Cited by 70Technology Adoption and User BehaviourE-Government and Public ServicesPublic Procurement and Policy

Factors influencing Malaysian small and medium enterprises adoption of electronic government procurement

Soong, Kai-Kit, Ahmed, Elsadig Musa, Tan, Khong Sin·2020·Journal of Public Procurement

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to examine Malaysian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) Adoption of electronic government procurement (EGP) in the post-introduction phase as the portal was introduced in the early year 2000. Design/methodology/approach This study integrated electronic public services into two acceptance theories (the technology acceptance model [TAM] and unified theory of acceptance and use of technology [UTAUT] framework) and having a direct measurement of the criterion. Both TAM and UTAUT models measure the behaviour intention to use and indirectly measure the criterion of actual usage along with behavioural intention. Besides, this study conducted a systematic sampling survey in SMEs located in Klang Valley (the business hub in Malaysia). Findings The results confirm that effort expectancy, performance expectancy and social influences had a direct effect on the adoption of EGP in the private sector. Rather than the original UTAUT setup, the behavioural intention would influence user behaviour. Social implications The implications and policy recommendations of these findings will be used by both SMEs and the government to improve the EGP delivery. Originality/value The gap with this study is at the time the Malaysian Government introduced e-procurement. The SMEs were quite new and had limited knowledge in the e-procurement during the introduction phase. Both SMEs and the government will use the implications and policy recommendations of these findings to impr…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/jopp-09-2019-0066

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Soong, K.-K., Ahmed, E. M., & Tan, K. S.
Affiliations
Multimedia University (MY)
Venue
Journal of Public Procurement
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2020-01-02
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
38-61
ISSN
  • 1535-0118 (ISSN-L)
  • 2150-6930
OpenAlex
W3002297492
Cited by
70
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2
FWCI
9.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Public Procurement (publishedVersion)
  • Siti Hasmah Digital Library-MMU Institutiona Repository (Multimedia University) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Public Procurement and Policy
Keywords
e-procurement, small and medium-sized enterprises, technology adoption, technology acceptance model, UTAUT, effort expectancy, performance expectancy, social influence, behavioral intention, Malaysian SMEs

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