This various studies have analyzed the concept of E-procurement

This chapter reviews selected literature and
examines both theoretical and empirical literature. The literature reviewed
examines how various studies have analyzed the concept of E-procurement
adoption. In this context the researchers will be in a position to give their
opinion and a critical analysis of the theories presented in the past studies.
This chapter covers the theories governing E-procurement implementation, past
empirical studies and factors impacting E-procurement implementation in
supermarkets in Kenya and conceptual framework.


2.2 Theorical Foundation of E-procurement Adoption and Implementation

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now


This section will review theories that have been found relevant in
E-procurement adoption; these theories are; Technology Acceptance Model (TAM),
Theory of Reasoned Action, Theory of Planned Behaviour.


2.2.1 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)


The TAM, firstly proposed by (Davies, 1986), was
conceived to predict (Fishbein&Ajzen, 1975), and explain an individual?s
IT/IS acceptance (Hu, et al., 2008). The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is
an extension of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). TRA was originally
proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen in 1975 in an attempt to understand behaviour
and predict outcomes. TRA assumes that a person takes into account the
implications of his/ her action before deciding whether or not to engage in
certain behaviour. It also sets that the main determinant of person?s behaviour
is behaviour intention.



The premise of TAM is that people behavioural
intention to accept and actually use a certain technology is determined by two
constructs namely; perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Davis,
1989). User?s attitude and belief as proposed by TAM is perceived to be an




important factor which influences the use of new
technology. A person whose attitudes toward information technology are positive
will have higher acceptance of the use of technology in question, compared to
another person whose attitudes toward that technology are negative. Many
empirical researches (e.g. Davis, et al., 1989; Agarwal &Karahanna, 2000;
Venkatesh, et al., 2003, 2007; Adams, et al., 1992; Segars& Grover, 1993)
have shown support for TAM. Thus, the technology acceptance model is generally
referred to as the most influential theory in IT and Information Systems
(Benbasat& Bark, 2007).



The Unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology (UTAUT) represents a shift from fragmented view of IT adoption or
acceptance to a unified integrated single theory (Abu Shanab, et al., 2010).
Kaasinen, et al., (2002) and Keat and Mohan (2004) modified the value component
(from perceived usefulness) and added two components: trust and perceived ease
of adoption. In a study by Quan, et al., (2010) the “attitudes” construct was
removed for simplification. O?cass& French (2003) are of the opinion that
TAM should not be confined solely to the adoption of technological perspective,
and that other non-computer based technological adoption should be encouraged
to add a marketing flavour to the findings, and to be more specific. The
researcher concluded that most of the technology acceptance models have been
extensively tested in the developed countries.


2.2.2 Theory of Reasoned Action


Fishbein and Ajzen,(1975) is well established
social psycho-logical model that is concerned with the determinants of
consciously intended behaviours. From a theoretical point of view, the TRA is
intuitive, parsimonious and insightful in its ability to explain behaviour
(Bagozzi, 1982). The TRA assumes that individuals are usually rational and will
consider the implications of their actions prior to deciding whether to perform
given behaviour (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980).




Fishbein (1980), the TRA assumes that most
behaviours of social relevance are under volitional control and are thus
predictable from intention. The theory also suggests that because many
extraneous factors influence stability of intention, the relationship between
intention and behaviour depends on factors:a) the measure of intention must
correspond to the behavioural criterion in action, target, context and time;
and b) intention does not change before the behaviour is observed (Ajzen and
Fishbein, 1980). The TRA specifies that behavioural intention is a function of
two determinants: a personal factor termed attitude toward behaviour and a
person?s perception of social pressures termed subjective norm (Fishbein and
Ajzen, 1975).



In the TRA, behaviour is determined by behavioural
intentions, thus limiting the predictability of the model to situations in
which intentions and behaviour are found when the temporal gap between their
expressions is minimal. To take the extreme case of overcoming this, however,
measuring intention and behaviour simultaneously fails to ensure a true test of
the model?s power to predict the future. At best, it corroborates the
attitudinal basis of current behaviour. Davies, Foxall and Pallister (2002)
suggested that in order to test TRA behaviour should be measured objectively
and unobtrusively, without signal in any way its connection to the prior
intention measurement phase. A further requirement of the TRA is the behaviour
must be under volitional control. Hence, the TRA is ill equipped to predict
situations in which individuals have low levels of volitional control (Ajzen,