This study examined the effect of e-procurement implementation on organizational performance in the African Union. A descriptive and explanatory research design employing both quantitative and qualitative approaches was adopted. The study targeted 230 employees, from which 146 respondents were selected using simple random sampling. Primary data were collected through structured questionnaires and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical techniques with SPSS version 26. Validity and reliability tests were conducted to ensure data quality. The findings revealed a statistically significant positive relationship between e-procurement practices and organizational performance. Regression results further confirmed that e-procurement dimensions significantly predict organizational performance. Among the components, e-tendering emerged as the most dominant practice, while e-sourcing, e- payment, and efficiency also demonstrated positive effects on performance outcomes. Overall, the study concludes that effective implementation of e-procurement enhances organizational performance. The study recommends strengthening e-procurement policies, improving stakeholder participation, and creating a supportive institutional environment to sustain performance improvement.
| Published in | Innovation Business (Volume 1, Issue 1) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ib.20260101.15 |
| Page(s) | 55-77 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Implementing, E-Procurement, E-Sourcing, E-Tendering, Efficiency, E-Payment, Organizational Performance
Response rate | Number of Replies | Not Returned and/or Declined to Participate | Missed and outliers | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Frequency | 139 | 5 | 2 | 146 |
Percentage | 95.2 | 3.4 | 1.4 | 100 |
Variable | Category | Frequency | Percent (%) | Cumulative% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 73 | 52.5 | 52.5 |
Female | 66 | 47.5 | 100 | |
Age of the respondents | 25-35 | 25 | 18.0 | 18.0 |
35-45 | 84 | 60.4 | 78.4 | |
above 45 | 30 | 21.6 | 100.0 | |
Level of education | Diploma and below degree | 65 | 46.8 | 46.8 |
masters | 65 | 46.8 | 93.5 | |
PhD& above | 9 | 6.5 | 100.0 | |
Year of Experience of the respondents | 2-5 years | 11 | 7.9 | 7.9 |
6-10 years | 55 | 39.6 | 47.5 | |
Above 10 years | 73 | 52.5 | 100.0 |
Variable | Cronbach’s Alpha | No. of item |
|---|---|---|
E-sourcing | .833 | 5 |
E-tendering | .753 | 4 |
Efficiency | .721 | 4 |
E-payment | .846 | 6 |
Organizational performance | .935 | 18 |
Metrics of E-sourcing | N | Mean | Std. Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
e- sourcing implementation of E- procurement has impacted organizational performance | 139 | 3.51 | 1.446 |
The organization enabled strong internet application for E- procurement | 139 | 3.68 | 1.251 |
The organization support tool that facilitates E- procurement through the use of online negotiations, online auctions, reverse auctions, and similar tools | 139 | 3.49 | 1.466 |
Indicate the extent to which e-sourcing improved the relationship with suppliers in terms of transparency and trust | 139 | 2.57 | 1.345 |
E-sourcing has enabled the organization to select the most appropriate supplier | 139 | 3.43 | 1.430 |
Grand mean | 139 | 3.1971 | 1.07595 |
Metrics of E-tendering | N | Mean | Std. Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
E-tendering has impacted my organization's efficiency in terms of managing supplier’s bids | 139 | 3.46 | 1.557 |
E-tendering has helped my organization in reducing its costs and run sustainably | 139 | 3.69 | 1.393 |
E-tendering has helped my organization to reduce the time to procure | 139 | 3.88 | 1.213 |
The E-tendering process has helped my organization to gain full audit and process intelligence | 139 | 3.64 | 1.399 |
Grand mean | 139 | 3.6673 | 1.05783 |
Metrics of Efficiency | N | Mean | Std. Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
The organization achieved e- procurement of efficiency in terms of cost reduction | 139 | 2.73 | 1.166 |
The organization E-Procurement has the power to results in efficiency, satisfaction, and improved performance. | 139 | 3.46 | 1.500 |
Because of e-procurement the organization has improved the quality of its services offered by building more confidence and security | 139 | 3.18 | 1.519 |
The organization e- procurement has built customer loyalty, and boost performance | 139 | 3.40 | 1.040 |
Grand mean | 139 | 3.29 | .79945 |
Metrics of E-payment | N | Mean | Std. Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
E-payments has impact on the efficiency of my organization in terms of costs saving | 139 | 2.48 | 1.010 |
E-payments affect my organization's efficiency in terms of time saving | 139 | 2.45 | 1.058 |
There is a certainty of payment when my organization process electronic transaction | 139 | 3.68 | 1.252 |
Electronic payment offers my Organization a competitive advantage | 139 | 3.35 | 1.439 |
E-payments has impact on the efficiency of my organization in terms of offering more confidence and security | 139 | 3.70 | 1.255 |
There are minimized risks of fraud when our customers choose to use electronic payment methods | 139 | 4.06 | .961 |
Grand mean | 139 | 3.2866 | .88261 |
Metrics of organizational performance of African union | N | Mean | Std. Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
Cost saving | |||
Organizational performance can be measured in terms of reduced operational cost | 139 | 4.06 | .980 |
E- procurement has reduced cost by reducing the need of printing and posting multiple copies | 139 | 3.71 | 1.254 |
E-procurement has shown growth of the organization in value added activity | 139 | 3.40 | 1.453 |
E-procurement has reduced direct procurement costs such as material, labor, overhead costs | 139 | 3.68 | 1.251 |
E-procurement has enabled the organization achieve economies of scale in procurement activities | 139 | 4.08 | .948 |
Overall mean | 139 | 3.7856 | 1.00855 |
Service quality | |||
Increment of product/service procurement | 139 | 2.83 | 1.468 |
The organization reduced Customer complaint after implementing e- procurement has increased service quality | 139 | 3.66 | 1.254 |
The organization offers reliable service to customers after e-procurement implementation | 139 | 3.50 | 1.481 |
Overall mean | 139 | 3.3333 | 1.09970 |
Lead time | |||
E-procurement has shortened the time required to fulfill requests | 139 | 1.86 | 1.327 |
E-procurement has facilitated in getting the products and services from suppliers in a shorter time | 139 | 3.41 | 1.423 |
E-procurement practice has enhanced giving real time response to user departments | 139 | 3.40 | 1.526 |
Guaranteed real time response to and from market is a measure of organizational performance | 139 | 1.99 | 1.302 |
Streamlined internal process by using e-procurement system is a measure of organizational performance | 139 | 3.55 | 1.480 |
Overall mean | 139 | 2.8403 | 1.02042 |
Transportation improvement | |||
The organization has reduced cost of transporting items from the supplier to the AU facilities due to early reservation in e-procurement | 139 | 3.66 | 1.254 |
The organization minimized transportation cost because of E-procurement implementation | 139 | 3.45 | 1.455 |
The organization procurement department negotiates well with a carrier or number of carriers to get competitive advantage | 139 | 2.04 | 1.242 |
The organization has reduced the lead time for shipment of procured items after implementation of e-procurement | 139 | 4.03 | .932 |
E-procurement has enabled the organization to optimize transportation routes and modes | 139 | 2.01 | 1.231 |
Overall mean | 139 | 3.0360 | .82611 |
Grand mean of organizational performance | 139 | 3.2488 | .91368 |
Cost saving | Service Quality | Lead time | Transportation improvement | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
E-sourcing | Pearson Correlation | .822** | .894** | .948** | .868** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | |
N | 139 | 139 | 139 | 139 | |
E-tendering | Pearson Correlation | .406** | .426** | .425** | .360** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | |
N | 139 | 139 | 139 | 139 | |
Efficiency | Pearson Correlation | .510** | .560** | .718** | .696** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | |
N | 139 | 139 | 139 | 139 | |
E-payment | Pearson Correlation | .925** | .867** | .841** | .892** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | |
N | 139 | 139 | 139 | 139 | |
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). | |||||
E-sourcing | E-tendering | Efficiency | E-payment | organizational performance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
E-sourcing | Pearson Correlation | 1 | .461** | .642** | .894** | .957** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
N | 139 | 139 | 139 | 139 | 139 | |
E-tendering | Pearson Correlation | .461** | 1 | .582** | .372** | .440** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
N | 139 | 139 | 139 | 139 | 139 | |
Efficiency | Pearson Correlation | .642** | .582** | 1 | .634** | .667** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
N | 139 | 139 | 139 | 139 | 139 | |
E-payment | Pearson Correlation | .894** | .372** | .634** | 1 | .953** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
N | 139 | 139 | 139 | 139 | 139 | |
organizational performance | Pearson Correlation | .957** | .440** | .667** | .953** | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
N | 139 | 139 | 139 | 139 | 139 | |
Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Durbin-Watson |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | .902a | .813 | .812 | .39630 | 1.557 |
Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | Collinearity Statistics | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Std. Error | Beta | Tolerance | VIF | ||||
1 | (Constant) | .119 | .072 | 1.662 | .000 | |||
E-sourcing | .427 | .033 | .502 | 12.924 | .000 | .181 | 5.535 | |
E-tendering | .009 | .018 | .010 | .498 | .000 | .624 | 1.603 | |
Efficiency | .041 | .028 | .036 | 1.459 | .000 | .456 | 2.194 | |
E-payment | .494 | .039 | .477 | 12.510 | .000 | .187 | 5.334 | |
Model Summaryb | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate |
1 | .740a | .683 | .679 | .35020 |
a. Predictors: (Constant), E-payment, E-tendering, Efficiency, E-sourcing | ||||
b. Dependent Variable: cost saving | ||||
Model Summaryb | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate |
1 | .709a | .627 | .622 | .46393 |
a. Predictors: (Constant), E-payment, E-tendering, Efficiency, E-sourcing | ||||
b. Dependent Variable: service Quality | ||||
Model Summaryb | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate |
1 | .764a | .728 | .726 | .27722 |
a. Predictors: (Constant), E-payment, E-tendering, Efficiency, E-sourcing | ||||
b. Dependent Variable: Lead time | ||||
Model Summaryb | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate |
1 | .721a | .648 | .643 | .32683 |
a. Predictors: (Constant), E-payment, E-tendering, Efficiency, E-sourcing | ||||
b. Dependent Variable: transportation improvement | ||||
Model | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Regression | 123.938 | 4 | 30.984 | 252.651 | .000b |
Residual | 16.433 | 134 | .123 | |||
Total | 140.371 | 138 | ||||
a. Dependent Variable: cost saving | ||||||
b. Predictors: (Constant), E-payment, E-tendering, Efficiency, E-sourcing | ||||||
ANOVAa | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
1 | Regression | 138.047 | 4 | 34.512 | 160.345 | .000b |
Residual | 28.841 | 134 | .215 | |||
Total | 166.889 | 138 | ||||
a. Dependent Variable: service Quality | ||||||
b. Predictors: (Constant), E-payment, E-tendering, Efficiency, E-sourcing | ||||||
ANOVAa | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
1 | Regression | 133.396 | 4 | 33.349 | 433.944 | .000b |
Residual | 10.298 | 134 | .077 | |||
Total | 143.694 | 138 | ||||
a. Dependent Variable: Lead time | ||||||
b. Predictors: (Constant), E-payment, E-tendering, Efficiency, E-sourcing | ||||||
ANOVAa | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
1 | Regression | 79.866 | 4 | 19.967 | 186.916 | .000b |
Residual | 14.314 | 134 | .107 | |||
Total | 94.180 | 138 | ||||
a. Dependent Variable: transportation improvement | ||||||
b. Predictors: (Constant), E-payment, E-tendering, Efficiency, E-sourcing | ||||||
Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
1 | (Constant) | .845 | .505 | 1.677 | .000 | |
E-sourcing | .382 | .050 | .463 | 7.64 | .000 | |
E-tendering | .210 | .065 | .300 | 3.231 | .001 | |
Efficiency | .132 | .039 | .140 | 3.385 | .000 | |
E-payment | .376 | .088 | .364 | 1.033 | .000 | |
a. Dependent Variable: cost saving | ||||||
Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
1 | (Constant) | .811 | .703 | 1.154 | .000 | |
E-sourcing | .543 | .069 | .400 | 7.869 | .000 | |
E-tendering | .095 | .086 | .582 | 6.885 | .000 | |
Efficiency | .076 | .047 | .073 | 1.615 | .003 | |
E-payment | .476 | .103 | .382 | 4.608 | .000 | |
a. Dependent Variable: service quality | ||||||
Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
1 | (Constant) | .584 | .404 | 1.445 | .000 | |
E-sourcing | .270 | .040 | .287 | 6.75 | .000 | |
E-tendering | .020 | .056 | .021 | .357 | .000 | |
Efficiency | .224 | .044 | .254 | 5.09 | .000 | |
E-payment | .463 | .071 | .461 | 6.521 | .000 | |
a. Dependent Variable: Lead time | ||||||
Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
1 | (Constant) | .385 | .132 | 2.917 | .000 | |
E-sourcing | 0.255 | .061 | .333 | 4.198 | .000 | |
E-tendering | 0.089 | .033 | .114 | 2.674 | .003 | |
Efficiency | 0.219 | .052 | .221 | 4.211 | .000 | |
E-payment | 0.434 | .073 | .455 | 5.945 | .000 | |
a. Dependent Variable: transportation improvement | ||||||
Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | .782a | .763 | .762 | .17728 |
Model | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Regression | 110.992 | 4 | 27.748 | 382.853 | .000b |
Residual | 4.212 | 134 | .031 | |||
Total | 115.203 | 138 | ||||
Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | Collinearity Statistics | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Std. Error | Beta | Tolerance | VIF | ||||
1 | (Constant) | .719 | .072 | 9.986 | 000 | |||
E-sourcing | .427 | .033 | .502 | 12.924 | .000 | .181 | 5.535 | |
E-tendering | .009 | .018 | .010 | .498 | .000 | .624 | 1.603 | |
Efficiency | .041 | .028 | .036 | 1.459 | .000 | .456 | 2.194 | |
E-payment | .494 | .039 | .477 | 12.510 | .000 | .187 | 5.334 | |
Path | Hypothesis | Type of Hypothesis | B | P <0.05 | Remark |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ES→CS | H1a | Null Hypothesis | .382 | 000** | Rejected |
ET→CS | H1b | Null Hypothesis | .210 | 001** | Rejected |
E→CS | H1c | Null Hypothesis | .132 | .000** | Rejected |
EP→CS | H1d | Null Hypothesis | .376 | 000** | Rejected |
ES→SQ | H1e | Null Hypothesis | .543 | 000** | Rejected |
ET→SQ | H2a | Null Hypothesis | .095 | .000** | Rejected |
E→SQ | H2b | Null Hypothesis | .076 | .003** | Rejected |
EP→SQ | H2c | Null Hypothesis | .476 | .000** | Rejected |
ES→LT | H2d | Null Hypothesis | .270 | .000** | Rejected |
ET→LT | H2e | Null Hypothesis | .020 | .000** | Rejected |
E→LT | H3a | Null Hypothesis | .224 | .000** | Rejected |
EP→LT | H4b | Null Hypothesis | .463 | .000** | Rejected |
ES→TI | H4c | Null Hypothesis | 0.255 | .000** | Rejected |
ET→TI | H4d | Null Hypothesis | 0.089 | .002** | Rejected |
E→TI | H4de | Null Hypothesis | 0.219 | 000** | Rejected |
EP→TI | H5a | Null Hypothesis | 0.434 | .000** | Rejected |
Overall summary of results | |||||
ES→OP | Null Hypothesis | .427 | .000** | Rejected | |
ET→OP | Null Hypothesis | .009 | .000** | Rejected | |
E→OP | Null Hypothesis | .041 | .000** | Rejected | |
EP→OP | Null Hypothesis | .494 | .000** | Rejected | |
AU | African Union |
ANOVA | Analysis of Variance |
B2B | Business-to-Business |
EDI | Electronic Data Interchange |
ERP | Enterprise Resource Planning |
ICT | Information and Communication Technology |
IT | Information Technology |
KII | Key Informant Interview |
OAU | Organization of African Unity |
PO | Purchase Order |
RFI | Request for Information |
RFP | Request for Proposal |
RFQ | Request for Quotation |
SPSS | Statistical Package for Social Sciences |
VIF | Variance Inflation Factor |
| [1] | Ahmed, S., & Yaacob, M. R. (2021). Validity and Reliability of an Instrument to Measure Sustainable Performance in Manufacturing Firms. Nasrul Aiman Bin Abd Aziz Web designer, 293. |
| [2] | Angeles, R., & Nath, R. (2007). Business‐to‐business e‐procurement: success factors and challenges to implementation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(2), 104-115. |
| [3] | Azanlerigu, J. A., & Akay, E. (2015). Prospects and challenges of e-procurement in some selected public institutions in Ghana. Prospects, 7(29), 61-76. |
| [4] | Bag, S., Wood, L. C., Mangla, S. K., & Luthra, S. (2020). Procurement 4.0 and its implications on business process performance in a circular economy. Resources, conservation and recycling, 152, 104502. |
| [5] | Barngetuny, D. C., & Kimutai, G. (2015). Effects of e-procurement on supply chain management performance in Elgeyo-Marakwet County. International Academic Journal of Procurement and Supply Chain Management, 1(5), 99- 120. |
| [6] | Blanca, M. J., Arnau, J., López-Montiel, D., Bono, R., & Bendayan, R. (2013). Skewness and kurtosis in real data samples. Methodology. |
| [7] | Chan, A. P., & Owusu, E. K. (2022). Evolution of electronic procurement: contemporary review of adoption and implementation strategies. Buildings, 12(2), 198. |
| [8] | Chandrasekar Subramaniam, M. J. S. (2002). A study of the value and impact of B2B e-commerce: the case of web- based procurement. International journal of electronic commerce, 6(4), 19-40. |
| [9] | Chen, Y., Bretschneider, S., Stritch, J. M., Darnall, N., & Hsueh, L. (2022). E-procurement system adoption in local governments: the role of procurement complexity and organizational structure. Public Management Review, 24(6), 903-925. |
| [10] | Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications. |
| [11] | Delebo, D. (2022). Factors Affecting Procurement Performance: A case of Public Sectors in SNNPRS, Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation). |
| [12] | Desmond, b. P. (2022). The effects of e-procurement practices on supply chain performance: the moderating role of supplier integration (doctoral dissertation, kwame nkrumah university of science and technology, kumasi). |
| [13] | Engelbrecht-Wiggans, R., & Katok, E. (2006). E-sourcing in procurement: Theory and behavior in reverse auctions with noncompetitive contracts. Management Science, 52(4), 581-596. |
| [14] | Faheem, M., & Siddiqui, D. A. (2019). The impact of e-procurement practices on supply chain performance: A case of B2B procurement in Pakistani industry. Available at SSRN 3510616. |
| [15] | Gholampur, S. (2018). E-Procurement Adoption Impacts on Organisations “Performance and Maturity”: An Exploratory Case Study. Bangor University (United Kingdom). |
| [16] | Halilu, I. D. (2016). Electronic procurement and organizational performance, a case study of Roofings Uganda Ltd. Ibem, E. O., & Laryea, S. (2017). E-tendering in the South African construction industry. International Journal of Construction Management, 17(4), 310-328. |
| [17] | Kimberlin, C. L., & Winterstein, A. G. (2008). Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. American journal of health-system pharmacy, 65(23), 2276-2284. |
| [18] | Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques. New Age International. |
| [19] | Kumar, R. (2011). RESEARCH METHODOLOGY a step-by-step guide for beginners 3rd ed. |
| [20] | Leonard, S. R. (2000). Electronic procurement. E-business: Key Issues, App Paul T. Kidd. |
| [21] | Okoye, M. M., & Chinyere, N. (2007). E-procurement, Internal Customer Service And External Customers–A Study of Effects And Interdependencies. |
| [22] | Ongola, A. A. (2017). Factors affecting effective implementation of e-procurement in supermarkets’ supply chain management in Nairobi and its environs, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, Kca University). |
| [23] | Oppong, W. A. (2020). Electronic procurement and organizational performance among commercial state corporations. Journal DOI, 10, 22501991. |
| [24] | Orori, J. M. (2011). Factors that influence the introduction of e-procurement in retail industry: A survey of retail chain supermarkets in Kenya. Unpublished research, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology. |
| [25] | Osmonbekov, T., Bello, D. C., & Gilliland, D. I. (2002). Adoption of electronic commerce tools in business procurement: enhanced buying center structure and processes. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17(2/3), 151-166. |
| [26] | Mahdillou, H., & Akbary, J. (2014). E-procurement adoption, its benefits and costs. |
| [27] | Mapendo, d., mutuku, f., & musau, c. (2020). Impact of electronic procurement practices on organinazion performance (doctoral dissertation). |
| [28] | Marei, A. (2022). The effect of e-procurement on financial performance: Moderating the role of competitive pressure. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 10(3), 855-866. |
| [29] | Matunga, D. A., Nyanamba, S. O., & Okibo, W. (2013). The effect of e-procurement practices on effective procurement in public hospitals: A case of Kisii level 5 hospital. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 3(8), 103-111. |
| [30] | Mburu, D. K. (2011). The Role of E-Procurement in Enhancing Efficiency in Telecommunication Industry (A Case Study of Safaricom Limited Company-Kenya). Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology. |
| [31] | Mélon, L., & Spruk, R. (2020). The impact of e-procurement on institutional quality. Journal of Public Procurement, 20(4), 333-375. |
| [32] | Metoh, I. K. (2011). Factors Affecting implementation of Electronic Procurement System in the Public Sector. |
| [33] | Mwongela, S. M. (2014). E-procurement adoption and supply chain performance among commercial banks in Nairobi, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi). |
| [34] | Ndiiri, F. K. (2016). E-procurement implementation and performance of County governments in Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi). |
| [35] | Neef, D. (2001). E-Procurement: From strategy to implementation. FT press. |
| [36] | Ng’ang’a, S. K. (2017). The impact of E-procurement on the Operational Performance of Parastatals in the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum in Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi). |
| [37] | Njoroge, K. K. (2010). Factors Influencing E-Procurement Practices in Construction Industry in Kenya. Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology. |
| [38] | Nyangau, R. M., Kibuine, M., & Ouko, R. A. (2019). Cost of e-procurement system and performance of Nairobi County: A case of City Hall. International Academic Journal of Procurement and Supply Chain Management, 3(1), 164-179. |
| [39] | Rankin, J. H., Chen, Y., & Christian, A. J. (2006). E-procurement in the Atlantic Canadian AEC industry. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), 11(6), 75-87. |
| [40] | Rotich, G., Muma, B., & Micheni, E. (2016). E-sourcing, e-maintenance and public procurement performance: A case of Kericho County-Kenya. Science Research, 4(2), 37. |
| [41] | Saastamoinen, J., Tammi, T., & Reijonen, H. (2018). E-procurement and SME involvement in public procurement of innovations: an exploratory study. International Journal of Procurement Management, 11(4), 420-442. |
| [42] | Sharabati, M., Sulaiman, A., & Mohd Salleh, N. A. (2015). End user satisfaction and individual performance assessments in e-procurement systems. |
| [43] | Smart, A. F. (2010). E-procurement and its impact on supply management–evidence from industrial case studies. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 13(6), 423-440. |
| [44] | Tayebwa, B. (2012). Electronic-Procurement and organizational performance: case study of Nakumatti Supermarket in Kampala, Uganda. |
| [45] | Teklu, d. (2020). Factors affecting the adoption of e-procurement in public organizations: the case of addis ababa city roads authority (doctoral dissertation, st. Mary’s university). |
APA Style
Shewangzaw, B., Omer, A., Aydagn, A. (2026). Effects of Implementing E-Procurement on Organizational Performance: The Case of African Union. Innovation Business, 1(1), 55-77. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ib.20260101.15
ACS Style
Shewangzaw, B.; Omer, A.; Aydagn, A. Effects of Implementing E-Procurement on Organizational Performance: The Case of African Union. Innov. Bus. 2026, 1(1), 55-77. doi: 10.11648/j.ib.20260101.15
AMA Style
Shewangzaw B, Omer A, Aydagn A. Effects of Implementing E-Procurement on Organizational Performance: The Case of African Union. Innov Bus. 2026;1(1):55-77. doi: 10.11648/j.ib.20260101.15
@article{10.11648/j.ib.20260101.15,
author = {Belayihun Shewangzaw and Amana Omer and Abrham Aydagn},
title = {Effects of Implementing E-Procurement on Organizational Performance: The Case of African Union},
journal = {Innovation Business},
volume = {1},
number = {1},
pages = {55-77},
doi = {10.11648/j.ib.20260101.15},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ib.20260101.15},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ib.20260101.15},
abstract = {This study examined the effect of e-procurement implementation on organizational performance in the African Union. A descriptive and explanatory research design employing both quantitative and qualitative approaches was adopted. The study targeted 230 employees, from which 146 respondents were selected using simple random sampling. Primary data were collected through structured questionnaires and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical techniques with SPSS version 26. Validity and reliability tests were conducted to ensure data quality. The findings revealed a statistically significant positive relationship between e-procurement practices and organizational performance. Regression results further confirmed that e-procurement dimensions significantly predict organizational performance. Among the components, e-tendering emerged as the most dominant practice, while e-sourcing, e- payment, and efficiency also demonstrated positive effects on performance outcomes. Overall, the study concludes that effective implementation of e-procurement enhances organizational performance. The study recommends strengthening e-procurement policies, improving stakeholder participation, and creating a supportive institutional environment to sustain performance improvement.},
year = {2026}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of Implementing E-Procurement on Organizational Performance: The Case of African Union AU - Belayihun Shewangzaw AU - Amana Omer AU - Abrham Aydagn Y1 - 2026/03/10 PY - 2026 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ib.20260101.15 DO - 10.11648/j.ib.20260101.15 T2 - Innovation Business JF - Innovation Business JO - Innovation Business SP - 55 EP - 77 PB - Science Publishing Group UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ib.20260101.15 AB - This study examined the effect of e-procurement implementation on organizational performance in the African Union. A descriptive and explanatory research design employing both quantitative and qualitative approaches was adopted. The study targeted 230 employees, from which 146 respondents were selected using simple random sampling. Primary data were collected through structured questionnaires and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical techniques with SPSS version 26. Validity and reliability tests were conducted to ensure data quality. The findings revealed a statistically significant positive relationship between e-procurement practices and organizational performance. Regression results further confirmed that e-procurement dimensions significantly predict organizational performance. Among the components, e-tendering emerged as the most dominant practice, while e-sourcing, e- payment, and efficiency also demonstrated positive effects on performance outcomes. Overall, the study concludes that effective implementation of e-procurement enhances organizational performance. The study recommends strengthening e-procurement policies, improving stakeholder participation, and creating a supportive institutional environment to sustain performance improvement. VL - 1 IS - 1 ER -