The Indian construction industry faces many challenges, such as low productivity, project delays and a lack of professionalism. To remain competitive, construction companies must adopt innovative technologies to make their operations more efficient. In this context, the management of companies needs to understand employee attitudes and perceptions of technology adoption to make investment decisions for adopting new technologies. This study aims to assess the employees’ perceptions of e-procurement as part of technology adoption in the construction sector. The popular Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) framework was adapted to develop a study model with employee attitude added as a mediating variable. Data collected from 305 employees working in the materials departments of different private construction companies are analyzed using SPSS Amos, a covariance-based structural equation modelling (CBSEM) tool. The study results revealed the strength of the predictor variables in determining the predicted variable and the significant role of the mediating variable in shaping employee perceptions. The results can provide valuable information to the management of the construction companies about which factors promote the adoption and acceptance of digital technologies. This awareness is greatly helpful in changing or adjusting the situation to improve employee perceptions of accepting new technologies.
AddyM. N., AddoE. T., KwofieT. E., & YarteyJ. E. (2023). Predicting the adoption of e-procurement in construction project delivery in Sub-Saharan Africa: An application of UTAUT2. Construction Innovation, 23(5), 1038–1053.
2.
AhmedR. R., ŠtreimikienėD., & ŠtreimikisJ. (2022). The extended UTAUT model and learning management system during COVID-19: Evidence from PLS-SEM and conditional process modeling. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 23(1), 82–104.
3.
AjzenI., & FishbeinM. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918.
4.
AjzenI., & FishbeinM. M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.
5.
AsherA. (2007). Developing a B2B e-commerce implementation framework: A study of EDI implementation for procurement. Information Systems Management, 24(4), 373–390.
6.
AyazA., & YanartaşM. (2020). An analysis on the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology theory (UTAUT): Acceptance of electronic document management system (EDMS). Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 2, 100032.
7.
AzadeganA., & AshenbaumB. (2009). E-procurement in services: The lagging application of innovation. International Journal of Procurement Management, 2(1), 25–40.
8.
BayazitO. (2014). Investigating adoption of e-procurement systems: An empirical study. International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management (IJISSCM), 7(2), 47–66.
9.
BohariA. A. M., SkitmoreM., XiaB., TeoM., & KhalilN. (2020). Key stakeholder values in encouraging green orientation of construction procurement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 270, 122246.
10.
Bondzie‐MicahV., QiguiS., ArkorfulV. E., LuguB. K., Bentum‐MicahG., & Ayi‐BonteA. N. A. (2022). Predicting consumer intention to use electronic health service: An empirical structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Public Affairs, 22(4), e2677.
11.
BonneK., VermeirI., Bergeaud-BlacklerF., & VerbekeW. (2007). Determinants of halal meat consumption in France. British Food Journal, 109(5), 367–386.
12.
BooneT., & GaneshanR. (2004), Call for papers: Special issue on the impact of e-business technologies on supply chain operations. Journal of Operations Management, 21(6), 709–710.
13.
CarminesE. G., & ZellerR. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Sage Publications.
14.
ChangH. H., TsaiY. C., & HsuC. H. (2013). E‐procurement and supply chain performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 18(1), 34–51.
15.
ChangI. C., HwangH. G., HungW. F., & LiY. C. (2007). Physicians’ acceptance of pharmacokinetics-based clinical decision support systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 33(2), 296–303.
16.
ChenP. Y., & HwangG. J. (2019). An empirical examination of the effect of self-regulation and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) factors on the online learning behavioural intention of college students. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 39(1), 79–95.
17.
CherianT. M., MunuswamyS., & JasimK. M. (2020). E-procurement practices to improve the efficiency of vendor transactions in Indian cement companies. International Journal of Procurement Management, 13(4), 443–461.
18.
ChinW. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.
19.
CronbachL. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
20.
DavisF. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results(Doctoral Dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
21.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 318–339.
22.
DixitS., PandeyA. K., MandalS. N., & BansalS. (2017). A study of enabling factors affecting construction productivity: Indian scenario. International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology, 8(6), 741–758.
23.
DoloiH., SawhneyA., IyerK. C., & RentalaS. (2012). Analysing factors affecting delays in Indian construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 30(4), 479–489.
24.
DwivediY. K., RanaN. P., JanssenM., LalB., WilliamsM. D., & ClementM. (2017). An empirical validation of a unified model of electronic government adoption (UMEGA). Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 211–230.
25.
DwivediY. K., RanaN. P., JeyarajA., ClementM., & WilliamsM. D. (2019). Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model. Information Systems Frontiers, 21, 719–734.
26.
DwomohO. K., AffumM. Q., & AddaeM. (2023). The effect of e-procurement practices on the performance of selected public sector organisation in Cape Coast: Cape Coast Technical University. International Journal of Computing, Programming and Database Management, 4(1), 1–7.
27.
FornellC., & LarckerD. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.
28.
GunasekaranA., & NgaiE. W. (2008). Adoption of e-procurement in Hong Kong: An empirical research. International Journal of Production Economics, 113(1), 159–175.
29.
GuptaM., & NarainR. (2012). A survey on adoption of e-procurement in Indian organisations. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, 5(1), 76–109.
30.
HenselerJ., RingleC. M., & SarstedtM. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135.
31.
HsuL. (2023). EFL learners’ self-determination and acceptance of LMOOCs: The UTAUT model. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(7), 1177–1205.
32.
HuL. T., & BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
33.
HughesR., & ThorpeD. (2014). A review of enabling factors in construction industry productivity in an Australian environment. Construction Innovation, 14(2), 210–228.
34.
JinL., & RobeyD. (2008). Bridging social and technical interfaces in organizations: An interpretive analysis of time-space distanciation. Information and Organization, 18(3), 177–204.
35.
JohnsonP. F., & KlassenR. D. (2005). E-procurement. MIT Sloan Management Review.
36.
KainumaY., & TawaraN. (2006). A multiple attribute utility theory approach to lean and green supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics, 101(1), 99–108.
37.
KassimE. S., & HussinH. (2013). A success model for the Malaysian Government e-procurement system: the buyer perspective. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR), 9(1), 1–18.
38.
KimE., HamS., YangI. S., & ChoiJ. G. (2013). The roles of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control in the formation of consumers’ behavioral intentions to read menu labels in the restaurant industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35, 203–213.
39.
KimS., LeeK. H., HwangH., & YooS. (2015). Analysis of the factors influencing healthcare professionals’ adoption of mobile electronic medical record (EMR) using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) in a tertiary hospital. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 16(1), 1–12.
40.
LiuC. H., ChenY. T., KittikowitS., HongsuchonT., & ChenY. J. (2022). Using unified theory of acceptance and use of technology to evaluate the impact of a mobile payment app on the shopping intention and usage behavior of middle-aged customers. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 830842.
41.
MakobaN., NyamagereG., & EliufooH. (2017). e-Procurement risks and mitigation: The case for Tanzania construction companies. International Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 6(4), 180–186.
42.
MemonM. A., JunH. C., TingH., & FrancisC. W. (2018). Mediation analysis issues and recommendations. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 2(1), i–ix.
43.
MomaniA. M. (2020). The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A new approach in technology acceptance. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD), 12(3), 79–98.
44.
NitzlC., RoldanJ. L., & CepedaG. (2016). Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1849–1864.
45.
PollockN., & WilliamsR. (2009). The sociology of a market analysis tool: How industry analysts sort vendors and organize markets. Information and Organization, 19(2), 129–151.
46.
RogersE. M., & WilliamsD. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press, 1962.
47.
RönkköM., & ChoE. (2022). An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organizational Research Methods, 25(1), 6–14.
48.
RosenweigE., & RothA. (2007). B2B seller competence: Construct development and measurement using a supply chain strategy lens. Journal of Operations Management, 25(6), 1311–1331.
49.
SchifterD. E., & AjzenI. (1985). Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 843–851.
50.
SchumackerR. E., & LomaxR. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Psychology Press.
51.
SraiJ. S., & LorentzH. (2019). Developing design principles for the digitalisation of purchasing and supply management. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 25(1), 78–98.
52.
TaghipourA., LuX., & SmahiM. (2022). Opportunities and challenges for society 5.0 in procurement. InBlockchain technology in supply chain management for society 5.0 (pp. 91–100). CRC Press.
53.
TaylorS., & ToddP. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(4), 144–176.
54.
TownsendR., & GershonM. (2020). Attaining successful construction project execution through personnel and communication. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(9), 04020101.
55.
VaidyanathanG., & DevarajS. (2008). The role of quality in e-procurement performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Operations Management, 26(3), 407–425.
56.
VenkateshV., MorrisM. G., DavisG. B., & DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
57.
VenkateshV., ThongJ. Y., & XuX. (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(5), 328–376.
58.
VoorheesC. M., BradyM. K., CalantoneR., & RamirezE. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: An analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 119–134.
59.
WolfE. J., HarringtonK. M., ClarkS. L., & MillerM. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934.
60.
YevuS. K., & YuA. T. W. (2020). The ecosystem of drivers for electronic procurement adoption for construction project procurement: A systematic review and future research directions. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(2), 411–440.
61.
ZaheerN., & TrkmanP. (2017). An information sharing theory perspective on willingness to share information in supply chains. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 28(2), 417–443.
62.
ZhangJ., ZhangM., Ballesteros-PérezP., & PhilbinS. P. (2023). A new perspective to evaluate the antecedent path of adoption of digital technologies in major projects of construction industry: A case study in China. Developments in the Built Environment, 14, 100160.
