Enhancing Procurement Quality Performance in a Developing Country: The Roles of Procurement Audit and Top Management Commitment

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Table 1. Profile information.

Variables		Frequency	%	Mean	SD	F	p
Type of public organization	State Own Enterprises (SOEs)	22	9.9
	Metropolitan/Municipal and Districts Assemblies (MMDAs)	105	47.1
	Government health facilities	65	29.1
	Government tertiary education institutions (e.g., universities, training colleges)	31	13.9
Informant’s position	Top executive (CEO/director)	30	13.5
	Procurement manager	127	57.0
	Internal audit official	66	29.5
Informant’s sex	Female	81	36.3
	Male	142	63.7
Informant’s highest level of education	Diploma	34	15.3
	Bachelor degree	129	57.8
	Master degree	60	26.9
Organization size (i.e., workforce size)				224.23	183.39
Informant’s managerial experience (years in current position)				6.15	4.68
Informant competence 1: Knowledge of survey items^1				5.84	1.02
Informant competence 2: Understanding of survey items^1				5.86	1.13
Informant competence 3: Confidence in responses provided^1				5.90	1.10
Informant competence 4: Accuracy of responses^1				5.95	1.02
Procurement quality performance^2						1.466	0.233
Internal procurement audit^2						0.428	0.652
External procurement audit^2						0.288	0.750
Top management commitment^2						1.281	0.280

¹ = The items were adapted from Essuman et al. (2021) and were rated on a seven-point rating scale: “strongly disagree (=1)” to “strongly agree (=7)”; ² = ANOVA is used to test whether informant’s position affects the substantive variables.

Table 2. Details of measures and validity and reliability results.

Construct/measures/composite reliability (CR)/average variance extracted (AVE)/Cronbach alpha (CA).	Loadings (t-values)
Internal audit^1 (CR = 0.857; AVE = 0.601; CA = 0.834). To what does each of the following characterize your organization?
The internal audit function reviews procurement budgets and plans	0.822(Fixed)
The internal audit function monitors procurement activities regularly	0.705(10.86)
The internal audit function insists on strict compliance with procurement policies and ethics	0.740(11.50)
The internal audit function ensures that weaknesses in the procurement process are addressed	0.828(12.96)
External audit^1 (CR = 0.861; AVE = 0.610; CA = 0.840). To what does each of the following characterize your organization?
External audit is conducted annually in my organization	0.708(Fixed)
Value-for-money audit is conducted annually in my organization	0.725(9.96)
External auditors scrutinize all procurement transactions in my organization	0.889(11.65)
Overall, external auditors’ examination of procurement activities is comprehensive	0.790(10.78)
Top management commitment^2 (CR = 0.900; AVE = 0.691; CA = 0.892). Our top management …
Consider procurement to be a vital part of our corporate strategy	0.823(Fixed)
View procurement issues as important	0.851(14.65)
Ensure strict implementation of procurement audit recommendations	0.811(13.67)
Show commitment toward releasing resources for improving procurement functions	0.840(14.32)
Procurement quality performance^3 (CR = 0.917; AVE = 0.736; CA = 0.908). How would you rate the procurement function’s performance in your organization over the past 12 months in terms of …
Buying the right goods/materials to work with?	0.884(16.53)
Receiving goods/materials in the right condition?	0.765(13.44)
Procuring goods/materials/services that meet end-user needs?	0.934(18.34)
Receiving goods/materials/services that meet specifications?	0.841(Fixed)

^{1 =}Each item was rated on a 7-point scale: “to no extent (=1)” to “to the largest extent (=7)”; ^{2 =} Each item was rated on a 7-point scale: “strongly disagree (=1)” to “strongly agree (=7)”; ³Each item was rated on a 7-point scale: “very poor (=1)” to “very good (=7)”.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations.

Variables:		Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1.	Procurement quality performance	4.22	1.390	–
2.	External audit	4.45	1.174	0.293**	–
3.	Internal audit	5.01	1.081	0.382**	0.239**	–
4.	Top management commitment	5.75	1.027	0.359**	0.217**	0.208**	–
5.	Organizational size	5.20	0.619	0.061	−0.008	0.060	0.046	–

*p < 0.05 (2-tailed); **p < 0.01 (2-tailed).

Table 4. PROCESS results and hypothesis evaluation.

	Hypothesis	Unstandardized coefficient (t-value)			Conclusion
		Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Direct effect paths^1:
Internal audit (IA)	H1a: +	0.360(4.727)	0.360(4.542)	0.361(4.692)	Supported
External audit (EA)	H1b: +	0.162(2.291)	0.194(2.673)	0.162(2.287)	Supported
Top management commitment (TMC)		0.422(5.188)	0.368(4.350)	0.421(5.065)
Organizational size		−0.014(−0.104)	0.068(0.518)	−0.013(−0.101)
Conditional direct effect paths^1:
IA × TMC	H2a: +	0.257(3.966)		0.258(3.891)	Supported
EA × TMC	H2b: +		0.006(0.083)	−0.007(−0.099)	Rejected
R^2		0.305	0.256	0.305
F		19.027***	14.940***	15.785***

¹Dependent variable is self-reported procurement quality performance.

²All regression coefficients are evaluated at t-value ≥ 1.96 (5%, 2-tailed test).

^{3 ***}Model is significant at 0.1%.

Figure 2. (a,b) Effect of internal audit on procurement quality performance at varying conditions of TMC.

Notes:

1. BLLCI = bootstrap lower-level confidence interval; BULCI = bootstrap upper-level confidence interval.2. The number of bootstrap samples for bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals is 5000.3. For 2.69 ≥ x ≥ 5.28, y is statistically significant.4. Forx ≥ 5.28, y is statistically significant.

Essuman, D., Anin, E. K., & Muntaka, A. S. (2021). Does purchasing recognition help or hinder purchasing quality performance in developing market SMEs? Effects of resource conditions. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2021.100717

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data for the study is available upon request.