E-public procurement: Which factors determine its acceptance by small- to medium-sized enterprises and large companies in Belgium?

Abstract

The dematerialisation of public procurement (hereinafter, e-procurement) is one of the most innovative public management initiatives in Europe today. However, according to European statistics, the acceptance of this new public procurement technique by private companies remains very limited. Furthermore, despite the existence of an abundant literature dealing with the acceptance of technology, for example, in the field of e-commerce, very few studies have addressed the field of e-procurement. The aim of this article is to analyse the latter by making a distinction between the acceptance determinants of e-procurement by small- to medium-sized enterprises, on the one hand, and by large companies, on the other. Based on several theories on the acceptance of innovation in general, and on the acceptance of technology in particular – the Technology Acceptance Model, the Innovation Diffusion Theory and the model of Iacovou et al. – we developed a model and tested it on a sample of firms. The results of the survey, covering 695 small- to medium-sized enterprises and 126 large companies in Belgium, have enabled us to identify four main factors that can account for about 33.4% of the total variability in the acceptance of e-procurement by small- to medium-sized enterprises. In addition, we have identified two factors that could account for around 28.5% of the total variability of e-procurement acceptance by large firms.

Points for practitioners

Our study was able to account for about 33.4% of the total variability of e-procurement acceptance by small- to medium-sized enterprises and 28.5% by large companies. Identifying the determinants of this acceptance by distinguishing between small- to medium-sized enterprises and large companies can help decision-makers at the political and administrative level to develop a more effective action plan to promote the adoption of this new procurement technology, and thus to make the most of the benefits expected from it.

Keywords

acceptance of technology Belgium e-procurement large companies small- to medium-sized enterprises

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bobillier Chaumon

M-E

Brangier

(2000) Evolutions de l’activité et de l’organisation du travail lors du changement d’environnement de programmation chez les informaticiens. Terminal, Technologies de l’information, culture et société 82: 47–66.

Bobillier Chaumon

Dubois

Retour

(2006) L’acceptation des nouvelles technologies d’information: le cas des systèmes d’information en milieu bancaire. Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations 12(4): 247–262.

Brangier

Hammes-Adelé

Bastien

J-MC

(2010) Analyse critique des approches de l’acceptation des technologies: de l’utilisabilité à la symbiose humain-technologie-organisation. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée 60(2): 129–146.

Brown

Massey

Montoya-Weiss

et al. (2002) Do I really have to? User acceptance of mandatory technology. European Journal of Information Systems 11: 283–295.

Caron-Fassan

Lesca

(2003) Présent et futurs des systèmes d’information, Grenoble: PUG.

Chuttur

(2009) Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins, developments and future directions, Indiana University, USA. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems 9(37): 9–37.

Davis

(1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3): 319–340.

DeLone W and McLean E (2003) The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems 19(4): 9–30.

European Commission (2004) Action plan for the implementation of the legal framework for electronic public procurement. Brussels: European Commission.

10.

European Commission (2012) Communication from the commission to the european parliament, the council, the european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. A strategy for e-procurement. Brussels: European Commission.

11.

European Commission (2013) E-invoicing in public procurement: another step towards end-to-end e-procurement and e-government in Europe. Brussels: European Commission, 26 June.

12.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

13.

Hart

Saunders

(1998) Emerging electronic partnerships: Antecedents and dimensions of EDI use from the supplier’s perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems 14(4): 87–111.

14.

Hsu PF, Kraemer KL and Dunkle D (2006) Determinants of e-business use in US firms. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 10(4): 9–45.

15.

Chau

PYK

Liu

SOR

et al. (1999) Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems 16(2): 91–112.

16.

Iacovou

Benbasat

Dexter

(1995) Electronic data interchange and small organizations: Adoption and impact of technology. MIS Quarterly 19(4): 465–485.

17.

Igbaria

Iivari

Maragahh

(1995) Why do individuals use computer technology? Information and Management 29: 227–238.

18.

Koh

Prybutok

Ryan

et al. (2010) A model for mandatory use of software technologies: An integrative approach by applying multiple levels of abstraction of informing science. The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline 13: 177–203.

19.

Kuan

KKY

Chau

PYK

(2001) A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using technology-organisational-environment framework. Information & Management 38: 507–521.

20.

Liu S-H, Liao H-L and Pratt JA (2009) Impact of media richness and flow on e-learning technology acceptance. Computers & Education 52: 599–607.

21.

Lederer

Maupin

Sena

et al. (2000) The technology acceptance model and the World Wide Web. Decision Support Systems 29: 269–282.

22.

Musawa

Wahab

(2012) The adoption of electronic data interchange (EDI) technology by Nigerian SMEs: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business Management and Economics 3(2): 55–68.

23.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2015) Government at a Glance 2015, Paris: OECD Publishing.

24.

Pan M-J and Jang W-Y (2008) Determinants of the adoption of enterprise resource planning within the technology organization environment framework: Taiwan’s communications industry. Journal of Computer Information Systems Spring: 94–102.

25.

Petter

DeLone

McLean

(2008) Measuring information systems success: Models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems 17: 236–263.

26.

Premkumar

Roberts

(1999) Adoption of new information technologies in rural small businesses. Omega: The International Journal of Management Science 27: 467–84.

27.

Raida RE and Néji B (2013) The adoption of the e-banking: Validation of the technology acceptance model. Technology and Investment 4: 197–203.

28.

Rahim

(2008) Identifying factors affecting acceptance of e-procurement systems: An initial qualitative study at an Australian city council. Communication of IBIMA 3: 7–17.

29.

Rogers

(1983) Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd edn. New York, NY: The Free Press.

30.

Rogers

(1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. New York, NY: The Free Press.

31.

Teo

Lim

Lai

(1999) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Internet usage. Omega 27: 25–37.

32.

Terrade

Pasquier

Reerinck-Boulanger

et al. (2009) L’acceptabilité sociale: la prise en compte des déterminants sociaux dans l’analyse de l’acceptabilité des systèmes technologiques. Le travail humain 72(4): 383–395.

33.

Thong JYL (1999) An integrated model of information systems adoption in small businesses. Journal of Management Information Systems 15(4): 187–214.

34.

Thompson R, Higgins C and Howell J (1991) Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly 15(1).

35.

Tornatzky LG and Fleischer M (1990) The Processes of Technological Innovation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

36.

Van Huy L, Rowe F, Truex D, et al. (2012) An Empirical Study of determinants of e-commerce adoption in SMEs in Vietnam: An economy in transition. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM) 20(3): 23–54.

37.

Venkatesh V and Bala H (2008) Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences 39(2): 273–315.

38.

Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, et al. (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27(3): 425–478.

39.

Wixom BH & Todd PA (2005) A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Infonnation Systems Research 15(1): 85–102.

40.

Yu CS (2012) Factors affecting individuals to adopt mobile banking: Empirical evidence from the utaut model. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 13(2): 104–121.