1

Suppliers’ Perception of Government Procurement and e-Procurement

Ridzuan Kushairi Mohd Ramli

Ministry of Education, Malaysia

Hazman Shah Abdullah

Rozalli Hashim

Faculty of Administrative Science & Policy Studies

Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia

Abstract

Electronic government holds tremendous promise for improvements in internal

governmental management as much as it does for the public service delivery. Efforts

to e-procure goods and services estimated at about 12-25% of GDP (OECD, 2002)

from vendors since 1999 is expected to provide significant savings to the government.

But the uptake among the vendor community is still less than satisfactory. This paper

reports on a study of the suppliers’ perception of efficiency and transparency of the

public e-procurement system called “e-Perolehan”. A cross-sectional survey of 91

suppliers of one key federal ministry was carried out for their perceptions of the e-

Perolehan system. A model of adoption developed identified attitude towards-

procurement and government procurement, knowledge of e-procurement and

knowledge of government procurement as exogenous variables and ease of use of e-

procurement as the moderator of the two outcome variables namely, perception of

efficiency and transparency of the e-procurement. The perception of efficiency of eP

was influenced by knowledge of eP and government procurement and subjective

norms of suppliers while perception of transparency of EP was influenced by attitude

towards EP and government procurement and EOU. The vendors either vicariously or

experientially are unconvinced that the eP is more effective way of transacting with

the government. There are still strong residual concerns about the transparency of the

process. There is a feeling that the more personal or “high touch” mode gives them

greater control of the outcome of the bid than can the “impersonal” and high tech

approach. To achieve greater level of adoption and usage, the government must

pursue a dual policy of coercion and persuasive. Datelines for adoption must not be

extended any further as has been the case before and it must listen to and address

small vendors concerns of high cost and poor integrity of the privatized eP system.

[292 words]

Keywords: e-procurement, e-government, B2B commerce, private-public

partnership.

INTRODUCTION

The government in most countries is the largest single institution in terms of

employment and the amount of expenditure. This huge and vertically and highly

differentiated bureaucracy that forms the backbone of the government suffers from

poor information exchange, inefficiency, low responsiveness and wastefulness. E-

government has enabled this unwieldy bureaucratic machinery to be reconstructed to

overcome some of the most pernicious traits (Marche & McNiven, 2003; Davison,

Wagner & Ma, 2005). E-government has been extensively exploited to improve the

internal workings of the government as much as it has the service delivery. The one

2

area that e-government is believed to hold huge potential is in the procurement of

goods and services (Kubicek, 2001). Government procurement which is estimated to

be about 12-25% of the GDP (OECD, 2002) is marked rampant claims of abuse and

corruption. Consequently, the procurement process does not yield the best products

and services for the government. Therefore, e-procurement system that is more

efficient, less prone to tampering and more transparent should be a welcome initiative.

However, e-perolehan system, a key MSC flagship project in Malaysia has

experienced many challenges in achieving acceptance among the suppliers. Since its

introduction in 2000, e-perolehan users and usage have grown from 11,016 (RM71.5

mln) transactions to 326,807 transactions in 2007 (RM4.073 bln). Despite the

creditable achievement, the government procurement through e-Perolehan remains

small in the value in relation to the total value of government procurement and about

11% of the registered suppliers have become e-P enabled (www.uniteperolehan.

gov.my). Why are the suppliers slow in adopting the e-perolehan systems? While

many technical and economic issues have been raised i.e. reliability, stability and

integrity of the system by and the exorbitant cost of services by the franchise holder,

what role does suppliers attitudes, perceptions and prejudices influence their adoption

of e-perolehan system? Where adoption is viewed as voluntary, perceptions play a

huge role in precipitating or delaying of adoption. To examine these questions, a

study of suppliers to a large federal ministry was carried out to examine the

knowledge, attitude and perception of suppliers towards government procurement and

e-procurement and its impact on efficiency and transparency

E-PROCUREMENT

E-Procurement refers to the use of ICT to support all the transactions that comprise

the procurement process. E-procurement utilizes electronic integration and

management that includes purchase request, authorization, ordering, delivery and

payment between supplier and purchaser (Chaffey, 2002). From access to online

product and catalog information through electronic payment services, the Internet

facilitates seamless exchanges in support of electronic commerce (The National

Electronic Commerce Coordinating Council, 2002). World Bank categorized the term

“Electronic Government Procurement” (e-GP) into three levels The first-level defined

e-GP as the use of information & communication technology by governments in

conducting their procurement relationships with suppliers for the acquisition of goods,

works, and consultancy services required by the public sector, while the second-level

definition distinguishes between e-Tendering and e-Purchasing and the third-level

definition covers the basic steps as part of the e-Tendering and e-Purchasing process

(World Bank, 2003).

Generally, e-Procurement is known literally as doing business over the Internet that

requires the use technology. Many definitions of e-Procurement focus more on

technology rather than the process. However, underpinning the success of an e-

Procurement implementation is the system which involves end to end transaction to

complete the process of e-Procurement.

Government agendas are more complicated than those of private sectors where

efficiency, cost reduction and time savings are sufficient justifications to adopt e-

Procurement (Coulthard and Castleman, 2001). Government procurement is often

3

used to further goals of national interest, distribution and equity. Consequently

economy and value for money may not be the only criteria defining the procurement.

These heterogeneity of goals is often exploited by unscrupulous parties to engage in

wasteful and illegal transactions.

In some instances public servants engaged in the procurement function were subject

to unacceptable influence and pressure from their superiors to violate laid down

procurement procedures. The abuse of power by some senior officials is attributed to

the lack of formal protection from victimization for employees who wish to resist

directives bordering on corruption and the general misuse of public resources.

Generally, respondents were of the view that the Procurement procedures were

transparent and efficient although it was intimated in some circles that the procedures

caused delays in the procurement process and that there was a tendency, in some

cases, to shift goal posts when it came to the evaluation of bids (Lolojih, 2003).

Procurement procedures were generally considered to be transparent except that of

dishonesty on the part of some individuals. It was possible to manipulate them.

Dishonest officials may, for example, get only one quotation instead of the required

three and because of laxity in the monitoring process goods or services may be

procured on the basis of only one quotation. It was also possible for corrupt and

dishonest officials to connive with suppliers in order to get commissions by obtaining

two quotations from expensive sources and the third one from the supplier that is

willing to offer them a commission. In this case such a supplier would be asked to

provide a quotation that will appear cheaper than the first two (Lolojih, 2003).

In Malaysia, eP was designed to enhance the public delivery system. Theoretically

seen, these are some of the benefits of employing eP in government procurement that

is inline with the objectives of any ICT initiatives. However, in terms of the practical

aspects of implementing ICT initiatives, they are not in congruence with the

theoretical aspects of the benefits of ICT initiatives. Even though there are 83,087

registered supplier with valid certificates to utilize eP, however, suppliers that

participate in government tenders were adopting a “wait and see” approach due to an

indifference attitude towards technology (Tee, 2007). Currently, out of the registered

suppliers with valid certificates to utilize eP, only 9794 suppliers actually trade online

with the government (www.uniteperolehan.gov.my)

Drivers of e-Procurement

The use of IT today not only supports business processes and operations, and

foundations of doing business, it also enhances organizational productivity. The

structured foundations of an IT system assists decision making at the managerial,

operational and functional levels, albeit at different scopes. An IT infrastructure of an

organization is a strategic tool used by organizations such as using a financial

business strategy of operational cost saving and an operational strategy of efficiency

and effectiveness (Laudon, 2006).

Many authors have gone on to provide comments on the benefits of e-procurement.

Procurement is evolving from a support function to a valuable weapon in a

corporation’s competitive arsenal. Today’s companies seek solutions that combat high

4

procurement costs and lengthy order cycle times while simultaneously ensuring that

the delivery of materials or services goes smoothly. These businesses want to

automate day to day purchasing tasks. By doing so, companies can free their

employees to perform more important tasks (Kalakota, 2001).

Early adopters have shown that e-procurement can deliver bottom-line benefits to

their organisations in cost savings and process efficiency gains. At a time when cost

savings is at the top of most agendas, organisations have considered the adoption of

an e-procurement system and use the evaluation process as a vehicle for doing a

complete spend and sourcing review.

Today it's possible to buy almost anything electronically. But e-procurement can

deliver more than just lower prices. The net impact of its other characteristic

deliverables – better productivity, faster processing, greater visibility, the elimination

of maverick, or unplanned, ad hoc buying—can have a much higher ROI than what

can be achieved by shaving a few pennies off price (Wheatley, 2003).

The average organisation spends 40% of purchasing expenditure on non production

items like travel, office supplies and services. By acting now and automating the

purchase of goods and services through implementing an e-procurement system,

organisations can make significant reductions on purchasing expenditures that boost

the bottom line. An e-procurement implementation, as part of a total supply

management strategy, which manages the impact on people, processes and

technology, results in lower item prices, spending controls and saving opportunities

(Ernst & Young, 2001).

The use of the web can be used as a sales channel, but by using e-procurement

techniques, the web can also be used as a savings channel. Upon stating so, Intel

Corporation goes on to say that after the installation of an e-procurement system,

employees create requisitions and purchase orders electronically. The order can be

entered into the system only once, which saves time for both the purchasing

department and the supplier, who electronically loads the request into his system. The

automated e-procurement system then seeks authorisation for the purchase, places the

order with the vendor and transmits payment for the goods without human

intervention (Intel Corporation, 2000).

With the implementation of public e-Procurement, the market shall be led by the

public sector, while traditionally it is the public sector that tries to catch up with the

market (Makarem-Saab, 2006).

e-Procurement is the most important area of development in the e-Commerce arena –

and “if there is one sector in the economy where e-Procurement can and will have an

enormous effect, it is government” (Neef, 2001).

e-Procurement is one of the very important e-Government initiatives currently taking

place within the Australian public sectors (Kubicek, 2001) because there is a demand

to integrate e-Government and e-Commerce, e-Procurement is the ideal link to enable

such integration (Joia & Zamot, 2002).

5

In Latin America, corruption has been a key public issue and therefore e-procurement

and transparency in public spending have been emphasized. A number of E-

Government projects in other countries have also focused on reduction of

administrative corruption and increase in transparency. E-Government can have a

direct impact on reducing the number of intermediaries that citizens need to interact

with in order to get a government service, improving government ability to monitor

transactions and disclosing information about government processes and public

budget spending to citizens. Increasingly, governments would like to use E-

Government as a tool to enhance transparency and reduce corruption, although this

goal is some times not stated publicly as it may create resistance within the civil

service (Bhatnagar, 2003).

Barriers to e-Procurement

e-Procurement is one area where public sectors can reduce inefficiencies as it has

drawn great attention and have been adopted by increasing number of private and

public organisations. However, simply having an e-Procurement system in place does

not guarantee that it will bring about benefits in term of improved procurement

management. The system must be measured and evaluated (Vaidya, 2002). Eadie et

al. (2006) provided a empirically derived set of barriers that hold back rapid adoption

of e-procurement in Europe. Foremost in this list was the security of the transaction.

Most respondents express misgivings about Internet based e-procurements systems

that can be easily compromise. This was followed up by lack of knowledge and skills

in e-procurement and the loss of personal contact with suppliers.

A large volume of corporate buyer’s time is spent on non value added activities such

as data entry, correcting errors in paperwork, expediting delivery, or solving quality

problems. As a result, buyers do not have sufficient time to pay full attention to

properly deal with the purchasing of high value or high volume direct materials.

Purchasing personnel need to spend a lot of time and effort on upstream procurement

activities such as qualifying suppliers, negotiating price and terms, building rapport

with strategic suppliers, and carrying out supplier evaluation and certification (King,

2002).

It is not the same as saying that everything should be bought electronically. Deciding

whether to invest in e-procurement applications is not easy. It is easy to purchase

common items in the market like pens, paper clips and copier paper, however, for

complex, made-to-order engineered components is not (Henriksen et al., 2004). E-

procurement implementations often simply facilitate the catalog-based buying of

indirect materials such as office supplies. The ROI of those implementations is

invariably good. Rarely, however, are they earthshaking. Savings on office supplies

can only boost a bottom line so far (Eadie, 2006). If a company makes large purchases

of strategically important raw materials or components, it usually does so in

multimillion-dollar deals. These are often negotiated over weeks and months,

arranging for supplies for up to a year ahead. In such environments, e-procurement

adds little value (Wheatley, 2003).

The Commission of European Communities (2004) found that an analysis of the

background information points to a rather fragmented landscape and uneven

development of operational electronic public procurement systems in Europe. In most,

6

Member States electronic public procurement is still at an initial state of development.

In addition, the levels of sophistication and available functionalities vary enormously.

Some Member States operate parts of their procurement electronically, in particular at

central government level. In countries such as the United Kingdom, Denmark,

Finland, Italy and France, fully operational systems exist for advertising and tendering

procurement contracts electronically. In others, the effort was concentrated on

developing portals which provide information for public authorities and economic

operators along with some basic directory and search services. Pilot projects are also

underway in different countries mostly for contracts below the EU thresholds, as

public authorities are trying to acquire experience and experiment with the novel tools

offered by ICT. Introduction of electronic means in public sector procurement is

pursued most often at national level in the framework of long term plans to modernise

government and administrative practices. Interviews with Member States’ experts

show that governments’ main incentive for introducing electronic public procurement

is to achieve public savings. This effort is mainly driven by the central level of

government, while other stakeholders in the public and private sector are often only

marginally involved in this process. Most noticeably, the European dimension of this

process does not seem to occupy a high rank on the administrations’ policy agenda,

despite the importance of ensuring an open and competitive EU public sector

procurement market.

Research Framework

Based on the extant literature on e-government and in particular the literature on e-

procurement, the research framework as depicted in Fig. 1 was developed.

Fig. 1: Research Framework

The framework was informed by Azjen & Fishbein (1975) and the Technology

Acceptance Model by Davis (1989) although not all the variables were deemed

necessary. The attitude and knowledge of procurement and e-procurement with norms

7

were considered the primary drivers of suppliers perception of e-procurement (Eadie

et al., 2006). In fact, perceived ease of use, posited as a mediator in TAMs is

conceptualized more as a moderator in this framework (Davis, 1989). Two key

criterion variables are the efficiency (economic/business rationale) and transparency

perception (political rationale) (Henriksen, et al., 2004)

RESEARCH METHOD

A cross-sectional sample survey of suppliers in a federal ministry was carried out. The

respondents were chosen from those who attended tender briefings at the ministry.

300 questionnaires were distributed to respondents during the month of March 2008

during tender briefings for suppliers and only 96 questionnaires were returned. Five

questionnaires were unusable resulting in a final sample of 91 suppliers. The variables

were measured using existing measures which were adapted to the context of this

study. All items used a 5 point Likert Scale with 1 marking strong disagreement and 5

marking strong agreement. The items were factor analysed to confirm the factor

structure and item loadings. The KMO and Bartletts’s Test of Sphericity showed good

factorability and all but 3 factors explained > 60% of the variance in the data.

Generally, the items achieved adequate loading on the a priori factor. Only 2 items

were deleted due to poor convergence on the required factors. The Cronbach’s alpha

for all variables exceeded 0.70 threshold suggested Nunnally’s (1978).

T

RESULTS

A large majority (91%) of the suppliers were constituted as private companies and

Bumiputras (see Table 1). With policy preference for Bumiputras in government

procurement this composition is not unusual. Most of the suppliers have revenues

ranging from 500,000 to 10,000,000. Most of the suppliers (70%) have been around

for more than 6 years and trade in ICT and non-ICT related products.

Table 1: Profile of Respondents

No. of Respondents %

Company Type

Public listed companies (Bhd)

Private companies (Sdn Bhd)

Others

Total

4

83

4

4.4%

91.2%

4.4%

91 100%

Status of Respondents

Bumiputra

Non-Bumiputra

Total

89

1

97.8%

1.1%

90 98.9%

Annual Revenue

8

No. of Respondents %

Less than RM500,000

RM500,000 – RM2,999,999

RM3,000,000 – RM9,999,999

RM10,000,000 – RM19,999,999

More than RM20,000,000

Total

7

23

36

11

11

7.7%

25.3%

39.6%

12.1%

12.1%

88 96.7%

Years in Business

Less than 5 years

6 years – 10 years

More than 10 years

Total

25

37

28

27.5%

40.7%

30.8%

90 98.9%

Nature of Business

Trading – Non ICT related products

Trading – ICT related products

Trading – ICT & Non ICT Products

Non-Trading (Construction)

Total

1

36

48

3

1.1%

39.6%

52.7%

3.3%

88 96.7%

Attitudes towards and knowledge of procurement

On the whole, the suppliers’ attitude toward government procurement and e-perolehan

is slightly positive as evidenced by the scores in Table 2. The same is also true of

subjective norms and knowledge of procurement and e-perolehan. The efficiency and

transparency attribute of e-perolehan is only slightly positive (3.33 and 3.39

respectively) indicating that the introduction of e-perolehan has not dramatically

changed the suppliers perception of cost saving and confidence in the openness. The

moderately positive ratings for ease of use and knowledge of e-perolehan are

consistent with the rating of e-perolehan on efficiency and transparency. The

correlation between the attitude and knowledge variables and suppliers’ perception of

efficiency and transparency of EP is strong and positive. Pre-existing attitudes unless

disconfirmed by experience directly or vicariously, will limit the perception of

efficiency and transparency of EP. However, given the high correlation between the

independent and dependent variables, bivariate correlation can provide misleading

assessment. Regression analysis which can control for collinearity will provide a far

more robust analysis of the relationship between the variables.

Table 2: Correlation Matrix of Study Variables

No Variables Mean Std

Dev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Attitude

Towards EP 3.52 0.70 .851

2 Attitude

Towards GP 3.37 0.71

.593*

* .851

9

3 Subjective

Norms 3.06 0.70

.491*

*

.784*

* .865

4 Knowledge

of EP 3.49 0.58

.490*

*

.721*

*

.701*

* .765

5 Knowledge

of GP 3.34 0.61

.600*

*

.751*

*

.772*

*

.723*

* .725

6 Ease of Use 3.36 0.66 .836*

*

.696*

*

.609*

*

.598*

*

.687*

* .756

7 Efficiency 3.34 0.66 .671*

*

.770*

*

.826*

*

.822*

*

.899*

*

.747*

* .813

8 Transparency 3.39 0.63 .415*

*

.739*

*

.719*

*

.749*

*

.775*

*

.641*

*

.724*

*

.798

*p<.05, **p<.001, Cronbach’s Alpha in the diagonals

Table 3 shows the 3 step hierarchical regression analysis for two dependent variables

i.e. Perception of efficiency and transparency of EP by suppliers. The 3 step

regression analysis allows for the detection of the incremental value of the additional

variables, which in the case is the moderator – ease of use and the interaction

variables. For the efficiency model, the moderating and interaction variables do not

help explain significantly the changes in efficiency of EP. Attitude towards EP,

subjective norms, knowledge of EP and knowledge of GP explains 89% of the

variation in efficiency perception.

In the case of perception of transparency by suppliers, knowledge of EP and

government procurement explains 71% of the variation. The rest of the variables are

not significant as are also the other two models i.e. moderator – ease of use and the

interaction variables, are not significant.

Table 3: Regression of Efficiency and Transparency on Attitude and Knowledge

Variables

Perception of eP

Efficiency

Perception of eP Transparency

Models 1 2 3 1 2 3

Independent variables

Attitude Towards

EP(ATT1) 179** .084 .090 -.083 -.289 -.300*

Attitude Towards

GP(ATT2) -.088 -.116 -.154 .268 .208 .274

Subjective Norms(SN) .275** .288** .282** -.002 .027 .054

Knowledge of EP(KEP) .245** .231** .265 .311* .279* .200

Knowledge of GP(KGP) .469** .444** .496** .411* .356* .217

Moderating variable

Ease of Use (EASE) .151 .123 .327 .426*

Interaction variables #

ATTIC x EASEC .049 -.225

ATT2C x EASEC -.012 .112

SNC x EASEC -.115 .218

10

KEPC x EASEC .106 -.251

KGPC x EASEC -.080 .253

Model Summary

R2 .891 .896 .902 .692 .714 .755

R2 .891 .005 .006 .692 .023 .040

F 80.20** 2.251 .523 21.52** 3.773 1.388

*p<.05, **p<.001, # - all variables were centered before computing the interaction terms.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The government procurement is an area of intense suspicion. It is widely believed that

conflicts of interest, corruption and abuse are rife given the lack of transparency and

often accountability for defective and exorbitant purchases. Attempts at international

and local level to prise open government procurement process have always been

resisted for reasons of politics and also national interest. Given this scenario, it is

naïve to believe that e-procurement will be welcomed with open arms especially, if

the approach and mode of operation of EP system is itself is not reassuring.

Beyond the issue of the government context, it is well established in technology

adoption literature that attitudes, norms and knowledge of the technology motivates

intentions and subsequently, adoption behavior. The low uptake of EP – about 11% of

suppliers with valid certificates certainly begs the question of the attitudinal and

experiential state among the suppliers. It is clear, at least, among the sampled

suppliers that there are lingering doubts about the efficiency of EP. Their attitudes and

perceptions are only slightly positive. It suggests that, while the suppliers may find EP

advantages, they are still to become EP converts. The EP from a technical point may

have the potential to render the process less costly, it is the experience that matters.

Operational rules and conditions can result in more hassle for the suppliers. Migrating

from a “high touch” system to a “high tech” system always creates anxiety among the

users. What more when the “high touch” system allows for greater control which may

result in suppliers confusing efficiency with effectiveness. Efficiency is merely

concerns the productivity question. It relates to less cost, less time, less tensions etc.

In the case of EP suppliers are likely to evaluate the new process in terms of not

process completion but bid success. If the bid success falls, not improvement in

efficiency will able to offset the disappointment.

Additionally, as is commonplace in e-government, convenience and efficiency is

often viewed from the standpoint of the government agency. The use of EP will

impose changes in personnel, skills and knowledge that may not exist among

suppliers. Consequently, the full range of costs incurred may not be evident to the

agency. The EP organizer must develop a client-based view to sell EP adoption rather

than the usual production mentality of public agencies. E-government projects

everywhere have suffered the fate of automating process without sufficient attention

to process review in view of ICT. As a result, a rather burdensome and inconvenient

process may be made faster.

The attitudes and knowledge are not clearly aligned with EP adoption in a major way.

Attitudes are fairly stubborn entities. Habits and routines for the well rehearsed mode

11

of thinking and working. There are resistant to change. While attitude change must be

attempted through education, more forceful approach to adoption through deadlines

for EP must also be pursued.

Secondly, the perception of transparency is only slightly positive (3.xx). EP is likely

to be seen as an automated version of the existing practice with all its weaknesses.

This may explain, in part, why the perception is not clearly positive. Achieving

transparency in government is a post election agenda of the government. Procurement

is still shrouded in secrecy leading to growing belief of corruption. Amidst the general

atmosphere, transparency in EP will be lingering question. E-government on its own

does not eliminate malpractices. Openness is a policy and ethical question that is not

an automatic or inherent part of technology. EP must be accompanied by policies to

ensure technology will be used to render the process more open to all and less prone

to misuse.

Conclusion

The study shows again that suppliers are still not clearly assigning the values of

efficiency and transparency to EP. This is driven by their less than positive attitude

and knowledge about EP. While education and training will develop better

understanding of EP, attitudes about EP will not change quickly. The efficiency of EP

must be carefully examined from an experiential and a client perspective. Technology

is quite malleable by design. E-government projects are notorious for their agency

centredness (Hazman et al, 2005). The design and operation of EP just as other e-

government projects must be client tested continuously. The monopoly nature of EP

may have also contributed to the poor perception. Transparency perception of EP

suffers from the same observation. Technology is often shaped by values of the

society. The importance attached to the transparency imperative will also rub off EP.

Openness is not a fully embraced virtue in Malaysia although signs of its emergence

is everywhere. In short, EP system must stand together with the ethos of good

governance which demands openness and believes that it will improve government.

As with any empirical study, this study is not without limitations. The sample of non

e-filer were drawn from a rather narrow location and made up almost entirely of

Malays. Given this limitation, generalization of the results of this study is not without

risks.

References

Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M. (1975), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social

Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall.

Bhatnagar, S., (2003), The Economic and Social Impact of e-Government, United

Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA)

Chaffey, Dave (2002); E-Business and E-Commerce Management, Prentice Hall

Chawla, A. (2002), The Digital Content Supply Chain: White Paper, Wipro

Technologies www.wipro.com

Choucri, N., Maugis, V., Madnick, S., Siegel, M. (2003), Global e-Readiness – For

What?, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Chua, C. (2006), The Singapore e-Government Experience, Presentation of e-Gov

Forum and Integrating Trade Facilitation, Infocomm Development Authority

(IDA) of Singapore

12

Coulthard, D., Castleman, T. (2001), Electronic Procurement in Government More

Complicated than Just Good Business, Deakin University Working Paper

Available at: www.deakin.edu.au/mis/research/working-paper

2001/2001_08_Coulthard.pdf

Davila, A., Gupta, M., Palmer, R. J. (2002), Moving Procurement Systems to the

Internet: The Adoption and Use of e-Procurement Technology Models,

Research Paper

Davis, F. D. (1989), Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User

Acceptance of Information Technology, MIS Quarterly, September

Department of Treasury and Finance (2003), Procurement Reform – What the buyers

say, Government of Western Australia

Eadie, R., Perera, S., Heaney, G. & Carlsile, J. (2006). Drivers and barriers to public

sector e-procurement within Northern Ireland’s Construction Industry,

http://itcon.org/2007_6/.content.07965.pdf Accessed on Nov 4, 2008.

Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: an

introduction to theory and research, Addison-Wesley

Gokey, S. (2002), The Global E-Government Outlook, McConnell International,

www.mcconnellinternational.com

Hazman, S. A., Maniam, K., Abdul Jalil, M.A., & Ahmad Naqiyuddin (2005), B.

Local e-Government in Malaysia : A Critical Survey, Faculty of

Administrative Science & Policy Study, Universiti Teknologi MARA.

Henriksen, H. Z., Mahke, V. & Hansen, J. M. (2004). Public eProcurement adoption:

Economic and political rationality. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences. Http:///www2.computer.

org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265316. Accessed on Nov 4

2008

Intel Corporation; e-Business 2000 White Paper, www.intel.com/eBusiness

Kalakota, R., Robinson, M. (2001), e-Business 2.0: Roadmap to Success, Addison

Wesley

King, D., Lee, J., Warkentin, M., Chung, M. H. (2002), Electronic Commerce 2002: A

Managerial Perspective, Prentice Hall

Kubicek, H., Hagen, M. (2001), Integrating E-Commerce and E-Government: The

Case of Kluwer Law International, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Laudon, K.C., Laudon, J.P. (2006); Managing information Systems: Managing The

Digital Firm, Pearson

Leiner B. M., Cerf V. G., Clark D. D., Kahn R. E., Kleinrock L., Lynch D. C., Postel

J., Roberts L. G., Wolff S. (2003), Histories of the Internet: A Brief History of

the Internet, Internet Society (ISOC), http://www.isoc.org/isoc/

Lolojih, P. K., (2003), Report on Government Procurement Systems, Transparency

International Zambia

Makarem-Saab, H. (2006), Conclusions of High Level Seminar on e-Procurement:

Good Governance for Development in Arab Countries Initiative, Naples

(Hosted by the Italian Government, Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

McConnaughey, J., Nila, A. C., Sloan, T. (1995), Falling through the Net: a survey of

the `have nots' in rural and urban America, NTIA paper.

Miller, K. (2005), Communications Theories: Perspectives, Processes, and Contexts,

McGraw-Hill

Ministry of Finance and Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) (2002);

“Knowledge Based Economy Master Plan”, Government of Malaysia

13

Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2007), Treasury Circular No.5 Year 2007:

Government Procurement through Tenders, Government of Malaysia

Misra, D. C. (2006), Defining e-Government: A citizen-centric criteria based

approach, 10th National Conference on e-Governance, 2006, Bhopal, Madhya

Pradesh, India, (http://www.10thnationalegovconf.in/14.pdf)

Neef, D. (2001), e-Procurement: from Strategy to Implementation, Prentice Hall, NJ,

USA

Qian, H. (2006), Opening Remarks: Workshop on the Capacity-Building Programme

for Government Procurement Reform, 19 December 2006, UNPAN

Sandberg, K. W., Vinberg, S. (2000), Information technology and learning strategies

in small enterprises, Behaviour & Information Technology, 19, 221-227.

Schwartz, K. D. (2007), Transforming Government,

http://www.globalservicesmedia.com, UNPAN

Tee, L. D. (2007), Way of the Future – e-Procurement – The Government to Business

Electronic Government System, Public Service Star Special, The Star 19 April

2007

The Star (2007), Malaysia Government’s eP targets RM10 billion by 2010, 22

February 2007

The Star (2008), Taking Malaysia to the Next Level, 1 March 2008

Turban, E., Lee, J., King, D. and Chung, H. (2000) Electronic Commerce: A

Managerial Perspective, Prentice Hall

Vaidya, K., Yu, P., Soar, J. (2002),Measuring e-Procurement Performance in the

Australian Public Sector: A Preliminary Approach, University of Wollongong

Waseda University Institute of E-Government (2007), 2007 World E-Government

Ranking, UNPAN

Wheatley, M. (2002), E-Procurement: How to Know if E-Procurement is Right for

you, Issue of CIO Magazine

World Bank (2003), Electronic Government Procurement (e-GP): World Bank Draft

Strategy. Procurement and Policy & Services Group, The World Bank,

Washington D.C., October.