E-procurement quality from an internal customer perspective: Construct development, refinement, and replication using a mixed-methods approach
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: Despite significant investment in e-procurement by many organisations, perceived failings in the quality of such technologies and of the support provided to use them – termed here e-procurement quality – continue to generate resistance from internal customers who must assimilate e-procurement into their daily routines. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to advance the understanding of e-procurement quality from an internal customer perspective and to develop, refine, and validate construct measures. Design/methodology/approach: Research was undertaken in the UK and the Netherlands incorporating a literature review, a qualitative study with 58 interviews, a quantitative study with 274 survey respondents, and a replication study with 154 survey respondents. Findings: Analysis reveals that e-procurement quality comprises five universally applicable dimensions: processing, content, usability, professionalism, and training. A sixth dimension, specification, appears to be applicable, but context specific. Originality/value: The study represents one of the most extensive investigations of e-procurement quality to date and is the first to examine its underlying dimensional structure. The multi-item scales developed and validated using a mixed-methods process are suitable for theory building and testing, as well as providing useful diagnostic value to practitioners.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Despite e-procurement technology being mandated in many organisations, individual acceptance and compliance is often extremely hard to force.
“Despite the fact that e-procurement technology is now mandated in many organisations, individual acceptance and compliance is often extremely hard to force, with dissatisfied users typically finding ways to circumvent mandated procurement processes (Brandon-Jones, 2017; Karjalainen et al. 2009; Kauppi and van Raaij, 2015; Pearcy and Giunipero, 2008; Reunis et al. 2006).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Brandon-Jones, 2017
The passages available from our copy are bibliographic metadata, not the paper’s substantive discussion. Searches for mandated adoption, user compliance, and circumvention found no passage addressing whether acceptance is difficult to force or dissatisfied users bypass procurement processes. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredDissatisfied users of mandated e-procurement typically find ways to circumvent mandated procurement processes.
“Despite the fact that e-procurement technology is now mandated in many organisations, individual acceptance and compliance is often extremely hard to force, with dissatisfied users typically finding ways to circumvent mandated procurement processes (Brandon-Jones, 2017; Karjalainen et al. 2009; Kauppi and van Raaij, 2015; Pearcy and Giunipero, 2008; Reunis et al. 2006).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Brandon-Jones, 2017
The supplied passages are bibliographic records for the paper, not passages about user behaviour. Searches of the indexed copy for mandated use, dissatisfaction, compliance, and circumvention found no passage saying that dissatisfied users typically bypass procurement processes. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe measurement of latent variables used multiple items based on previously published scales.
“For the measurement of the latent variables in the model, we used multiple items based on previously published scales.”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Brandon-Jones (2017)
The available passages from the indexed copy are bibliographic metadata, including the paper’s title, rather than a measurement-methods section. Searches for latent variables, multiple items, and previously published scales found no passage establishing the attributed measurement approach. (LLM, conf=0.70)
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
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483 · see citing works
A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs
Churchill, G. A. (1979) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224377901600110 · Cited by 16,549 · see citing works
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/hebz/9780198869443.001.0001 · Cited by 10,965 · see citing works
A Review of Scale Development Practices in the Study of Organizations
Hinkin, T. R. (1995) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639502100509 · Cited by 3,193 · see citing works
Chiu, C., Wang, E. T. G., Fang, Y., & Huang, H. (2014) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2012.00407.x · Cited by 1,332 · see citing works
Jeffers, P. I. (2010) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/01443571011024629 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Critical success factors for B2B e‐commerce use within the UK NHS pharmaceutical supply chain
Cullen, A. J., & Taylor, M. (2009) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/01443570911000177 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
The impact of user‐perceived e‐procurement quality on system and contract compliance
Brandon‐Jones, A., & Carey, S. (2011) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/01443571111111928 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Self-citationA contextual analysis of the impact of strategic sourcing and E-procurement on performance
Kim, M., Suresh, N. C., & Kocabasoglu-Hillmer, C. (2015) · Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing · doi:10.1108/jbim-01-2012-0010 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Institutional responses to electronic procurement in the public sector
Doherty, N. F., McConnell, D. J., & Ellis‐Chadwick, F. (2013) · International Journal of Public Sector Management · doi:10.1108/ijpsm-04-2012-0048 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement
Brandon-Jones, A., & Kauppi, K. (2018) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/ijopm-06-2015-0346 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
Self-citationModerating role of top management support in electronic procurement usage of Jordanian firms
Marei, A., Daoud, L., Ibrahim, M., & Al-Jabaly, S. M. (2021) · Management Science Letters · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2020.11.027 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Positive and negative impacts of the adoption of e-procurement solutions: the Italian market case
Belisari, S., Appolloni, A., & Cerruti, C. (2019) · International Journal of Procurement Management · doi:10.1504/ijpm.2019.098553 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
- Authors
- Brandon-Jones, A.
- Venue
- International Journal of Operations & Production Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2017-12-04
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1741-1772
- ISSN
- 0144-3577 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2611952303
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 4.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Operations & Production Management (publishedVersion)
- Pure (University of Bath) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Quality and Supply Management
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Public Procurement and Policy
- Keywords
- e-procurement, internal customers, user resistance, usability, professionalism, training, specifications, dimensional structure, scale development, construct validation, technology adoption
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
