Tools without skills: Exploring the moderating effect of absorptive capacity on the relationship between e‐purchasing tools and category performance
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: The paper examines the moderating role of a purchasing function's absorptive capacity (AC) on the relationship between the use of electronic purchasing tools and category level purchasing performance. The authors argue that an e‐purchasing tool may not in itself positively influence performance unless combined with AC as a human interface to maximise its information and transactional improvement potential. Design/methodology/approach: Survey data collected from 297 procurement executives of large companies in ten countries are analysed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and hierarchical moderated regression. Findings: The results demonstrate few significant direct effects of e‐purchasing tools on category performance. All performance measures studied are enhanced when dimensions of AC and their interactions with the e‐purchasing tools are added. Specifically, buyer competence, manager competence and communications climate have performance‐enhancing effects. In some cases, AC on its own appears to increase performance more than e‐tools. Originality/value: This paper is the first to study the moderating effects of AC on the relationship between e‐purchasing tool usage and category performance. Its findings support the view that simply implementing technology does not lead to performance improvements, but that a human interface is required to maximise the information and transactional improvement potential of e‐purchasing tools.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
This explanatory power compares well with other eSCM studies.
“This explanatory power compares well with other eSCM studies (See for example, Kauppi et al., 2013; Martínez-Caro and Cegarra-Navarro, 2009; Wiengarten et al., 2013).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Kauppi et al., 2013
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194 · see citing works
Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250983 · Cited by 5,042 · see citing works
Impact of e-procurement: Experiences from implementation in the UK public sector
Croom, S., & Brandon-Jones, A. (2007) · Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management · doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2007.09.015 · Cited by 239 · cited 5× · see citing works
“electronic workflow (Yen and Ng, 2003), order tracking (Barnes and Vidgen, 2002) and document and contract management (Croom, 2000; Croom and Brandon-Jones, 2007).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationKey issues in e-procurement: Procurement implementation and operation in the public sector
Croom, S. R., & Brandon-Jones, A. (2005) · Journal of Public Procurement · doi:10.1108/jopp-05-03-2005-b004 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Self-citationJeffers, P. I. (2010) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/01443571011024629 · Cited by 85 · 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-citation
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-citationPositive 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
- Kauppi, K., Brandon‐Jones, A., Ronchi, S., & van Raaij, E. M.
- Affiliations
- Aalto University (FI)
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Politecnico di Milano (IT)
- Venue
- International Journal of Operations & Production Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2013-06-14
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 828-857
- ISSN
- 0144-3577 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2009308332
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 7.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Operations & Production Management (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
- Pure (University of Bath) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- The University of Bath Online Publications Store (The University of Bath) (submittedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Quality and Supply Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Outsourcing and Supply Chain Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Public Procurement and Policy
- Keywords
- e-procurement, absorptive capacity, managerial competencies, moderating effect, purchasing function
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