (financial services, retail, manufacturing, professionalservices, information technology, and utilities), and by ERP and CRM system's vendor. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the sample and of the respondents, such as industry and role, which indicate that they were qualified to speak about the firm's ERP and CRM value, suggesting the good quality of the data.

Operationalization of the variables
The variables and measurement items were adapted from previously validated measures or developed on the basis of the literature review discussed in the previous section. Respondents were asked to rate their perceptions. The variables were measured on a five-point quantitative scale, in which 1 means "low" and 5 "high".
The ERP system variable is operationalized as the extent to which ERP is being used to conduct the firm's value-chain based activities. It refers to the scope of ERP system modules a firm uses in daily business activities. The way we measure this variable is similar to that in earlier studies (Ranganathan and Brown, 2006). More precisely, this variable was measured through three item-questions that assess the extent to which a firm uses ERP financial module, supply chain module, and manufacturing module.
The CRM system variable is operationalized as the extent to which CRM is being used to conduct the firm's customer-oriented based activities. It refers to the scope of CRM system modules a firm uses in daily business activities. The way we measure this variable is similar to that in earlier studies (Payne and Frow, 2005). More precisely, this variable was measured through three item-questions that assess the extent to which firms use CRM marketing module, sales module, and service module.
The System integration variable is operationalized as the extent to which different information systems are interconnected and can communicate with one another. It refers to the extent to which information systems are technically integrated along the value-chain and customeroriented based activities. The way we measure this variable is similar to that in earlier studies (Barki and Pinsonneault, 2005). More precisely, this variable was measured through three item- questions that assess the extent to which a firm's ERP system is integrated with the firm's CRM system and business partner's IS, and by the extent to which the firm's CRM is accessible by the firm's business partners via web or other electronic networks.
The Process integration variable is operationalized as the extent to which operational information is shared between the firm's departments or locations. It refers to the extent to which decision making processes are based on real-time information throughout the value-chain and customer-oriented based activities. The way we measure this variable is similar to that in earlier studies (Rai et al., 2006). More precisely, this variable was measured through three itemquestions that assess the extent to which a firm shares inventory levels and product information across departments or locations, and shares demand and forecasting information across departments or locations.
The Business value variable is operationalized as a second-order construct manifested by three business value dimensions, as defined with regard to the arguments made above. The way we measure this variable is similar to that in earlier studies, whereby such a second-order approach represents a theoretically strong basis for capturing complex measures (Zhu and Kraemer, 2005). More precisely, this variable was measured through six item-questions grouped into three dimensions that assess the impact on internal operations (decreased internal operations costs and improved on-time delivery), impact on procurement (decreased inventory and procurement costs), and impact on sales (improved sales, and customer service and support).

Control variables
Earlier studies suggest that ancillary factors can influence ERP and CRM business value. Firm size is used as a proxy for the resource base of the organization that may influence the firm's integrative information systems value and business value (Elbashir et al., 2013). Time since both systems were integrated was included to measure the knowledge and experience that organizations obtain from working over time (Elbashir et al., 2013). IT related infrastructure sophistication assesses the differences in both generic and specialized systems that may affect the integrative value and also performance (Elbashir et al., 2013). Hence, we use three controls: firm size, time since integration, and IT infrastructure sophistication.

Results and analyses
In the next two sub-sections we analyse the instrument validation (measurement model and the structural model). As none of the items in our data are normally distributed (p<0.01 based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test), the partial least squares (PLS) is the appropriate method to use to estimate the research model (Chin, 1998, Henseler et al., 2009. We used SmartPLS 2.0 (Ringle et al., 2005) software to analyse the models.

Measurement model
In our model we have reflective constructs. In the context of PLS the measurement model for the reflective constructs should be evaluated based on indicator reliability, construct reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2009). 1) The indicator reliability is the absolute standardized loadings. This indicator was evaluated based on the criteria that the loadings should be greater than 0.7 and that every loading less than 0.4 should be eliminated (Henseler et al., 2009, Chin, 1998. The items are reported in Table 2, where it is seen that the loadings are greater than 0.7, with the exception of two (CRM2 and ERP1), which are lower than 0.7 but greater than 0.4. Hence, no items in the table were eliminated. All the items are statistically significant at 0.001. Overall, the instrument presents good indicator reliability. 2) Construct reliability was measured based on the composite reliability (CR) and values higher than 0.7 can be regarded as satisfactory. Table 2 shows that the CR for each variable is above the cut-off of 0.7 (Chin, 1998, Henseler et al., 2009. 3) Average variance extracted (AVE) was used as the criterion to test convergent validity. The AVE should be higher than 0.5, so that the latent variable explains more than half of the variance of its indicators (Henseler et al., 2009, Fornell and Larcker, 1981, Hair et al., 2012. Table 2 shows that the AVE for each variable is above the cut-off of 0.5 (Chin, 1998).
<Insert 13 procurement, and impact on sales). This was to be expected since "business value" corresponds to a second-order construct of "impact on operations", "impact on procurement", and "impact on sales". The second criterion ensures that the loadings of each indicator are greater than all cross-loadings (Chin, 1998). The Table with loadings and cross-loadings is available from the authors on request.
<Insert Table 3 here> Our model has good indicator reliability, construct reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Thus, variables developed using this measurement model can be used to assess the structural model.

Structural model and hypothesis testing
The structural model was assessed by examining the R² and the level of significance of the path coefficients. The research model explains 58.7% of the business value variation, which is considered substantial (Chin, 1998). Therefore, we believe that the variables model significantly explains data variations for integrative value and its underlying business value dimensions. The significance of the path coefficients was derived from bootstrapping (5000 resamples) (Chin, 1998). Figure 2 shows the model results and path coefficients. Therefore, only H1 is supported. System integration has a positive and significant impact on business value (0.346***) and process integration shows a positive impact but is not statistically significant (0.173). Hence, only H3a is supported.
The moderation effect of system integration on both ERP system and CRM system are not statistically significant, and hence H3b and H3c are not supported. Although the moderation effect of process integration shows a positive and significant effect on CRM system (0.196*), it is not statistically significant on ERP system (0.029). As a result, only H4b is supported.
In short, H1 (ERP system), H3a (system integration), and H4b (the process integration moderator of the CRM systems on business value) are supported. H2 (CRM system), H3b (the system integration moderator of the ERP system on business value), H3c (the system integration 14 moderator of the CRM system on business value), H4a (process integration), and H4c (the process integration moderator of the CRM system on business value) are not supported.

Discussion
The empirical results demonstrate two major findings: i) ERP systems by themselves are still considered an important asset to business value, while CRM systems' impact on business value is shown to be not significant, even if positive; and ii) system integration as moderator of ERP or CRM system is shown to be not significant but has a positive and significant impact on business value. For process integration, we conclude that it is significant only when moderating the CRM system variable.
Our results show that ERP systems, even if considered as standardized and a commodity in earlier literature (Hsu, 2013a), are still found to be valuable to companies and key contributors to business value. ERP systems support critical parts of firms' value chains, operations, procurement, and sales processes, and therefore have a great impact on business value. Earlier IT and ERP literature (Hsu, 2013b, May et al., 2013 also indicates that the mere adoption of these kinds of systems does not guarantee business value gains, and at the same time RBV says that a resource is more likely to generate value when not widely used (Hsu, 2013a), which is the case of ERP systems (usage for several years and dependence on software vendors for configuration and functionalities). Nevertheless, we have concluded that ERP systems are critical and encompass core processes of companies to the point that, where correctly implemented, they may have specificities to each firm that are difficult to imitate and contribute to competitive advantage and business value.
On the other hand, CRM system shows positive but non-significant impact on business value.
Enterprise softwares such as CRM systems, as delivered by software vendors, contain out-ofthe-box functionalities that are widely used without the need for configuration or customization (Ruivo et al., 2015). According to RBV, these can be seen as easy to imitate and therefore less important for competitive advantage or business value, which falls into line with our findings.
The moderator effect of process integration shows that CRM systems can become more impactful on business value when well integrated with firms' business processes (Chang et al., 2014). While in this study we could not conclude that CRM system is core in business value creation, CRM should always be seen as a business strategy that affects technology, but also people, and more importantly business processes.  (Hsu, 2013b) since technology can be easily imitated but not the knowledge and transformation needed to integrate systems and streamline business processes.
Our results show that the system integration moderation effect in both ERP and CRM systems is not significant, but nevertheless proved to be significant to business value. One conclusion we can take from this result is that there might be other systems besides ERP and CRM contributing to business value, such as e-commerce systems, internal line of business applications, partner and supplier systems, etc.
Process integration, on the other hand, is not significantly affecting business value, but has a positive and significant contribution in the moderation of the CRM system variable. Therefore, and in line with literature (Liu et al., 2013, Alshawi et al., 2011, CRM is a business strategy that affects technology, people, and also business processes, and our results show that CRM system will in fact have a greater impact on business value when deeply integrated into firms' business processes.

Managerial implication
We make four fundamental managerial recommendations with this study: i) Firstly, the results imply that firms can create business value by developing a joint software system consisting of ERP and CRM. More precisely, results show that firms with greater levels of system integration are generating higher business value. This implies that managers should define as a strategy the integration of disconnected systems such as CRM and ERP to achieve higher value. This points to the importance of moving beyond individual systems value creation. ii) Secondly, our results showing the significant value implication of ERP on business value but not significant for CRM, imply that ERP systems per se create higher business value even when coupled with a CRM system. This implies that managers should first focus on making sure that the firm's ERP systems are well implemented and configured and then couple CRM and other systems. In doing this, the value of ERP is amplified (Hsu, 2013b, Pedron et al., 2016. iii) Thirdly, our results show that when CRM and ERP are simply technically integrated, CRM does not create high business value. CRM creates greater business value when processes are integrated with ERP and other systems. This points to the importance of broader IT system integration when coupling systems. Instead of accumulating functional modules within a software system and having the systems technically integrated, both IT and functional managers need to take into consideration processes integration between systems. Managers should blur the lines between CRM and ERP systems by also pushing ERP information to the frontline CRM, shifting from unidirectional to bidirectional data-flow between systems. If firm's sales, service, and other frontline departments have fingertip access to select ERP information in their CRM system, they

Contributions to theory
This study extends the literature in four ways: i) we include the integration of CRM and ERP applications in the analysis of value creation, ii) we include system and processes integration to explain business value, iii) we investigate how system and process integration moderates the ERP and CRM system to explain business value, and iv) we examine the link between information system value and business value. There is earlier literature and theory around the value created by ERP and CRM systems but it is very limited when it comes to addressing the importance and benefits of using ERP and CRM systems integrated and as important contributors to business value. As our model was based on the RBV theory, we also addressed the moderating effect of system and process integration, since these are two very specific firm capabilities that may create competitive advantage and also contribute to business value.

Limitations and future work
One of the limitations of our research has to do with the sample size and variety. We targeted 400 firms in Portugal and Spain with the questionnaire and received 125 valid responses. Future work will be to assess the model's variables relationships with a larger sample by, for example, expanding it to other countries and comparing the results. With this study we have not made any industry-specific analysis, even though we analysed the industries of the respondents. The use of ERP and CRM systems and also their integration with systems and processes might differ from one industry to another, as for example in the modules of ERP and CRM typically used.
Our results show that CRM system is still not seen as critical to business value. According to literature (Liu et al., 2013), CRM systems are proved to be adopted by companies in markets in which products are more differentiated or in which entry costs are lower, and that at the same time it should be seen as a business strategy that affects not only technology but also people and processes (Liu et al., 2013, Alshawi et al., 2011, Chang et al., 2014. This means that our sample and analysis might have been affected by i) the role of the person responding (we had ca. 25% IT/IS Managers), and/or ii) the market, strategy, or type of business of the companies targeted.

Concluding remarks
Our work focused on measuring the impact of ERP and CRM systems, as well as the moderating effect of system and process integration on business value. For that, we developed a research model based on RBV theory. To test the proposed model, data were collected by Microsoft. 125 valid responses from the Iberian Region (Portugal and Spain) were used to test the conceptual model. According to the results and their significance, we propose that companies continue to implement ERP systems in order to create business value but at the same time not neglect the importance that the integration between those ERP systems and the broader IT infrastructure might bring to their business value. Our results show that ERP systems still have a direct impact on business value by themselves, so they should be kept as a priority to companies. Moreover, firms should take into consideration the integration between business processes and CRM systems, as this will definitely impact the business value extracted from these systems. CRM systems need to be part of a broad set of business processes and not just another software package in which data are stored but without effect on business processes or decision-making.

Appendix -Item measurements
Using a five-point scale, where 1 means 'low' and 5 'high', please rate the extent to which: CRM1 -your firm uses Sales module CRM2 -your firm uses Marketing module CRM3 -your firm uses Service module (Payne and Frow, 2005) System Integration Using a five-point scale, where 1 means 'low' and 5 'high', please rate the extent to which: SYI1 -your ERP is integrated with your CRM system (Barki and Pinsonneault, 2005) SYI2 -your ERP system is integrated with your business partner's IS SYI3 -your CRM is accessible by your business partner via web or other electronic networks

Process Integration
Using a five-point scale, where 1 means 'low' and 5 'high', please rate the extent to which: PRI1 -your firm shares inventory levels across departments or locations PRI2 -your firm shares product information across departments or locations PRI3 -your firm shares demand and forecasting information across departments or locations (Rai et al., 2006) Business Value (impact on firm performance) Using a five-point scale, where 1 means" increased a lot" and 5-"decreased a lot", please rate the extent to which the following have increased, decreased, or stayed the same in your firm as a result of using integration of ERP with CRM: ( Reviewer 1:

Reviewer:
Comments: It is suggested that the paper be proofread again, after making minor corrections as required.

Authors comment:
The authors re-worked the paper with a native English professional proofreader.

Reviewer:
Additional Questions: <b>1. Originality: </b> Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes Authors comment: The authors are grateful for the reviewer's acknowledgment that the paper is adequate to justify publication.

Reviewer:
<b>2. Relationship to Literature: </b> Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: Yes, the paper demonstrates an adequate undertanding of relevant literature in the field.

Authors comment:
The authors are grateful for the reviewer's acknowledgment that the paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of relevant literature in the field.

Reviewer:
<b>3. Methodology: </b>Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: Research methodology is relevant and appropriate.

Authors comment:
The authors are grateful for the reviewer's acknowledgment that the paper's methodology is relevant and appropriate.

Reviewer:
<b>4. Results: </b>Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Overall presentation is improved.

Authors comment:
The authors are grateful for the reviewer's acknowledgment of the overall results presentation improvement.

Reviewer:
<b>5. Implications for research, practice and/or society </b>Does the paper identify clearly between any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60   I  n  d  u  s  t  r  i a l M a n a g e m e n t & D a t a S y s t e m s 2 paper?: All are improved. However, one of the fundamental aspects not covered in the managerial implication is level of integration and its association with ERP and CRM systems, when impacting on the business value.
Authors comment: The authors acknowledge the reviewer's claim and enhance the first and third implications to managers in subsection "6.3. Managerial implication": "We make four fundamental managerial recommendations with this study: i) Firstly, the results imply that firms can create business value by developing a joint software system consisting of ERP and CRM. More precisely, results show that firms with greater levels of system integration are generating higher business value. This implies that managers should define as a strategy the integration of disconnected systems such as CRM and ERP to achieve higher value. This points to the importance of moving beyond individual systems value creation. ii) Secondly, our results showing the significant value implication of ERP on business value but not significant for CRM, imply that ERP systems per se create higher business value even when coupled with a CRM system. This implies that managers should first focus on making sure that the firm's ERP systems are well implemented and configured and then couple CRM and other systems. In doing this, the value of ERP is amplified (Hsu, 2013b, Pedron et al., 2016. iii) Thirdly, our results show that when CRM and ERP are simply technically integrated, CRM does not create high business value. CRM creates greater business value when processes are integrated with ERP and other systems. This points to the importance of broader IT system integration when coupling systems. Instead of accumulating functional modules within a software system and having the systems technically integrated, both IT and functional managers need to take into consideration processes integration between systems. Managers should blur the lines between CRM and ERP systems by also pushing ERP information to the frontline CRM, shifting from unidirectional to bidirectional data-flow between systems. If firm's sales, service, and other frontline departments have fingertip access to select ERP information in their CRM system, they can immediately address customer questions about product availability or review the status of credit checks for new customers without wasting time emailing or chasing their finance team."

Reviewer:
<b>6. Quality of Communication: </b> Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Improved. However, there are still some issues associated with communication. For example, "Adopting a CRM system calls for Process integration" as part of practical implications does not seem to provide a clear message and not connected with the content presented in the body.

Authors comment:
The authors acknowledge the reviewer's concerns and we went through the paper to address the issues associated with communication. We also reworked the statement in accordance with the content presented in the paper's body: Practical implications -Adopting an ERP system and ensuring System integration provides a direct impact on business value. Adopting a CRM system calls for Process integration. In order for a CRM system to have a positive impact on business value, Process integration with ERP system must be ensured. 1. The quality of literature review has been improved. After the redesign, the literature review section is comprehensive with a clear structure and includes more relevant literature. It now focuses on the value of ERP system and CRM system and the integration of two systems. With these improvement, this section is logically designed and provides a good theoretical background.
Authors comment: The authors are grateful for the reviewer's acknowledgment of the literature review's section improvement.

Reviewer:
2. The data section is now stated more clearly. However, some discussion is still not strong enough. For example, the authors stated that they chose companies from Portugal and Spain because they are the countries with the highest uncertainty, but it does not convince me that this study can stand for firms in different areas and from different countries.