This chapter reviews selected literature andexamines both theoretical and empirical literature. The literature reviewedexamines how various studies have analyzed the concept of E-procurementadoption. In this context the researchers will be in a position to give theiropinion and a critical analysis of the theories presented in the past studies.This chapter covers the theories governing E-procurement implementation, pastempirical studies and factors impacting E-procurement implementation insupermarkets in Kenya and conceptual framework. 2.
2 Theorical Foundation of E-procurement Adoption and Implementation This section will review theories that have been found relevant inE-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), wasconceived to predict (Fishbein&Ajzen, 1975), and explain an individual?sIT/IS acceptance (Hu, et al., 2008). The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) isan extension of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). TRA was originallyproposed by Fishbein and Ajzen in 1975 in an attempt to understand behaviourand predict outcomes. TRA assumes that a person takes into account theimplications of his/ her action before deciding whether or not to engage incertain behaviour.
It also sets that the main determinant of person?s behaviouris behaviour intention. The premise of TAM is that people behaviouralintention to accept and actually use a certain technology is determined by twoconstructs namely; perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Davis,1989). User?s attitude and belief as proposed by TAM is perceived to be an 10 important factor which influences the use of newtechnology. A person whose attitudes toward information technology are positivewill have higher acceptance of the use of technology in question, compared toanother person whose attitudes toward that technology are negative. Manyempirical 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 generallyreferred to as the most influential theory in IT and Information Systems(Benbasat& Bark, 2007). The Unified theory of acceptance and use oftechnology (UTAUT) represents a shift from fragmented view of IT adoption oracceptance 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 easeof adoption. In a study by Quan, et al.
, (2010) the “attitudes” construct wasremoved for simplification. O?cass& French (2003) are of the opinion thatTAM should not be confined solely to the adoption of technological perspective,and that other non-computer based technological adoption should be encouragedto add a marketing flavour to the findings, and to be more specific. Theresearcher concluded that most of the technology acceptance models have beenextensively tested in the developed countries. 2.2.2 Theory of Reasoned Action Fishbein and Ajzen,(1975) is well establishedsocial psycho-logical model that is concerned with the determinants ofconsciously intended behaviours. From a theoretical point of view, the TRA isintuitive, parsimonious and insightful in its ability to explain behaviour(Bagozzi, 1982).
The TRA assumes that individuals are usually rational and willconsider the implications of their actions prior to deciding whether to performgiven behaviour (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). 11 Fishbein (1980), the TRA assumes that mostbehaviours of social relevance are under volitional control and are thuspredictable from intention. The theory also suggests that because manyextraneous factors influence stability of intention, the relationship betweenintention and behaviour depends on factors:a) the measure of intention mustcorrespond to the behavioural criterion in action, target, context and time;and b) intention does not change before the behaviour is observed (Ajzen andFishbein, 1980). The TRA specifies that behavioural intention is a function oftwo determinants: a personal factor termed attitude toward behaviour and aperson?s perception of social pressures termed subjective norm (Fishbein andAjzen, 1975). In the TRA, behaviour is determined by behaviouralintentions, thus limiting the predictability of the model to situations inwhich intentions and behaviour are found when the temporal gap between theirexpressions is minimal. To take the extreme case of overcoming this, however,measuring intention and behaviour simultaneously fails to ensure a true test ofthe model?s power to predict the future. At best, it corroborates theattitudinal basis of current behaviour. Davies, Foxall and Pallister (2002)suggested that in order to test TRA behaviour should be measured objectivelyand unobtrusively, without signal in any way its connection to the priorintention measurement phase.
A further requirement of the TRA is the behaviourmust be under volitional control. Hence, the TRA is ill equipped to predictsituations in which individuals have low levels of volitional control (Ajzen,1991).