Sustainable E-Procurement: Key Factors Influencing User Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topics covered in the paper are timely and interesting. The B2B purchasing process is one of the most individualized processes in companies, is subject to many internal rules and is strictly controlled due to the high risk of corruption. The topic of sustainability is therefore very relevant to this area.
I notice a cognitive gap that the authors want to close with the results of their research. I think it is reasonable to publish the article, but I ask that two important points be corrected:
1) The authors indicate two different objectives of their study (Chapter 1 and Chapter 3). One main objective should be defined and possibly indicate sub-objectives.
2) The authors explain their choice of factors affecting satisfaction with e-services with the results of a systematic literature review. The conduct of the study and the results should be described in more detail.
After clarifying and completing the above-mentioned issues, I recommend publishing the paper. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions regarding our article. We would like to inform you that we have introduced changes in the description of the research objectives and methodology (Materials and Methods chapter).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the European Union, public procurement accounts for about 12-14 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), so it plays a key role in promoting sustainable practices, in accordance with national policies. Sustainable public procurement can be defined as a process whereby public authorities seek to procure goods, services and works with a reduced environmental impact and a high social impact (together with strategic public procurement).

Additionally, e-procurement offers new opportunities to make sustainable purchasing, specifically, to achieve greater efficiency and transparency. That is why sustainability and digital technologies should be integrated into the public procurement process. According to this, I consider the topic of this article relevant. The aim of it is clear: “to identify factors, that influence satisfaction and dissatisfaction in the use of public e-procurement”. In short, structure, methodology and research results are correct. However, I recommend further elaboration of the conclusions.

E-procurement can be understood as a precondition for data collection, for data structure and, up to now, there has been no EU standard for sustainable public procurement data collection. Thus, creating a sustainable public procurement data infrastructure should be a goal shared by both the European Union and the Member States. That would serve for monitoring and decision-making in this field. It may be possible to continue with subsequent lines of work.

Finally, I would make one more recommendation: to better define who this article is addressed to (from a stakeholder perspective).  I always consider it important.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive assessment of our article and suggestions for its improvement.

We would like to inform you that we have introduced additional descriptions in our article.

In the application area, the research findings can be helpful for creators and providers of e-procurement solutions, enabling them to tailor their solutions to user expectations and care for sustainable development.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled ‘Sustainable E-procurement: Key Factors Influencing User Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction’ seeks to establish a model of key factors and their interrelationships that impact the effectiveness of work in public e-procurement. It could be useful to comprehend the factors that affect satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the use of e-procurement to enhance procurement processes and overall work efficiency, which subsequently influences the sustainable development of the organization and its environment. The research findings in this field can be useful to creators and providers of e-procurement solutions, enabling them to customize their solutions to meet user expectations and promote sustainable development.

A survey was conducted among contractors participating in public procurement procedures to explore factors of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with public e-procurement. In addition, this article discusses topics such as procurement digitalization, user experience, and sustainable procurement.

The paper is well-written and engages. The primary issues that were identified were related to the statistical methodology used in this study.

1. Spearman's rank correlation analysis was utilized to assess the relationship between variables. However, the authors did not provide specific details on the computation of rank correlation factors or describe the implementation of the test.

2. The Kruskal-Wallis test, a non-parametric test with lower power compared to parametric tests, was employed. No information was provided regarding the rationale for this choice.

3. A more appropriate alternative to the Kruskal-Wallis test might be Analysis of Variance. Therefore, the authors should discuss these alternatives in greater depth.

4. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to reduce the dimensionality of the data. The authors should explain whether the PCA assumption holds in a specific case study and provide details of the method used to determine the optimal number of components. The choice of eigenvalues greater than one appears suboptimal, as the ratio of variability should be considered using a Pareto chart.

5. To assist the reader in understanding the data analysis, a brief summary of the numerical elaboration of the case study should be included, highlighting the main findings of the study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive assessment of our article and suggestions for its improvement. We would like to inform you that we have introduced changes in the description of the research methodology (in chapter Materials and Methods).

The respondents answered the questions on an ordinal scale, therefore, in order to determine the relationship between the answers, Spearman's correlation analysis (non-parametric correlation) was used, which should be used in this type of scales.

In the case of the Kruskal Wallis H test used, the research results presented a comparison of assessments of the level of competence depending on the size of the organization, and the level of competence was assessed on an ordinal scale. In this case (ordinal data), it is recommended to analyze using a non-parametric test.

For the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) applied, the optimal number of factors was given based on two criteria - Scree Plot and eigenvalue analysis > 1. Taking into account 3 factors from 9 test items indicates a variability of approximately 60%.

A Pareto chart was also made for confirmation.

We also would like to inform you that we have consulted the description of our statistical analysis methodology with a professional statistician to make sure that our description is correct.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The methods used are too old.

2. Comparison with previous method or result needs to be provied.

3. Theory contribution is lack.

So I do not think this paper can be accepted now.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Well

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions regarding our article. We would like to inform you that we have introduced changes in the description of the research objectives and methodology (Materials and Methods chapter).

We also would like to inform you that we have consulted the description of our statistical analysis methodology with a professional statistician to make sure that our description is correct.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- the subject of the work is within the thematic areas covered by the respected scientific journal Sustainability - the authors deal with one significant segment of procurement, which is public e-procurement - the article is very readable and concise and well structured - questions were asked to which answers are sought, that is, research hypotheses were raised, which is methodologically correct - the authors predominantly use the survey method when researching sustainable e-procurement as a key factor in user satisfaction - data obtained from the survey are processed using appropriate statistical tools - the authors correctly put phenomena such as "sustainability" and "life cycle" of a product/service into the context of e-procurement, which is particularly important for understanding the problem of sustainability of e-procurement in public procurement procedures - it is correctly stated that procurement (e-procurement) is a part or phase of the supply chain - it is correctly stated that e-public procurement is significant especially in the public sector, which is characterized by a high degree of bureaucratization of public procurement procedures and the risk of corruption in almost all countries - the conclusions at the end of the work are drawn logically, based on the research results. The methodological shortcomings of the work are primarily the following: - the most important keyword, "user satisfaction" is not actually mentioned in the keywords - the paper discusses factors of satisfaction and factors of dissatisfaction. There are only factors that we can name as quality factors of the e-procurement service, and then if the quality requirements for each quality factor are met, we are talking about user satisfaction, or if they are not, we are talking about user dissatisfaction, - although the authors focused on e-procurement in the public sector, for the sake of understanding the context, it is necessary to emphasize that e-purchase should have been briefly mentioned in the explanation of the context, which is also a type of e-procurement, which is characterized by a significant increase number of senders, while simultaneously reducing their mass and volume. This has a significant negative impact on the environment due to the increased frequency of delivery. On the other hand, it has a negative effect on the quality of the service because during peak times, such as New Year, Chinese New Year, Christmas and similar dates, couriers are overwhelmed with numerous small shipments that are the product of e-procurement and are simply not physically able to deliver on time . In this way, one of the JiT (Just in Time) quality concepts is not realized and this is the reason for user dissatisfaction. Thus, in these situations, we have fourfold damage: 1) user dissatisfaction with the quality of the service, 2) disruptions in supply chains, 3) negative impact on the environment and 4) (non)quality costs. - graphics and tables are clear, but they are listed one below the other without putting two or three lines of text between them.

-- in the references used and listed at the end of the work, 39.13% of the references are older than 5 years

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive assessment of our article and suggestions for its improvement.

We would like to inform you that we have introduced additional descriptions in our article.

We would like to inform you that we have introduced changes in the description of research objectives and methodology (section Materials and methods). The keyword list has also been expanded to include "user satisfaction".

We focused on e-procurement in the public sector because our research is concentrated on improving the B2G (Business-to-Government) model in which enterprises sell their products or services to government institutions, public organizations or other entities related to the public sector. In the B2G model transactions take place between enterprises and government entities, often via e-procurement software. B2G relationships are often more complex, as is the decision-making process.

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors 

Thank you for the opportunity to read this article.  I consider it interesting and actual.

It is very easy to observe the effort done for documentation.

I still have some concerns regarding statistical analysis. Please add some descriptive statistics (maybe graphs) to prove the importance  / the weight of each factor to establish an order... You also can make an OLS regression with a stepwise method to be sure you identify the correct order of the factors. In the end, if you want you can add EFA analysis.

If the results are different, than you have to update the conclusions. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions regarding our article. We would like to inform you that we have introduced changes in the description of the research objectives and methodology (Materials and Methods chapter).

In the tables presented in the article: Table 3. Factor loading matrix of satisfaction in using e-procurement and Table 4. Factor loading matrix of dissatisfaction in using e-procurement, we have the values of factor loadings. This allows you to determine which test item within a given factor is "most important" and which is "least important."

We also would like to inform you that we have consulted the description of our statistical analysis methodology with a professional statistician to make sure that our description is correct.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been reviewed in a proper manner.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive assessment of our article and your suggestions for improving it. We are happy that our corrections are correct.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

can be accepted now.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

good

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive assessment of our article and your suggestions for improving it. We are happy that our corrections are correct.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some coments of reviewe were adopted

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive assessment of our article and your suggestions for improving it. We are happy that our corrections are correct.

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I am here to help prevent future problems regarding your article.

EFA analysis is very dangerous because changing factor order will provide a totally different result. 

First of all, you have to identify the factors in order with specific analysis like correlation and stepwise regression. After that, we can take into account the loading factor as you tried to explain to me.

You can also avoid this situation with a CFA (confirmatory factor analysis), which has a totally different mathematical algorithm.

I don't affirm that the result is wrong. I just want to assure that this is the right result.

Wish you luck with your research!

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive assessment of our article and your suggestions for improving it. We are happy that our corrections are correct.

Thank you for the tip on which analysis to choose. We will use it provided in further research work.

Round 3

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

How could you know that I am not a professional statistician?

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for all your comments and suggestions.
Particularly important and inspiring for us is the tip regarding factor analysis and the use of CFA (confirmatory factor analysis) instead of EFA. We will definitely use the type of analysis indicated. We lacked in-depth statistical knowledge in this area and we would like to thank you for your valuable suggestion.
Kind regards,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx