\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Toward Realizing Operational Excellence through e-Procurement Adoption: A Resource based view},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2018-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2018)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2018-01-15}
\title{Toward Realizing Operational Excellence through e-Procurement Adoption: A Resource based view}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Ziad Mohd Ali  Smadi}

             \author[2]{Hayel T.  Ababneh}

             \affil[1]{  Al al-bayt University}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 16 December 2017 Accepted: 1 January 2018 Published: 15 January 2018}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


This study examines a conceptual framework that investigates the determining factors affecting the e-procurement adoption by SMEs in Jordan. It extends to discover how e-procurement adoption contributes to the enhancement of operational excellence. The proposed conceptual framework was examined by distributing a structured questionnaire to a group of Jordan SMEs. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling technique were used to test the research hypotheses. The study results reveal that the IT infrastructure, top management support, and IT staff readiness have strong influences on e-procurement adoption. It was also found that e-procurement adoption is a powerful business tool to reach operational excellence. This implies that organizations with similar contextual settings can potentially utilize this study's findings and promote further implementation of e-procurement systems. This study gives deeper attention to the internal resources that decision makers should emphasize to adopt e-procurement successfully and consequently obtain its potential desired outcomes. The current study scrutinizes the intra-organizational competitive capabilities that enhance successful adoption of e-procurement and provides strong evidence on the possibility to harvest operational benefits through applying e-procurement in the SME's.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{operational excellence, e-procurement, adoption, SME'S, Jordan.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
-procurement is an organizational use of IT to automate the external contracts to purchase processes from outside vendors \hyperref[b32]{(Gunasekaran, 2009)}. Among the wide array of tactical, operational, and strategic values \hyperref[b38]{(Hashim et al., 2013}), e-procurement could support organizational performance by acquiring its main benefits such as cost reduction and streamlining inter-organizational processes \hyperref[b69]{(Teo et al., 2009)}. However many organizations fail to realize the desired performance of using e-procurement systems due to the failure of considering the individual-level acceptance of e-procurement before making their decision of adoption (Brandon-Jones and Kauppi 2018).\par
Many manufacturing companies exert premium efforts in acquiring needed resources in the future, and many of them cannot realize the relation between transforming into the use of technology and achieving a satisfactory level of performance. This may help in filling this theoretical gap by tracking the success factors of e-procurement and examining its impact on realizing business excellence. The objectives of this research are to bring light into the prerequisites of adopting e-procurement and to portrait its relation with achieving operational performance. With that goal in mind, we are also responding to the call of \hyperref[b48]{Mikalef et al., (2013)} and \hyperref[b8]{Batenburg (2007)} who encourage future quantitative studies focusing on the value of e-procurement on organizational performance.\par
The study seeks answers to the following research questions:\par
1. How e-procurement adoption is being motivated in Jordan SMEs? 2. How do Jordan SMEs currently use and plan to use e-procurement? 3. How does the doption of e-procurement across Jordan SMEs affect operational excellence?\par
This study was carried out for many reasons; First, the existing literature on e-procurement has paid main attention to a large scale and sophisticated technology-based organizations \hyperref[b68]{(Tatsis et al., 2006)}. Second, e-procurement in small and medium enterprises has not received much attention from researchers or vendors \hyperref[b32]{(Gunasekaran et al., 2009)}, and some have conflicting results. Thus, searching for further evidence are still required to support the current literature. We believe that success factors and barriers are changing over time and across different economiccultural context, Thus it is necessary to explore these variable to determine the level of using e-procurement in a developing country; Jordan. Third, there has been little investigation of e-procurement outside of US and European settings \hyperref[b78]{(Walker and Harland, 2008)}, thus conducting such research in a different context is a valuable contribution because we believe that what may be good practice in an organization within developed countries may not be so obviously applicable for organizations in developing countries. Fourth, research in IT adoption have paradoxical results. Thus we believe that this research will contribute to the existing literature by identifying key intra-organizational resources that leverage potential operational performance from IT investments. Fifth, because most studies focus on factors influencing e-procurement adoption \hyperref[b61]{(Rahim, 2008;}\hyperref[b8]{Batenburg, 2007;}\hyperref[b15]{Chan and Lee, 2003)}, there is a great need to investigate the link between eprocurement adoption and its consequent results to understand the business value of e-procurement adoption \hyperref[b48]{(Mikalef, 2013)}.\par
This study is structured as follows. First, the RBV is introduced which is considered the lens for understanding the inner organizational resources that shape the extent of e-procurement adoption. Next, the literature review is presented that considers the determinants of e-procurement adoption and its relation with realizing operational excellence. Subsequently, the method of collecting and analyzing data is articulated. Finally, findings and conclusions that are relevant to SMEs with a moderate economic and technological abilities are drawn. 
\section[{II.}]{II.} 
\section[{Literature Review and Research}]{Literature Review and Research}\par
Hypotheses Development 
\section[{a) The Resource-Based View}]{a) The Resource-Based View}\par
Based on the resource-based view (Penrose and Penrose, 2009), business organizations rely on their internal tangible and intangible resources to formulate their strategy for the purpose of improving business performance and consequently building competitive advantage \hyperref[b56]{(Peteraf, 1993;}\hyperref[b7]{Barney, 1991;}\hyperref[b80]{Wernerfelt, 1984)}. RBV considers that achieving excellence and to obtaining external opportunities necessitates exploiting the available internal capabilities. However, superiority over rivals could not be obtained with imitable or substitutable corporate resources \hyperref[b7]{(Barney, 1991)}. \hyperref[b77]{Wade and Hulland, (2004)} argue that studying information systems (IS) from the lenses of the RBV has the potential to address main drivers of business excellence. Thus it is considered to be a valuable framework to think about the relationship between IS and firm performance \hyperref[b66]{(Santhanam and Hartono 2003)}. According to \hyperref[b9]{Bharadwaj (2000)}, firms can create an advanced performance through building IT -related capabilities such as individual and firm-specific resources. Similarly, Ravichandran and Lertwongsatien, (2002) found preliminary evidence supporting the relationship between IT firm capabilities and superior firm performance. These IT firm capabilities would include managerial IT knowledge \hyperref[b64]{(Ray et al., 2001;}\hyperref[b47]{Mata et al., 1995)}. A more recent study conducted by Gupta, (2018) affirms that firms can use IS as an internal firm resource to establish a transient competitive advantage and a favorable level of performance. 
\section[{b) Determinants of e-procurement adoption i. Availability of technological infrastructure}]{b) Determinants of e-procurement adoption i. Availability of technological infrastructure}\par
According to \hyperref[b18]{Chatzoglou and Chatzoudes (2016)}, IT infrastructure is considered as one of the most important e-business adoption drivers. The results of Hassan, Tretiakov, and Whiddett, (2017) also showed that reliance on e-procurement is driven by some variables which include technology infrastructure. Various studies confirmed that B2B e-commerce is mainly determined by IT availability and its level of maturity \hyperref[b30]{(Gorla, Chiravuri, and Chinta, 2017;}\hyperref[b18]{Chatzoglou, and Chatzoudes, 2016)}. Many firms especially SMEs use slight technologies because of their limited resources, limited knowledge, and limited IT infrastructure \hyperref[b37]{(Harland et al., 2007)}. The diffusion of ecommerce in developing countries is influenced by IT infrastructure and other issues such as telecommunications, government and, legal, social and cultural factors, (Javalgi and Ramsey, 2001; \hyperref[b49]{Murillo, 2001)}. \hyperref[b78]{Walker and, Harland, (2008)} affirmed that one of the main issues encountering adoption of eprocurement in developing countries, is lack of technological infrastructure and online access. In conjunction with Diffusion of Innovation theory (DOI), numerous IT studies have employed its insights to emphasize factors that affect the adoption of technological innovation  {\ref (Rogers, 1995)}. A key contextual aspect of DOI is the technological context that focuses on the availability of IT infrastructure, IT sophistication, and IT capability. Firms have to address these issues before the intention to adopt e-business technology. This view is reinforced by \hyperref[b60]{Premkumar and Ramamurthy (1995)} who indicate that the adoption of e-business is enhanced through acquiring the necessary IT infrastructure including hardware, software, application and, network. By obtaining these technological resources, organizations will be more likely to adopt technological initiatives \hyperref[b17]{(Chang, 2010)}. Therefore, our hypothesis is as follows:\par
H1: There is a positive effect of IT infrastructure on the extent of e-procurement adoption. 
\section[{ii. Management support}]{ii. Management support}\par
In a review of the motivators and inhibitors of IT adoption, management support was considered as one of the main determining factors. \hyperref[b51]{Ngai et al. (2010)} confirm that management support is crucial to the successful implementation of SCM technology. In a study of \hyperref[b14]{Chan and Chong (2013)} aimed to identify determinants of a mobile supply chain management system, it was found that constant support from the top management will the achieve greater success of its implementation. Thus, involving owners and managers would ensure sufficient commitment toward the decision of adopting new technology \hyperref[b67]{(Scupola, 2009;}\hyperref[b41]{Huang et al. 2008;}\hyperref[b12]{Carnaghan and Klassen 2007;}\hyperref[b42]{Jeyaraj et al., 2006;}\hyperref[b59]{Premkumar, 2003)}. In this regard, managers would support e-procurement adoption if they are aware of its positive impact on organizational performance \hyperref[b18]{(Chatzoglou and Chatzoudes, 2016)}. Hence, the following hypothesis is developed.\par
H2: There is a positive effect of management support on the extent of e-procurement adoption. 
\section[{iii. Users' readiness}]{iii. Users' readiness}\par
The findings of Chatzoglou and Chatzoudes (2016) affirm that users' skills of using the internet is one of the main influencing factors on e-business adoption is mainly influenced by firm size, firm scope, IT infrastructure and internet skills being the most important e-business adoption drivers. Similarly, Giunipero, Ramirez, and Swilley, (2012) found that internet skills is associated with the use of electronic purchasing tools. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and its modified versions \hyperref[b20]{(Davis 1985;}\hyperref[b21]{Davis et al., 1989;}\hyperref[b76]{Venkatesh et al., 2003)} are considered as the most dominant models because of their high capability in explaining technology adoption. The two determinants of TAM; the perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) have explained 40\% of the variance in the intention to adopt technology \hyperref[b5]{(Autry et al., 2010)}. Perceived ease of use refers to "the degree to which the prospective user expects the target system to be free of effort" \hyperref[b21]{(Davis, 1989)}. Users perceive that the use of a particular type of technology will be easy when they have a good level of skills in using that technology. Users readiness to is more likely to be high when they are significantly skilled in using technology (Au, Ho, and Law, 2014; Giunipero, Ramirez, and Swilley, 2012; Mirchandani and Motwani, 2001). Since organizations possess internet-skilled users who accept using new technology, the decision to adopt e-procurement would be easier and more guaranteed. Therefore, this study hypothesizes:\par
H3: There is a positive effect of users' readiness on the extent of e-procurement adoption.\par
iv. Users' willingness Based on the theory of reasoned action \hyperref[b25]{(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975)}, human behavior is determined by pre-existing attitudes. People choose to behave in a particular way according to their expectations and potential outcome of such behavior. Since organizational performance is mainly determined by the behaviors of individual employees, understanding their attitudes become very important \hyperref[b23]{(Cho and Chang 2008)}. Regarding TAM, users' attitudes toward technology acceptance and use is identified by the perceived usefulness. Once individual employees perceive the technology's usefulness, they will become more willing to use it, and hence should affect its adoption \hyperref[b21]{(Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw, 1989)}. As users' readiness refers to their capabilities and skills, users' willingness can be identified by their acumen and perceptions of e-procurement usefulness. For successful adoption, Giunipero, Ramirez, and Swilley, (2012) argue that users have to be aware of the benefits of e-procurement. If they perceive its usefulness in improving performance at the individual and organizational levels, they will be more inclined to accept using it. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:\par
H4: There is a positive effect of users' willingness on the extent of e-procurement adoption.\par
v. IT staff support Based on the study of Ross, Beath, and Goodhue (1995), some firms do generate competitive value not only from acquiring IT systems but also by developing competent IT human resources (Chahal and Bakshi 2015; Powell and Dent-Micallef, 1997). Competent IT staff can learn new technical skills and possess the required information technology knowledge to solve IT business problems and to address business opportunities through IT. Organizations with highly skilled IT staff are keen to adopt IT innovations because IT specialists can develop IT applications and customize them according to the organizational specific needs \hyperref[b45]{(Lin and Lee, 2005)}. Ebrahim and Irani (2005) suppose that technology itself would not guarantee success but, it is necessary to ensure having sufficient resources such as capable IT staff and effective IT training and support. According to Kannabiran and Dharmalingam, (2012), advanced IT adoption is limited by in-house IT human resources. This result is supported by a study conducted by Upadhyaya, Mohanan, and Prasad, (2013) which found that one of the main barriers to adopt IT in is lack of in-house IT manpower. Because of limited skills and knowledge of technological innovations, many firms are reluctant to adopt IT until they have internal IT related expertise \hyperref[b70]{(Thong, 1999)}. Thus, to ensure the successful adoption of e-procurement systems, it is necessary to ensure the availability of knowledgeable and skilled IS staff. Thus, we develop the following hypothesis: H5: There is a positive effect of IT staff support on the extent of e-procurement adoption. 
\section[{c) Operational excellence}]{c) Operational excellence}\par
A study conducted by Subramaniam and Shaw, (2002), had listed significant values created by webbased procurement. It includes a reduction in transaction costs, search cost, and product price. The results of Hung et al., (2014) confirmed that electronic purchasing improve intra-organizational efficiency as well as external partnerships, and consequently has a positive impact on buyers' organizational performance. Organizational performance could be enhanced by the ability of e-procurement in improving collaboration with outside partners, providing updated information, and streamlining processes \hyperref[b68]{(Tatsis et al., 2006)}. Interorganizational systems also increase the bargaining power over suppliers \hyperref[b57]{(Porter and Millar, 2001)}, allow better inventory forecasting and planning for future needs \hyperref[b72]{(Turban et al., 2017)}. The emergence of online procurement systems transforms the way to conduct purchasing processes; from make-for-stock operations into make-to-order operations (Gosain, Malhotra, and El Sawy, 2004). Online B2B transactions require minimal data inputs, and little errors would occur. Thus online procurement operations lessen cycle time and provide more accurate information. By minimizing errors, an eprocurement system can lead to a better match between buyers' needs and the delivered product, thus achieving better quality of products. One of the main advantages of e-procurement system is its ability to locate alternative sources within a reasonable time  {\ref (Subramaniam and Shaw, 2002)}. Consequently, the following hypothesis was developed: H6: There is a positive effect of the extent of eprocurement adoption on realizing operational excellence. 
\section[{III.}]{III.} 
\section[{Research Model}]{Research Model}\par
As shown in Figure \hyperref[b0]{(1)}, this study focuses on investigating how intra-organizational factors and would determine the level of adopting e-procurement, and how this may affect operational excellence.  
\section[{Research Methodology}]{Research Methodology}\par
Depending on the nature of this research, an empirical analysis was selected as the research method. For the purpose of collecting data, a structured questionnaire was developed. The questionnaire was pilot-tested by involving manufacturing-responsible managers and quality consultants. It was pre-tested, modified, and finalized in a customizable manner to be suitable for capturing data on the subjects of eprocurement and operational excellence in the industrial environment of SME's in Jordan. There were eight parts to the questionnaire: (1) profiles of the respondents and targeted organizations; (2) availability of technological infrastructure; (3) the extent of IT staff support; (4) the extent of management support; (5) the extent of users' readiness; \hyperref[b5]{(6)} the extent of users' willingness; \hyperref[b6]{(7)} the extent of e-procurement adoption; and (8) the realized operational excellence. 
\section[{a) Data collection}]{a) Data collection}\par
The questionnaire was distributed individually with a brief interview with all respondents to ensure a better understanding of the questionnaire items. The questionnaire was also collected in person to ensure privacy and confidentiality of collected information. Simple random sampling technique was used in distributing questionnaires to different managerial levels (operational managers, quality professionals, and line supervisors) at manufacturing companies of Al-Hassan industrial city. Out of (150) industrial companies at al-Hassan industrial city (Jordan chamber of commerce 2016) only 60 industries were selected randomly for solving the problem of the study, in which eight questionnaires was only distributed at each of these industries companies using a random simple sampling technique. Out of 480 questionnaires distributed to population sample only 410 or (85.4\%) of questionnaires were received back, and after omitting \hyperref[b21]{(22)} invalid responses, therefore only (388) questionnaires were only fit for analysis. 
\section[{b) Profile of participants}]{b) Profile of participants}\par
Table \hyperref[b0]{(1)} shows the profile of the respondents and the targeted organizations in this study. In this study all respondents were in operations and purchasing departments. The results showed that onethird of respondents were female, and more than 59\% were young. A majority of the respondents had at least a bachelor certificate. This highlights the fact that our   {\ref 2012)}. PLS is used due to its ability to model both formative and reflective constructs of small sample sizes \hyperref[b19]{(Chin, 1998;}\hyperref[b27]{Gefen et al., 2011)}. Therefore the researchers used SEM to test the proposed research model, to discover the extent to which the research model is supported by collected data, and to obtain a reliable measurement tool useful for predicting the extent of using e-procurement and the potential operational excellence. For performing a reliable and vigorous analysis using SEM, the typical sample size should not be less than 200 cases (Kline, 2011; \hyperref[b35]{Hair et al., 2010)}. The number of respondents participated in this study was 388 managers in the purchasing departments and other related areas; production and quality departments.\par
V. 
\section[{Empirical Results}]{Empirical Results} 
\section[{a) Reliability and validity}]{a) Reliability and validity}\par
To evaluate the sufficiency of the measurement model, we relied on the criteria of reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Reliability was examined using values of Cronbach's Alpha. Table  {\ref 2} shows that all values were above 0.7, which is the acceptance threshold for judging the reliability of the measurement tool. To assess convergent, the 58 items used to measure the 7 research variables, factor analysis was used. In the first round, 21 items, were found to have strong loadings of more than 0.40 on more than one factor. Thus, these 21 items were dropped, and the analysis was performed again. The results identified a scale of only 37 items to measure the seven factors in the current study. Further analysis of the discriminant validity was conducted by examining indicators of Cronbach's Alpha, Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and factor loading. As presented in Table \hyperref[tab_1]{3}, it is clearly evident that Cronbach's Alpha of all items exceeded the conventional value of 0.7 \hyperref[b35]{(Hair et al., 2010;} {\ref Nunnally and Bernstein 1994)}. AVE is a measurement tool used for testing convergent validity. It examines the amount of variance that the indicators share with their respective construct \hyperref[b36]{(Hair et al., 2011)}. The results of convergent validity presented in Table \hyperref[b2]{(3)} show that the AVE values of all constructs are more than the cutoff value of 0.50.\par
To examine the extent to which a given construct of the research model is different from others, discriminate validity was assessed \hyperref[b26]{(Fornell, and Larcker, 1981)}. The discriminate validity is assured when the square root of the AVE of an individual construct is greater than the correlation of that construct with other constructs in the model \hyperref[b26]{(Fornell, and Larcker, 1981)}. The diagonal values shown in Table \hyperref[tab_2]{4} are the square root of the AVE. These values are greater than the inter-construct correlations, which indicates an acceptable discriminant validity. Consequently, there is clear evidence that the measurement model is valid, reliable, and suitable for further analysis. To examine convergent validity, the confirmatory factor analysis was used to extract factor loadings. Table \hyperref[tab_1]{3} shows that all items had loadings above 0.50 on their particular constructs. This means that the measurement has adequate convergent validity \hyperref[b35]{(Hair et al., 2010)}. The study assessed whether the assumed firstorder constructs load sufficiently and significantly into their prospective second-order construct. Accordingly, loadings between first-order and second-order constructs were examined using the PLS algorithm. The results show that the five determinant variables of e-procurement (first-order constructs) have sufficient and significant loading values. The overall results indicate that the measurement model meets the conventional standards of reliability and validity.  
\section[{b) Testing Hypotheses}]{b) Testing Hypotheses}\par
To test research hypotheses, we estimate the path coefficients and significance level for each latent variable in the structured model using the PLS algorithm and the PLS bootstrapping procedures. As illustrated in Figure  {\ref 2}, the validity of the model is evaluated by R² values and structural paths  {\ref (Chwelos et al., 2001)}. The value of the R² shows that almost 16.3\% of the variance of the extent of e-procurement adoption was accounted for the proposed five preceding variables. This value indicates a satisfactory level of explanation. With regard to the path structure, the research empirically tested the proposed relationships using the bootstrapping procedure to test the statistical significance of the path coefficients. Since our hypotheses were to predict an effect and relationship between independent and dependent variables, therefore we have used path analysis to examine this effect through knowing the-t-value and its coefficient (ß) and we have examined our hypotheses at one tail test. The path coefficient and t-value of all relationships are shown in Table \hyperref[tab_3]{5}. As shown in the table above, the relationship between technological infrastructure and the extent of eprocurement adoption is positive and significant (path coefficient = 0.18, p < 0.05), providing support for H1. Similarly, the relationship between the readiness of IT staff and the extent of e-procurement adoption is positive and significant (path coefficient = 0.17, p < 0.05), providing support for H2. Also, the relationship between management support and the extent of eprocurement adoption is positive and significant (path coefficient = 0.16, p < 0.05), providing support for H3. Contrary to expectation, the effect of users' readiness on the extent of IT adoption were insignificant at 0.05 (path coefficient = 0.0374; p > 0.05). This result was similar to the study conducted by \hyperref[b2]{Alsaad et al, (2018)} in which the role of organizational readiness was not significantly influenced the intent to adopt B2B e-commerce (path coefficient = ?0 .039; p > 0.05). Thus, we reject H4. Similarly, the effect of users' willingness on eprocurement adoption were insignificant at p < 0.05, providing no evidence to accept H5 (path coefficient = ?0.0976; p > 0.05). However, the effect of the extent of e-procurement adoption on realizing operational excellence was positive and significant (path coefficient = 0.66, p < 0.05), providing support for H6. 
\section[{VI.}]{VI.} 
\section[{Discussion and Conclusion}]{Discussion and Conclusion}\par
Although resource-based view has been widely employed in a variety of management fields, it is rarely getting attention by IS researchers. Thus, there is insufficient effort to explain how inner resources of the firm is a robust theory that has received wide acceptance in other management fields. While it has been used on a number of some occasions in IS research, there has been no comprehensive effort to describe or defend its use in an IS context. The principal reason behind this paper has been to provide evidence of the way firm IT resources would motivate firms to adopt technology and to give better sight for those who wish to understand how certain technology (i e, eprocurement) would lead to accomplish competitive performance. Our paper shows the significance of the resource-based view to understanding the determinants of e-procurement. This study complements previous research that has used this theoretical framework \hyperref[b77]{(Wade and Hulland, 2004;}\hyperref[b65]{Ross et al., 1998)}  Research on the value of e-procurement shows that adopting it does not guarantee the realization of the potential value. The realized value depends on internal and external factors. This study focuses on internal factors which are controllable by the firm. They can be enhanced and well managed internally to achieve better results. These include availability of technological infrastructure, users readiness and willingness, top management and skilled IT staff. Once managers become conscious about the potentiality of e-procurement system, it is necessary to identify the determinants of its adoption. Realizing the value of the e-procurement is restricted to certain internal factors, which are controllable by the organization. These are called Organizational IT resources. The contribution of e-procurement system depends on such resources as acknowledgeable and attentive people whether they are IT support staff or decision makers.\par
Our paper highlights that organizations are more likely to use e-procurement when a sufficient level of IT infrastructure is available. Our results show that IT infrastructure was the most important IT asset for influencing the decision to adopt e-procurement. It is a normal result as it is impossible to use any type of business systems without guaranteeing readiness and availability of technological infrastructure. This indicates that it is important to possess the required hardware, and a capable network to cope with increasing number purchasing processes conducted over the internet. This conclusion is congruent with various studies such as Chang, (2010); Gorla, Chiravuri, and Chinta, (2017); and Chatzoglou, and Chatzoudes, (2016), who affirm that IT availability and maturity level is one of the main issues encountering e-procurement adoption, especially in the developing countries \hyperref[b78]{(Walker, and Harland, 2008)}. Additionally we conclude that organizations will adopt eprocurement whenever there is a reliable staff ready to handle emerging IT issues. IT staff should be highly skilled and willing enough to follow up users needs and to sort out potential difficulties. The importance of competent IT staff also resides in their role of developing IT applications and aligning technology to the organizational needs \hyperref[b45]{(Lin and Lee, 2005)}. This finding comes in line with findings of \hyperref[b43]{Kannabiran and Dharmalingam, (2012)} and \hyperref[b13]{Chahal and Bakshi (2015)}, who showed the significance of competent human resources in realizing competitive value through acquiring IT initiatives. Another important organizational asset required for successful adoption of e-procurement is the top management support. It is much necessary to guarantee managers belief in the value of using eprocurement to their firms. This study was in agreement with the study of \hyperref[b51]{Ngai et al. (2010)}  \hyperref[b67]{and Scupola, (2009)}, who argue that managers' awareness of IT benefits and their commitment is crucial to the successful adoption of IT.\par
Unexpectedly, no significant evidence was observed concerning the impact of users' readiness on adopting e-procurement. This may indicate that some managers may decide to outsource IS and adopt its actual implementation without considering users IT skills. Thus, some managers do not pay attention to users' abilities, but alternatively, they consider the availability of physical IT assets and the capabilities of IT department. As a result, it is largely recommended to change employee perception toward using new technology and to improve their behaviors by offering a training program, lecture, technical know-how workshops. Surprisingly, this finding contradicts many studies (for example; Au, Ho, and Law, 2014; Giunipero, Ramirez, and Swilley, 2012; and \hyperref[b76]{Venkatesh et al., 2003)} affirm the role of users' readiness (perceived ease of use) in acceptance and use of technology. Another surprising finding of this study is the insignificant relationship between users' willingness and eprocurement adoption. This finding contradicts the findings of different studies (for example; Giunipero, Ramirez, and Swilley, 2012; and Cho and Chang 2008) who confirm that perceived usefulness (users' willingness) is a critical factor in determining successful adoption and usage of IT initiatives.\par
It is clearly, found that e-procurement adoption is directly related to realizing a variety of benefits at the operational level of the purchasing departments. To a large degree, potential adopters of e-procurement perceive its value in achieving better performance of purchasing activities. This is in agreement with Rahim, (2008); Batenburg, (2007); and \hyperref[b15]{Chan and Lee, (2003)} who investigate the need to link between e-procurement adoption and its consequent results to understand the business value of e-procurement adoption. This behavior could be reasonable in a particular organizational culture which allows managers to take decisions on their own without considering perceptions of potential users. In some organizational settings where the masculinity prevails, managers behave aggressively with others. They decide to adopt a certain technology and wait other to perform in certain way \hyperref[b39]{(Hofstede, et al., 1998)}.\par
The result also confirmed that our model is reliable enough to predict the intention to adopt eprocurement, and its consequent relationship with realizing operational excellence. Additionally, the model validity was tested by the indicators of convergent and discriminant validity. Both tests show that the model is valid enough to be used for investigating the determinant factors affecting e-procurement, as well as the level of operational excellence could be achieved by adopting e-procurement. Furthermore, the validity of our model was evaluated by the R² value which showed that almost 16.3\% of the variance in the intention to adopt e- A procurement was accounted for the proposed framework, which indicates a satisfactory level of explanation. 
\section[{VII. Contribution to Knowledge and Practice}]{VII. Contribution to Knowledge and Practice}\par
This study expands understanding of the RBV and its ability to explain how organizational IT capabilities would enhance the organizational performance. It provides empirical evidence to understand how internal IT resources influence the decision to adopt e-procurement. Contradictory results have been found in different studies concerning the determinant factors that may enable or hinder eprocurement adoption. This study supports the extant literature by providing evidence of these enablers. With respect to e-procurement adoption in developing countries, the progress of knowledge is slightly limited, because they do not focus on the unique internal resources. Additionally, to the best of the authors' knowledge, no research effort has been made in Jordan in an attempt to investigate the determinants of eprocurement adoption and its relation to firm performance. In this study, we contribute to the existing literature on e-procurement adoption in developing countries by considering mainly intra-organizational capabilities. The current model has identified the critical organizational aspects recognized from the literature, collectively with other aspects not clearly examined in previous studies. While many previous studies concentrated on the acceptance of using e-procurement from the perspective of users, this study is different as it entails the factors affecting the decision to adopt eprocurement at the managerial level. Furthermore, the inclusion of users readiness, users willingness, and IT staff support factors in this study is a further contribution to the body of knowledge on this topic. A supplementary contribution is the new measurement tool developed. Some questions were adapted to fit the research context while other questions for the novel constructs were merely developed by the researchers. Consequently, the integrated model and the measurement tool used in this research are the contributions of this study. Thus, this research provides valuable knowledge and hence can stimulate others to engage in further research addressing the adoption of new technologies. Practitioners benefit from the insights by the provision of prerequisite factors that purchasers have to consider for better employment of e-procurement systems and acknowledging them with its potential in realizing operational performance. Managers in charge of deciding on the e-procurement adoption need to be more mindful that successful adoption requires considering the internal IT resources. To ensure competitive performance, firms have to acquire inimitable resources which enable them to adopt new technology. Thus, developing more sophisticated IT infrastructure, securing the commitment of top management, and supporting IT staff with the required computer skills are crucial for better adoption. 
\section[{VIII. Limitations and Recommendations}]{VIII. Limitations and Recommendations}\par
for Future Research\par
This inquiry was restricted to small and medium manufacturing organizations, which may limit generalisability to larger organizations in different sectors. Thus, we encourage other researchers to target larger firms and different contexts around Jordan. Although our examination was designed to facilitate a deeper insight into internal factors influencing eprocurement adoption likelihood, more factors might provide enhance the existing model in explaining companies' adoption behavior. For example, future studies could investigate the financial support of the organization (Altayyar and Beaumont-Kerridge 2016; \hyperref[b32]{Gunasekaran et al., 2009)}, and the organizational culture \hyperref[b0]{(Ababneh and Shrafat, 2014)}. Another limitation arises from providing a static picture of e-procurement adoption as it is a cross-sectional and lacks a longitudinal approach. 2. The need for continuing relationship with suppliers 3. Allocated financial resources 4. The existing policies support using new technology 5. Top management belief of its positive impact on future performance Note: The factors were measured on a five-point scale, with 1 = "extremely low" and 5 = "extremely high" Users' readiness towards e-procurement adoption Potential users:\par
1. Have the ability to use the internet well 2. Have the ability to execute good search on the internet 3. Have the technical expertise 4. Have good system knowledge 5. Perceive ease of using the system Note: The factors were measured on a five-point scale, with 1 = "strongly disagree" and 5 = "strongly agree" Readiness of IT staff Our internal IT staff members are 1. Available to solve any problems associated with the use of e-procurement system 2. Accessible at any time to provide support on the use of e-procurement system 3. Capable of solving any problems associated with the use of e-procurement system Note: The factors were measured on a five-point scale, with 1 = "strongly disagree" and 5 = "strongly agree" Users' willingness towards e-procurement adoption Potential users:\par
1. Perceive the system usefulness 2. Feel comfort with using the system 3. Expect their jobs will be executed easier through usage 4. Understand the benefits of e-procurement 5. Expect using the system will improve their performance 6. Do not resist using new technology Note: The factors were measured on a five-point scale, with 1 = "strongly disagree" and 5 = "strongly agree" The extent of e-procurement adoption We conduct the following information-related activities electronically 1. Searching for suppliers goods and services 2. Checking availability of goods and services 3. Checking prices of goods and services 4. Communicating with suppliers 5. Exchanging procurement-related information internally 6. Providing suppliers with specific information about product and service specifications 7. Sharing inventory planning information with suppliers 8. Negotiating prices and other terms with suppliers      \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.47770448548812666\textwidth}P{0.14129287598944593\textwidth}P{0.01569920844327177\textwidth}P{0.16147757255936673\textwidth}P{0.004485488126649076\textwidth}P{0.04934036939313984\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{6}{l}{Toward Realizing Operational Excellence through e-Procurement Adoption: A Resource based view}\\
Year 2018\tabcellsep Infrastructure Technological\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Users' Readiness\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
4\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep H1\tabcellsep H4\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Volume XVIII Issue XIII Version I\tabcellsep Management Support IT Staff Support\tabcellsep H3 H2\tabcellsep Extent of E-procurement Adoption Users' Willingness H5\tabcellsep H6\tabcellsep Operational Excellence\\
( )\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Global Journal of Management and Business Research\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
© 2018 Global Journals 1\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: A respondents were well]} 
\caption{\label{tab_0}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.2941269841269841\textwidth}P{0.3022222222222222\textwidth}P{0.23206349206349203\textwidth}P{0.008095238095238096\textwidth}P{0.008095238095238096\textwidth}P{0.005396825396825396\textwidth}}
Variables\tabcellsep Items\tabcellsep Factor Loading\tabcellsep AVE\tabcellsep VIF\tabcellsep R²\\
\tabcellsep IT-Infr1\tabcellsep 0.827\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Technological\tabcellsep IT-Infr2\tabcellsep 0.863\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
infrastructure\tabcellsep IT-Infr3\tabcellsep 0.853\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep IT-Infr4\tabcellsep 0.790\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep IT-Read1\tabcellsep 0.942\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Readiness of IT Staff\tabcellsep IT-Read2\tabcellsep 0.833\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep IT-Read3\tabcellsep 0.916\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep M-Supp1\tabcellsep 0.938\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Management Support\tabcellsep M-Supp2\tabcellsep 0.814\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep M-Supp3\tabcellsep 0.938\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Users' Readiness\tabcellsep U-Read1 U-Read2\tabcellsep 0.871 0.728\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Users' Willingness\tabcellsep U-Will1 U-Will2\tabcellsep 0.813 0.872\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.45139751552795027\textwidth}P{0.09503105590062112\textwidth}P{0.08447204968944098\textwidth}P{0.07127329192546585\textwidth}P{0.058074534161490686\textwidth}P{0.04487577639751553\textwidth}P{0.029037267080745343\textwidth}P{0.015838509316770187\textwidth}}
Variables\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 6\tabcellsep 7\\
1. Extent of Adoption\tabcellsep 0.815\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
2. Management Support\tabcellsep 0.320\tabcellsep 0.899\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
3. Operational Excellence\tabcellsep 0.661\tabcellsep 0.070\tabcellsep 0.861\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
4. Readiness of IT Staff\tabcellsep 0.218\tabcellsep 0.156\tabcellsep 0.244\tabcellsep 0.898\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
5. Technological infrastructure\tabcellsep 0.315\tabcellsep 0.647\tabcellsep 0.198\tabcellsep 0.092\tabcellsep 0.834\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
6. Users' Readiness\tabcellsep 0.098\tabcellsep 0.144\tabcellsep -0.098\tabcellsep 0.272\tabcellsep -0.067\tabcellsep 0.803\tabcellsep \\
7. Users' Willingness\tabcellsep 0.071\tabcellsep -0.037\tabcellsep 0.015\tabcellsep -0.142\tabcellsep 0.022\tabcellsep 0.005\tabcellsep 0.843\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 4 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.03777777777777778\textwidth}P{0.46878787878787875\textwidth}P{0.07212121212121213\textwidth}P{0.08414141414141414\textwidth}P{0.08242424242424243\textwidth}P{0.10474747474747474\textwidth}}
Hypothesis\tabcellsep Hypothesized Paths\tabcellsep Coefficients\tabcellsep t-Value (one tail)\tabcellsep P value (one tail)\tabcellsep Inference\\
H1\tabcellsep Technological infrastructure -> Extent of Adoption\tabcellsep 0.190\tabcellsep 2.511\tabcellsep 0.006\tabcellsep Supported\\
H2\tabcellsep Readiness of IT Staff -> Extent of Adoption\tabcellsep 0.178\tabcellsep 2.599\tabcellsep 0.005\tabcellsep Supported\\
H3\tabcellsep Management Support -> Extent of Adoption\tabcellsep 0.168\tabcellsep 1.818\tabcellsep 0.035\tabcellsep Supported\\
H4\tabcellsep Users' Readiness -> Extent of Adoption\tabcellsep 0.037\tabcellsep 0.406\tabcellsep 0.340\tabcellsep Rejected\\
H5\tabcellsep Users' Willingness -> Extent of Adoption\tabcellsep 0.098\tabcellsep 1.146\tabcellsep 0.126\tabcellsep Rejected\\
H6\tabcellsep Extent of Adoption -> Operational Excellence\tabcellsep 0.661\tabcellsep 12.028\tabcellsep 0.000\tabcellsep Supported\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 5 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.4746192893401015\textwidth}P{0.07550761421319797\textwidth}P{0.0884517766497462\textwidth}P{0.12081218274111676\textwidth}P{0.023730964467005077\textwidth}P{0.06687817258883248\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Technological Infrastructure consequently the ultimate outcome of improving operational excellence.}\tabcellsep Users' Readiness\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep H1 ß=0.1896\tabcellsep \tabcellsep H4 ß=0.0374\tabcellsep \\
IT Staff Support\tabcellsep H2 ß = 0.178\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Extent of E-procurement Adoption R²=0.163}\tabcellsep H6 ß=0.6605\tabcellsep Operational Excellence R²=0.436\\
\tabcellsep H3 ß= 0.1682\tabcellsep \tabcellsep H5 ß=0.0976\tabcellsep \\
Management\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Support\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Users' Willingness\tabcellsep \\
Volume XVIII Issue XIII Version I\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
( ) A\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Global Journal of Management and Business Research\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{© 2018 Global Journals} 		 		\backmatter   			 \par
Appendix: Questionnaire Items Availability of technological infrastructure 1. We have made significant IT investments 2. We have a good telecommunication networks 3. We have a good expertise in developing e-business applications 4. We have integrated IS applications handling different business areas 5. We are capable to protect our data by applying various security technologies Note: The factors were measured on a five-point scale, with 1 = "strongly disagree" and 5 = "strongly agree" Management support level towards e-procurement adoption 1. Top management confidence to use new technology 			  			 
\subsection[{Note:}]{Note:}\par
The factors were measured on a five-point scale, with 1 = "extremely low" and 5 = "extremely high"\par
The extent of realized operational excellence\par
We have realized:\par
1. A reduction in information processing and transactional costs 2. A reduction in purchasing cycle time 3. An advanced level of market share 4. A reduction in operational tasks 5. An improved SCM 6. An enhanced negotiation power over suppliers 7. A better relationship with partners and suppliers 8. A reduction in the cost of monitoring inventory and production schedules 9. A better customer satisfaction 10. A better utilization of staff 11. An improved level of customer service 12. A decrease in number of staff in the purchasing department 13. A better adaptability with market needs 14. A reduction in inventory levels 15. A reduction in the purchase price of goods and services 16. A reduction in the paperwork 17. A better partnership with suppliers 18. An improved communication 19. An improved procurement process 20. A reduction in the operational costs Note: The factors were measured on a five-point scale, with 1 = "never realized" and 5 = "extremely realized" Biographical Ziad M. Smadi is an Associate Professor of Business Administration at the Department of Business Administration, Al-al-Bayt University in Jordan. His present research interest is in operations management, human resources management, marketing, health care services, management information science.\par
Hayel T. Ababneh is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Business Administration at Al al-Bayt University, Jordan. His research interests focus on the domains of human resource management, culture and IT diffusion, and contemporary information systems.			 			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Nunnally and Bernstein]{b52}\label{b52} 	 		\textit{},  		 			J C Nunnally 		,  		 			I H Bernstein 		.  		 	 
\bibitem[ MSMEs. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research]{b75}\label{b75} 	 		\textit{},  	 	 		\textit{MSMEs. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research}  		2  (1)  p. 555.  	 
\bibitem[Lomax and Schumacker ()]{b46}\label{b46} 	 		\textit{A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling},  		 			R G Lomax 		,  		 			R E Schumacker 		.  		2012. New York, NY: Routledge Academic.  	 
\bibitem[Premkumar ()]{b59}\label{b59} 	 		‘A meta-analysis of research on information technology implementation in small business’.  		 			G Premkumar 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of organizational computing and electronic commerce}  		2003. 13  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hair et al. ()]{b34}\label{b34} 	 		\textit{A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)},  		 			J F HairJr 		,  		 			G T M Hult 		,  		 			C Ringle 		,  		 			M Sarstedt 		.  		2016. Sage Publications.  	 
\bibitem[Bharadwaj ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation’.  		 			A S Bharadwaj 		.  	 	 		\textit{MIS quarterly}  		2000. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Wernerfelt ()]{b80}\label{b80} 	 		‘A resource-based view of the firm’.  		 			B Wernerfelt 		.  	 	 		\textit{Strategic management journal}  		1984. 5  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Jeyaraj et al. ()]{b42}\label{b42} 	 		‘A review of the predictors, linkages, and biases in IT innovation adoption research’.  		 			A Jeyaraj 		,  		 			J W Rottman 		,  		 			M C Lacity 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of information technology}  		2006. 21  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Chang ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		‘A roadmap to adopting emerging technology in e-business: an empirical study’.  		 			H L Chang 		.  	 	 		\textit{Information Systems and E-Business Management}  		2010. 8  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Subramaniam ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		‘A study of the value and impact of B2B e-commerce: the case of web-based procurement’.  		 			Chandrasekar Subramaniam 		,  		 			MJ S 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Electronic Commerce}  		2002. 6  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Davis ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		\textit{A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation},  		 			F D Davis 		.  		1985.  		 			Massachusetts Institute of Technology 		 	 
\bibitem[Teo et al. ()]{b69}\label{b69} 	 		‘Adopters and non-adopters of e-procurement in Singapore: An empirical study’.  		 			T S Teo 		,  		 			S Lin 		,  		 			K H Lai 		.  	 	 		\textit{Omega}  		2009. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Thong ()]{b70}\label{b70} 	 		‘An integrated model of information systems adoption in small businesses’.  		 			J Y Thong 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of management information systems}  		1999. 15  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gefen et al. ()]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		‘An update and extension to SEM guidelines for admnistrative and social science research’.  		 			D Gefen 		,  		 			D W Straub 		,  		 			E E Rigdon 		.  	 	 		\textit{Manag. Inf. Syst. Q}  		2011.  (2)  p. 35.  	 
\bibitem[Ababneh and Shrafat ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘Analysing the role of culture in IS studies’.  		 			H T Ababneh 		,  		 			F D Shrafat 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Business Research}  		2014. 7  (11)  p. 165.  	 
\bibitem[Upadhyaya and Mohanan ()]{b74}\label{b74} 	 		\textit{Barriers to adoption of B2B e-marketplaces: an empirical study of Indian manufacturing},  		 			P Upadhyaya 		,  		 			P Mohanan 		,  		 			\& 		,  		 			KM 		.  		2013.  	 
\bibitem[Harland et al. ()]{b37}\label{b37} 	 		‘Barriers to supply chain information integration: SMEs adrift of eLands’.  		 			C M Harland 		,  		 			N D Caldwell 		,  		 			P Powell 		,  		 			J Zheng 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Operations Management}  		2007. 25  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Fishbein and Ajzen ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		\textit{Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research},  		 			M Fishbein 		,  		 			I Ajzen 		.  		1975.  	 
\bibitem[Gorla et al. ()]{b30}\label{b30} 	 		‘Business-to-business e-commerce adoption: An empirical investigation of business factors’.  		 			N Gorla 		,  		 			A Chiravuri 		,  		 			R Chinta 		.  	 	 		\textit{Information Systems Frontiers}  		2017. 19  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gosain et al. ()]{b31}\label{b31} 	 		‘Coordinating for flexibility in e-business supply chains’.  		 			S Gosain 		,  		 			A Malhotra 		,  		 			O A Sawy 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of management information systems}  		2004. 21  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Chan and Chong ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘Determinants of mobile supply chain management system diffusion: a structural equation analysis of manufacturing firms’.  		 			F T Chan 		,  		 			A Y L Chong 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Production Research}  		2013. 51  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ross et al. ()]{b65}\label{b65} 	 		‘Develop long-term competitiveness through IT assets’.  		 			J W Ross 		,  		 			C M Beath 		,  		 			D L Goodhue 		.  	 	 		\textit{IEEE Engineering Management Review}  		1998. 26  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Batenburg ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘E-procurement adoption by European firms: A quantitative analysis’.  		 			R Batenburg 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of purchasing and supply management}  		2007. 13  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gunasekaran et al. ()]{b32}\label{b32} 	 		‘E-Procurement adoption in the Southcoast SMEs’.  		 			A Gunasekaran 		,  		 			R E Mcgaughey 		,  		 			E W Ngai 		,  		 			B K Rai 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Production Economics}  		2009. 122  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Tatsis et al. ()]{b68}\label{b68} 	 		‘E-procurement in the Greek food and drink industry: drivers and impediments’.  		 			V Tatsis 		,  		 			C Mena 		,  		 			L N Van Wassenhove 		,  		 			L Whicker 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Purchasing and Supply management}  		2006. 12  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Walker and Harland ()]{b78}\label{b78} 	 		‘E-procurement in the United Nations: influences, issues and impact’.  		 			H Walker 		,  		 			C Harland 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Operations \& Production Management}  		2008. 28  (9)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Turban et al. ()]{b72}\label{b72} 	 		\textit{Electronic commerce 2018: a managerial and social networks perspective},  		 			E Turban 		,  		 			J Outland 		,  		 			D King 		,  		 			J K Lee 		,  		 			T P Liang 		,  		 			D C Turban 		.  		2017. Springer.  	 
\bibitem[Kannabiran and Dharmalingam ()]{b43}\label{b43} 	 		‘Enablers and inhibitors of advanced information technologies adoption by SMEs: An empirical study of auto ancillaries in India’.  		 			G Kannabiran 		,  		 			P Dharmalingam 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Enterprise Information Management}  		2012. 25  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Fornell and Larcker ()]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		‘Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error’.  		 			C Fornell 		,  		 			D F Larcker 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of marketing research}  		1981. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Chahal and Bakshi ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘Examining intellectual capital and competitive advantage relationship: Role of innovation and organizational learning’.  		 			H Chahal 		,  		 			P Bakshi 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Bank Marketing}  		2015. 33  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Brandon-Jones and Kauppi ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement’.  		 			A Brandon-Jones 		,  		 			K Kauppi 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Operations \& Production Management}  		2018. 38  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hashim et al. ()]{b38}\label{b38} 	 		‘Exploring e-procurement value for construction companies in Malaysia’.  		 			N Hashim 		,  		 			I Said 		,  		 			N H Idris 		.  	 	 		\textit{Procedia Technology}  		2013. 9 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Carnaghan and Klassen (2007)]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘Exploring the determinants of web-based e-business evolution in Canada’.  		 			C Carnaghan 		,  		 			K Klassen 		.  	 	 		\textit{In ASAC}  		2007. June. 28  (4) .  	 
\bibitem[Altayyar and Beaumont-Kerridge ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘External Factors Affecting the Adoption of Eprocurement in Saudi Arabian's SMEs’.  		 			A Altayyar 		,  		 			J Beaumont-Kerridge 		.  	 	 		\textit{Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences}  		2016. 229 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Chatzoglou and Chatzoudes ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		‘Factors affecting e-business adoption in SMEs: an empirical research’.  		 			P Chatzoglou 		,  		 			D Chatzoudes 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Enterprise Information Management}  		2016. 29  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Barney ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage’.  		 			J Barney 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of management}  		1991. 17  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Porter and Millar ()]{b57}\label{b57} 	 		\textit{How information gives you competitive advantage: the information revolution in transforming the nature of competition},  		 			M E Porter 		,  		 			V E Millar 		.  		2001.  	 
\bibitem[Rahim ()]{b61}\label{b61} 	 		‘Identifying factors affecting acceptance of e-procurement systems: An initial qualitative study at an Australian City Council’.  		 			M M Rahim 		.  	 	 		\textit{Communications of the IBIMA}  		2008. 3  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ravichandran and Lertwongsatien ()]{b63}\label{b63} 	 		‘Impact of information systems resources and capabilities on firm performance: A resource-based perspective’.  		 			T Ravichandran 		,  		 			C Lertwongsatien 		.  	 	 		\textit{ICIS 2002 Proceedings},  				2002. p. 53.  	 
\bibitem[Lin and Lee ()]{b45}\label{b45} 	 		‘Impact of organizational learning and knowledge management factors on e-business adoption’.  		 			H F Lin 		,  		 			G G Lee 		.  	 	 		\textit{Management Decision}  		2005. 43  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ray et al. ()]{b64}\label{b64} 	 		\textit{Information technology and competitive advantage: A process-oriented assessment},  		 			G Ray 		,  		 			W A Muhanna 		,  		 			J B Barney 		.  		2001.  		 			University of Texas at Austin 		 	 
\bibitem[Mata et al. ()]{b47}\label{b47} 	 		‘Information technology and sustained competitive advantage: A resource-based analysis’.  		 			F J Mata 		,  		 			W L Fuerst 		,  		 			J B Barney 		.  	 	 		\textit{MIS quarterly}  		1995. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Powell and Dent-Micallef ()]{b58}\label{b58} 	 		‘Information technology as competitive advantage: The role of human, business, and technology resources’.  		 			T C Powell 		,  		 			A Dent-Micallef 		.  	 	 		\textit{Strategic management journal}  		1997. 18  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kim et al. ()]{b44}\label{b44} 	 		‘Inter-organizational cooperation in buyersupplier relationships: Both perspectives’.  		 			K K Kim 		,  		 			S H Park 		,  		 			S Y Ryoo 		,  		 			S K Park 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Business Research}  		2010. 63  (8)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Mikalef et al. ()]{b48}\label{b48} 	 		‘Investigating the impact of procurement alignment on supply chain management performance’.  		 			P Mikalef 		,  		 			A Pateli 		,  		 			R Batenburg 		,  		 			R Van De Wetering 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Computer Information Systems}  		51. Mirchandani, D. A., \& Motwani, J. (ed.)  		2013. 2001. 9  (3)  p. .  	 	 (Procedia Technology) 
\bibitem[Santhanam and Hartono ()]{b66}\label{b66} 	 		‘Issues in linking information technology capability to firm performance’.  		 			R Santhanam 		,  		 			E Hartono 		.  	 	 		\textit{MIS quarterly}  		2003. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Nurmandi and Kim ()]{b54}\label{b54} 	 		‘Making e-procurement work in a decentralized procurement system: A comparison of three Indonesian cities’.  		 			A Nurmandi 		,  		 			S Kim 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Public Sector Management}  		2015. 28  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hofstede et al. ()]{b39}\label{b39} 	 		\textit{Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures},  		 			G H Hofstede 		,  		 			G Hofstede 		,  		 			W A Arrindell 		.  		1998. Sage. 3.  	 
\bibitem[Deursen and Van Dijk ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		‘Measuring internet skills’.  		 			A V Deursen 		,  		 			J A Van Dijk 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction}  		2010. 26  (10)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hair et al. ()]{b35}\label{b35} 	 		‘Multivariate data analysis, a global perspective’.  		 			J F Hair 		,  		 			Black 		,  		 			Wc 		,  		 			Babin 		,  		 			Anderson Bj 		,  		 			Re 		.  	 	 		\textit{New Jersey. Pearson. Ed}  		2010. 7 p. 816.  	 
\bibitem[Hair et al. ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		‘Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research’.  		 			F HairJr 		,  		 			J Sarstedt 		,  		 			M Hopkins 		,  		 			L Kuppelwieser 		,  		 			V 		.  	 	 		\textit{European Business Review}  		2014. 26  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hair et al. ()]{b36}\label{b36} 	 		‘PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet’.  		 			J F Hair 		,  		 			C M Ringle 		,  		 			M Sarstedt 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Marketing theory and Practice}  		2011. 19  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ramdani et al. ()]{b62}\label{b62} 	 		‘Predicting SMEs' adoption of enterprise systems’.  		 			B Ramdani 		,  		 			P Kawalek 		,  		 			O Lorenzo 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Enterprise Information Management}  		2009. 22  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Psychometric Theory (McGraw-Hill Series in Psychology]{b53}\label{b53} 	 		\textit{Psychometric Theory (McGraw-Hill Series in Psychology},  				 (New York)  		McGraw-Hill. 3.  	 
\bibitem[Gupta et al. ()]{b33}\label{b33} 	 		‘Resource-Based View of Information Systems: Sustainable and Transient Competitive Advantage Perspectives’.  		 			G Gupta 		,  		 			K T L Tan 		,  		 			Y S Ee 		,  		 			C S C Phang 		.  	 	 		\textit{Australasian Journal of Information Systems}  		2018. p. 22.  	 
\bibitem[Ngai et al. ()]{b51}\label{b51} 	 		‘RFID systems implementation: a comprehensive framework and a case study’.  		 			E W T Ngai 		,  		 			C K To 		,  		 			K K Moon 		,  		 			L K Chan 		,  		 			P K Yeung 		,  		 			M C Lee 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Production Research}  		2010. 48  (9)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Cho and Chang ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		‘Salesperson's innovation resistance and job satisfaction in intraorganizational diffusion of sales force automation technologies: The case of South Korea’.  		 			Do Cho 		,  		 			S Chang 		,  		 			DR 		.  	 	 		\textit{Industrial Marketing Management}  		2008. 37  (7)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Chan and Lee (2003)]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘SME e-procurement adoption in Hong Kong-The roles of power, trust and value’.  		 			J K Chan 		,  		 			M K Lee 		.  	 	 		\textit{Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on},  				 (the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on)  		2003. January. 2003. IEEE. p. 10.  	 	 (System Sciences) 
\bibitem[Scupola ()]{b67}\label{b67} 	 		‘SMEs'e-commerce adoption: perspectives from Denmark and Australia’.  		 			A Scupola 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Enterprise Information Management}  		2009. 22  (1/2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bagozzi and Yi ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models’.  		 			R P Bagozzi 		,  		 			Y Yi 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of the academy of marketing science}  		2012. 40  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Huang et al. ()]{b41}\label{b41} 	 		‘Strategic issues of e-commerce as an alternative global distribution system’.  		 			Z Huang 		,  		 			B D Janz 		,  		 			M N Frolick 		,  		 			R Javalgi 		,  		 			R Ramsey 		.  	 	 		\textit{Information Systems Management}  		2008. 2001. 25  (3)  p. .  	 	 (A examination of Internet-EDI adoption. International marketing review) 
\bibitem[Gefen et al. ()]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		‘Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice’.  		 			D Gefen 		,  		 			D Straub 		,  		 			M C Boudreau 		.  	 	 		\textit{Communications of the association for information systems}  		2000. 4  (1)  p. 7.  	 
\bibitem[Byrne ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		\textit{Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming},  		 			B M Byrne 		.  		2016.  	 	 (Routledge) 
\bibitem[Murillo ()]{b49}\label{b49} 	 		‘Supply chain management and the international dissemination of e-commerce’.  		 			L Murillo 		.  	 	 		\textit{Industrial Management \& Data Systems}  		2001. 101  (7)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Tornatzky et al. ()]{b71}\label{b71} 	 		\textit{Technological innovation as a process. The Processes of Technological Innovation},  		 			L G Tornatzky 		,  		 			J D Eveland 		,  		 			M Fleischer 		.  		1990. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hossain and Quaddus ()]{b40}\label{b40} 	 		‘The adoption and continued usage intention of RFID: an integrated framework’.  		 			M A Hossain 		,  		 			M Quaddus 		.  	 	 		\textit{Information Technology \& People}  		2011. 24  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Musawa and Wahab ()]{b50}\label{b50} 	 		‘The adoption of electronic data interchange (EDI) technology by Nigerian SMEs: a conceptual framework’.  		 			M S Musawa 		,  		 			E Wahab 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Business Management and Economics}  		2012. 3  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Giunipero et al. ()]{b29}\label{b29} 	 		‘The antecedents and consequences of e-purchasing tools usage in supply management’.  		 			L Giunipero 		,  		 			E Ramirez 		,  		 			E Swilley 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice}  		2012. 20  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Alsaad et al. ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		‘The contingent role of dependency in predicting the intention to adopt B2B e-commerce’.  		 			A Alsaad 		,  		 			R Mohamad 		,  		 			N A Ismail 		.  	 	 		\textit{Information Technology for Development}  		2018. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Peteraf ()]{b56}\label{b56} 	 		‘The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view’.  		 			M A Peteraf 		.  	 	 		\textit{Strategic management journal}  		1993. 14  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Autry et al. ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘The effects of technological turbulence and breadth on supply chain technology acceptance and adoption’.  		 			C W Autry 		,  		 			S J Grawe 		,  		 			P J Daugherty 		,  		 			R G Richey 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Operations Management}  		2010. 28  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Alsaad et al. ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		‘The moderating role of trust in business to business electronic commerce (B2B EC) adoption’.  		 			A Alsaad 		,  		 			R Mohamad 		,  		 			N A Ismail 		.  	 	 		\textit{Computers in Human Behavior}  		2017. 68 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Chin ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		‘The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling’.  		 			W W Chin 		.  	 	 		\textit{Modern methods for business research},  				1998. 295 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Zhu et al. ()]{b81}\label{b81} 	 		‘The process of innovation assimilation by firms in different countries: a technology diffusion perspective on e-business’.  		 			K Zhu 		,  		 			K L Kraemer 		,  		 			S Xu 		.  	 	 		\textit{Management science}  		2006. 52  (10)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Wade and Hulland ()]{b77}\label{b77} 	 		‘The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research’.  		 			M Wade 		,  		 			J Hulland 		.  	 	 		\textit{MIS quarterly}  		2004. 28  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Premkumar and Ramamurthy ()]{b60}\label{b60} 	 		‘The role of interorganizational and organizational factors on the decision mode for adoption of interorganizational systems’.  		 			G Premkumar 		,  		 			K Ramamurthy 		.  	 	 		\textit{Decision sciences}  		1995. 26  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Penrose and Penrose ()]{b55}\label{b55} 	 		\textit{The Theory of the Growth of the Firm},  		 			E Penrose 		,  		 			E T Penrose 		.  		2009. Oxford university press.  	 
\bibitem[Au et al. ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘Towards an understanding of e-procurement adoption: A case study of six hotels in Hong Kong’.  		 			N Au 		,  		 			C K Ho 		,  		 			G Law 		,  		 			R 		.  	 	 		\textit{Tourism recreation research}  		2014. 39  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Unsworth et al. ()]{b73}\label{b73} 	 		‘Understanding innovation adoption: Effects of orientation, pressure and control on adoption intentions’.  		 			K Unsworth 		,  		 			S Sawang 		,  		 			J Murray 		,  		 			P Norman 		,  		 			T Sorbello 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Innovation Management}  		2012. 16  (01)  p. 1250004.  	 
\bibitem[Wang et al. ()]{b79}\label{b79} 	 		‘Understanding the determinants of RFID adoption in the manufacturing industry’.  		 			Y.-M Wang 		,  		 			Y.-S Wang 		,  		 			Y.-F Yang 		.  	 	 		\textit{Technological Forecasting \& Social Change}  		2010. 77  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Davis et al. ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		‘User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models’.  		 			F D Davis 		,  		 			R P Bagozzi 		,  		 			P R Warshaw 		.  	 	 		\textit{Management science}  		1989. 35  (8)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Venkatesh et al. ()]{b76}\label{b76} 	 		‘User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view’.  		 			V Venkatesh 		,  		 			M G Morris 		,  		 			G B Davis 		,  		 			F D Davis 		.  	 	 		\textit{MIS quarterly}  		2003. p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
