CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 58Technology Adoption and User BehaviourQuality and Supply ManagementPublic Procurement and Policy

The impact of user‐perceived e‐procurement quality on system and contract compliance

Open access
Brandon‐Jones, Alistair, Carey, Sinéad·2011·International Journal of Operations & Production Management
DOI 10.1108/01443571111111928
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: Whilst e‐procurement has significant potential to reduce the purchasing costs of an organisation, the realisation of these savings requires user compliance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which user‐perceived e‐procurement quality (EPQ) (operationalised through the dimensions of professionalism, processing, training, specification, content, and usability) influences both system and contract compliance. Design/methodology/approach: User perceptions of EPQ were examined in four UK organisations using survey data from 274 respondents. Findings: Strong evidence was found of a positive relationship between user‐perceived EPQ and both system and contract compliance. System compliance was most strongly influenced by professionalism and content dimensions, whilst contract compliance was most strongly influenced by processing, specification, and content dimensions. Research limitations/implications: Data were collected from e‐procurement users in four organisations, which may limit the extent to which findings can be generalised. Practical implications: User perceptions of e‐procurement provision significantly influence system and contract adoption. Practitioners should pay attention to management of different dimensions of perceived quality as they may have different effects on both contract and system compliance. Originality/value: This paper is the first to empirically assess the relationship between user‐perceived EPQ and compliance. Its findings challenge the assumption that the monopolistic dynamics common within internal services, such as e‐procurement provision, are sufficient to ensure compliance. Dissatisfied individuals invariably find ways to circumvent mandatory systems and contracts.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/01443571111111928

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • To generate performance improvements from a new technology, the organisational-level adoption decision made by senior managers must be followed by individual employee level user acceptance of the adopted technology.

    “To generate performance improvements from a new technology, the organisational-level adoption decision made by senior managers must be followed by individual employee level user acceptance of the adopted technology (Au et al., 2008; Brandon-Jones and Carey, 2011; Chan et al. 2012; Karjalainen and van Raaij, 2011; Rai and Hornyak, 2013).”

    From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Brandon-Jones and Carey, 2011

    The Abstract says that realizing e-procurement cost savings requires user compliance, and that dissatisfied individuals can circumvent mandatory systems and contracts. This supports the need for individual use beyond organisational adoption, but the paper’s evidence concerns e-procurement; our copy does not establish the claim for new technology generally or specify an adoption decision made by senior managers. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 89 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Brandon‐Jones, A., & Carey, S.
Affiliations
University of Bath (GB)
ORCID
Brandon‐Jones, Alistair
Venue
International Journal of Operations & Production Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2011-02-22
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
274-296
ISSN
0144-3577 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/01443571111111928
OpenAlex
W2026623490
Cited by
58
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
12.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Operations & Production Management (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Pure (University of Bath) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • The University of Bath Online Publications Store (The University of Bath) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Quality and Supply Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Public Procurement and Policy
Keywords
e-procurement, perceived quality, system compliance, contract compliance, user compliance, professionalism, usability, e-procurement adoption, internal services

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review