See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336227339

Drivers of e-bidding implementation in the Saudi Arabian construction

industry

Article  in  Built Environment Project and Asset Management · September 2019

DOI: 10.1108/BEPAM-03-2019-0030

CITATIONS READS

3 232

5 authors, including:

Ahmed Sayed Sadi A. Assaf

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
4 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS    73 PUBLICATIONS   3,237 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Adel S. Aldosary Mohammad A. Hassanain

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
52 PUBLICATIONS   542 CITATIONS    119 PUBLICATIONS   1,711 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Structure durability View project

Alkhafji Master Plan 2040 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adel S. Aldosary on 02 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


BEPAM
10,1
16
Received 15 April 2019
Revised 14 June 2019
Accepted 25 August 2019
Built Environment Project and
Asset Management
Vol. 10 No. 1, 2020
pp. 16-27
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2044-124X
DOI 10.1108/BEPAM-03-2019-0030
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2044-124X.htm
Drivers of e-bidding
implementation in the
Saudi Arabian
construction industry
Ahmed M.Z. Sayed and Sadi Assaf
Department of Construction Engineering and Management,
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Adel S. Aldosary
Department of City and Regional Planning,
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Mohammad A. Hassanain
Department of Architectural Engineering,
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and
Abdullatif Abdallah
Department of Management and Marketing,
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the key drivers for adopting electronic bidding (e-bidding)
systems in public construction projects located in Saudi Arabia.
Design/methodology/approach – Literature review was undertaken to identify the drivers of e-bidding
practices. Nine drivers, classified under four categories, were identified. A questionnaire survey was
developed to assess the significance of the identified drivers. Responses were obtained from 20 large
contractors, classified as Grade I and II contractors in Saudi Arabia, and 12 governmental authorities,
representing owners of construction projects. The drivers were ranked according to their respective
significance index (SI) values. Finally, a Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was employed to ascertain
the extent to which the two parties agreed on the significance level of the drivers.
Findings – Analysis of the identified drivers revealed that the most significant driver was “reduction in the
physical storage requirements of bidding paperwork.” Further, a consensus was observed with regards to the
significance of the drivers. The findings of the present study highlight the strong potential of widespread
e-bidding adoption in Saudi Arabia. It demonstrates the key drivers for the implementation of e-bidding
through the perspective of professionals within the context of Saudi Arabia.
Originality/value – Prior to this study, no previous research has endeavored to assess the drivers of
e-bidding adoption in Saudi Arabia. The adoption of e-bidding will benefit organizations through improved
efficiencies, which could potentially lower construction costs, thereby contributing to economic growth and
benefitting the society at large.
Keywords Efficiency, Saudi Arabia, Construction, Public sector
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Traditionally, the process of preparing the bidding documents for contractors requires
tremendous amount of manpower, particularly for large-sized contractors. On the other hand,
contractors find that the process of obtaining and submitting bids to be a costly activity
(Liao et al., 2002). Electronic bidding (e-bidding) presents a possible solution for overcoming
The authors thank King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals for the support and facilities that
made this research possible.
these challenges. An e-bidding system consists of electronically exchanging/transferring, Drivers of
publishing, communicating, accessing, receiving and submitting all the bidding process e-bidding
through the medium of the internet, hence replacing the traditional paper-based bidding implementation
process. This can potentially make the business operation more efficient and effective for all
the participating stakeholders (Kajewski et al., 2001). E-bidding, as opposed to a traditional
paper-based bidding system, has been viewed as a less costly and time consuming system.
The adoption of this digital system has led to reductions in unproductive activities and 17
expenses, including the need to print, scan and transport documents, to name three tasks
(Tindsley and Stephenson, 2008).
In light of the above benefits, it is evident that organizations can streamline the bidding
process by upgrading to a digital-based system (Yang et al., 2007). E-bidding facilitates this
bidding process by enabling organizations to undertake the various activities related to the
bidding stage electronically over the internet (Anumba and Ruikar, 2002). E-bidding plays a
significant role in increasing productivity and empowering the professionals of the construction
industry by providing them more control over the bidding process (Oyediran and Akintola, 2011).
Given that the bidding stage is pivotal to the development of a construction project, these benefits
can extend throughout the project (Arslan et al., 2008). An essential ingredient to the success of an
organization is its openness to change through the implementation of innovative methods of
operating, while adhering to the traditional rules of the industry (Blayse and Manley, 2004).
In Saudi Arabia, among the numerous initiatives formulated by Vision 2030 is the
overhaul of manual transactions through the introduction of electronic systems. The
affected transactions already include employment programs, e-learning services and online
job searches, to name a few (Saudi Vision 2030, 2019). However, while a paper-based bidding
method is employed by governmental authorities, there is a push toward transforming
the whole process into an e-bidding system in line with the vision. This is evidenced by the
establishment of MONAFASAT (2019), a website that sells bidding documents in a number
of governmental competitions as a part of the e-government project.
In light of the increased interest in e-bidding adoption in Saudi Arabia, this research aims to
identify the key drivers for adopting e-bidding systems in large public construction projects.
The study seeks the input of industry professionals on their view regarding the primary
drivers motivating them to adopt e-bidding in their practices. The selected professionals
belong to large-sized contractors, classified as Grades I and II according to Contractors
Grading Agency of the Ministry of Municipality and Rural Affairs (MOMRA, 2019). These
contractors were selected since it was assumed that these large organizations exert significant
influence on the industry. The findings can be used by the government to formulate policies
for encouraging organizations to adopt e-bidding systems, hence, facilitating and expediting
full scale adoption and ensuring a smooth transition from a paper-based to an electronic-based
system. To date, the authors are unaware of any study that has assessed the adoption of
e-bidding systems in Saudi Arabia. Thus, the present study represents the first research
conducted in this area. The findings should also inform future studies in this research area.

Research methodology
Presented in this section is the methodology adopted by the present study to identify and
assess the key drivers to e-bidding:
• Identifying the drivers of e-bidding through studying earlier research conducted in the
domain. In addition, feedback from respondents with extensive experience in the
industry were sought to refine the identified drivers. In total, nine drivers were identified.
• Developing a questionnaire survey for assessing the significance of the identified
drivers. The participants of the study were solicited to provide their opinion on the
identified drivers. A five point Likert scale was adopted for capturing the responses
BEPAM of the participants. The scale of the survey instrument ranged from 1, corresponding
10,1 to “low significance,” to 5, corresponding to “high significance.”
• Identifying the appropriate sample size required for obtaining reliable results and
distributing the questionnaire survey. Responses were received from 20 contractors
and 12 governmental authorities.
• Ranking and classifying the drivers based on their SI values. Further, a test of
18 agreement was conducted between the two parties in order to assess their level of
agreement with regards to the relative significance of the identified drivers, and thus
identify the key drivers to e-bidding implementation.
• Presenting the conclusions of the study and providing recommendations to facilitate
the swift and efficient implementation of e-bidding systems.

Literature on the drivers of e-bidding systems

Several previous studies have explored e-bidding systems’ applications in the construction
industry (Liao et al., 2002; Anumba and Ruikar, 2002; Betts et al., 2006; Chan et al., 2007;
Eadie et al., 2007, 2010; Lavelle and Bardon, 2009; Lou and Alshawi, 2009; Oyediran and
Akintola, 2011). Other studies have also reported on e-commerce and e-procurement
applications (Kheng and Al-Hawamdeh, 2002; Panayiotou et al., 2004; Carayannis and
Popescu, 2005; Aleid et al., 2009; Mose et al., 2013). Since the construction industry is
notoriously known for being a late adopter of technology, these studies offer a roadmap for
successful e-bidding implementation. This section presents the drivers for the adoption of
e-bidding systems in the construction industry, along with their descriptions, as derived
from the literature and based on the authors’ experience. The drivers, nine in total, were
identified based on the review of several studies. These drivers were adapted, and given
descriptive titles to avoid ambiguity and to ensure high reliability with respect to the
responses. The drivers were grouped under four categories. The groupings were formulated
based on common themes observed among the cluster of drivers. These four categories
include “cost and time reduction,” “efficient use of resources,” “increasing the speed of
communication and permitting transparency” and “improved quality.” The nine drivers
along with their respective references are summarized in Table I.

Cost and time reduction

This category is comprised of three drivers pertaining to cost and time reduction, as drivers
for the adoption of e-bidding systems. The descriptions of these drivers are presented below.
Reduction in the cost of the bidding process for both contractors and governmental
authorities. This driver relates to the reduction in the overall expense of the bidding process
through the adoption of an e-bidding system. These cost reductions include administrative
costs that are both internal and external to an organization. Owing to the requirement of less
paperwork coupled with the reduction in mistakes, e-bidding systems can lead to
substantial savings (Oyediran and Akintola, 2011). Such administrative costs encompass
copying, printing, scanning, data entry and internal transactions. Thus, this system
achieves the dual benefits of simplifying the administrative procedures, and lowering the
volume of required work. Bidders can simply download bid documents from the internet,
avoiding the paperwork that is typical of the traditional bidding process. In addition,
governmental organizations need to allocate less resources for the production of the bidding
documents (Liao et al., 2002), again reducing costs. Previous studies have demonstrated the
reduction in cost resulting from the adoption of e-bidding systems. For example, Eadie et al.
(2007) cited a survey in which 75 percent of the participants viewed the reduction in costs as
a major driver in the adoption of an e-bidding system. Further, a study conducted in
No. Drivers References
Drivers of
e-bidding
Cost and time reduction implementation
1. Reduction in the cost of the bidding process for both Liao et al. (2002), Oyediran and Akintola
contractors and governmental authorities (2011), Eadie et al. (2007), Rankin et al. (2006)
2. Increasing contractors’ profit margins Egbu et al. (2003), Eadie et al. (2010)
3. Reduction in the time required to undertake the Perdomo (2006)
bidding process 19
Efficient use of resources
4. Reduction in the physical storage requirements of Anumba and Ruikar (2002)
bidding paperwork
5. Reduction in the staffing requirements Eadie et al. (2010)
Increasing the speed of communication and permitting transparency
6. Increasing the speed of the communication process Anumba and Ruikar (2002)
between the various stakeholders
7. Increasing the transparency of the communication Egbu et al. (2003), Panayiotou et al. (2004)
process between the various stakeholders
Table I.
Improved quality List of drivers along
8. Enhancement of quality through increased competition Wong and Sloan (2004), Eadie et al. (2007) with respective
9. Enhancement of quality through better communication Rankin et al. (2006) references

Northern Ireland, revealed that one of the key drivers for e-bidding adoption for contractors
was “reduced administration costs.” Another study reported that the Taiwanese
government and its suppliers achieved savings of $14 and $26m, respectively, on an
annual basis, due to the adoption of an e-bidding system (Liao et al., 2002). In the Canadian
construction industry, it was revealed that the reduction in paperwork and administrative
costs were the second most significant drivers of electronic procurement implementation
(Rankin et al., 2006; Eadie et al., 2007).
Increasing contractors’ profit margins. This driver relates to the positive impact that
e-bidding adoption may have on the contractors’ profit. The wide adoption of e-bidding
systems has the potential to simplify the bidding process, increase the speed of the
procurement processes, hence, increasing the profit margins of organizations (Egbu et al.,
2003). These benefits are realized because of the drop in the overhead expenses associated
with the bidding process. Increasing the profit margin is among the major drivers of
e-bidding implementation in organizations (Eadie et al., 2010).
Reduction in the time required to undertake the bidding process. This driver relates to the
potential reduction in the time required to undertake the bidding process through the adoption
of e-bidding systems. It is of prime importance that sufficient time be provided to allow
contractors to properly study bidding documents, and prepare accurate quotations. Sufficient
time for the preparation of quotation is essential. However, reducing this duration would result
in many benefits. Since e-bidding systems enable the online purchase of bidding documents, the
need to embark on multiple and distant trips to acquire requisite documents is eliminated.
In addition to removing the need for these costly and time consuming trips, the use of e-bidding
will enable communication of thousands of people simultaneously (Anumba and Ruikar, 2002).
Consequently, a large portion of time can be redirected to more productive activities (Perdomo,
2006). Earlier studies have demonstrated the time reductions achieved by e-bidding.
For example, Eadie et al. (2007) demonstrated that the implementation of an e-bidding system
had simplified and compressed the time required for assessing bids. Moreover, Perdomo (2006)
indicated that the utilization of e-bidding systems enabled the reduction in the wasted time
needed for the double entry of recorded data in electronic databases.
BEPAM Efficient use of resources
10,1 This category is comprised of two drivers pertaining to the more efficient utilization of
resources made possible by the adoption of e-bidding systems. The descriptions of these
drivers are presented below.
Reduction in the physical storage requirements of bidding paperwork. This driver relates
to the reduced physical storage requirements of bidding paperwork owing to the adoption of
20 e-bidding systems. In the traditional bidding systems, document management and
archiving of significant volumes of information is performed manually (Anumba and
Ruikar, 2002). This not only consumes the time and effort of the office employees, but also
necessitates the availability of large physical space and equipment for storage, which can be
difficult to acquire and manage. The replacement of these traditional systems with e-bidding
systems should reduce the dependency on paperwork, and facilitate rapid data sharing,
ultimately resulting in the reduction of associated expenses.
Reduction in the staffing requirements. This driver relates to the reduction in manpower,
as a consequence of the adoption of e-bidding systems. In any construction
organization, staff represents the core of the organization’s resources. Organization
would employ staff to carry out quantity take-off, prepare documents or administer the
bidding procedures. Since reducing the number of staff in the organization drives down
cost, it is an important means of gaining a competitive advantage. An organization
can achieve these cost cutting goals through the implementation of e-bidding systems
(Eadie et al., 2010).

Increasing the speed of communication and permitting transparency

This category is comprised of two drivers pertaining to the improvement in communication,
and level of transparency made possible by the adoption of e-bidding systems. The descriptions
of these drivers are presented below.
Increasing the speed of the communication process between the various stakeholders. This
driver relates to the enhancement in the speed of the communication between the various
stakeholders, due to the use of e-bidding systems. Since the internet forms an essential
pre-requisite for the deployment of e-bidding systems, users are required to leverage the
internet for communication. This is in contrast to the paper-based bidding systems, where
users utilize traditional means of communication (e.g. phone and fax). Therefore,
communication through e-bidding systems is superior to paper-based bidding systems, in
terms of the required time and effort (Anumba and Ruikar, 2002).
Increasing the transparency of the communication process between the various
stakeholders. This driver relates to the increase in the transparency of the communication
process between the various stakeholders, as a result of using of e-bidding systems.
Transparency of the communication is yet another benefit offered through the adoption of
an e-bidding systems (Panayiotou et al., 2004). Transparency is made possible because the
paperwork process is automated (Egbu et al., 2003). Further, the recognition of contractual
documents in electronic format as a form of evidence in contract dispute cases is pivotal in
increasing transparency. Thus, the likelihood of tampering with the information contained
in the bidding documents is reduced.

Improved quality
This category is comprised of two drivers pertaining to the enhancement in quality of a
construction project made possible by the adoption of e-bidding systems. The descriptions
of these drivers are presented below.
Enhancement of quality through increased competition. This driver relates to the
increased level of quality due to the emergence of more competition owing to various
organizations adopting e-bidding systems. Wong and Sloan (2004) found that gaining a Drivers of
competitive advantage was among the most important benefits conferred by e-bidding e-bidding
systems. In addition, the adoption of e-bidding systems gives organizations the implementation
flexibility of performing the procurement instantaneously (Eadie et al., 2007). More
specifically, different offices located in dispersed physical locations are able to access the
same documents simultaneously. This is in contrast with the slower, traditional
paper-based systems, whereby the physical exchange of documents between stakeholders 21
is standard practice.
Enhancement of quality through better communication. This driver relates to the
increased level of quality due to improved communication as result of the adoption
of e-bidding systems. Data exchange accuracy is regarded as another driver in the
adoption of e-bidding systems (Rankin et al., 2006). E-bidding system implementation
facilitates the control of information exchange, and will ensure more communication
between stakeholders.

Assessment of drivers’ significance

Development of questionnaire survey
The respondents were asked to rate the significance of the various identified drivers based
on their experience. In receiving their responses, the drivers were assigned SI using the
following formula (Badu et al., 2013):
P5
i¼1 ai xi
SI ¼ P  100%;
5 5i¼1 xi

where i is the category of response, ranging from 1 to 5; a is the constant expressing the
weight given to each response. The weights ranged from 1 to 5, where 1, the lowest weight,
represents the least significant rating, and 5, the highest weight, represents the most
significant rating; and xi is the response frequency.
Table II presents the classification system adopted in this study. This classification system
was used to group the various intervals of the SI into various significance
levels ranging from “low significance” to “high significance.” In this system, the least SI was
assigned a value of 0, while the most SI was assigned a value 100 ( Juaim and Hassanain, 2011).

Sample size determination

A detailed list of all governmental authorities in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia was
prepared. The prepared list consisted of governmental authorities that have bidding
divisions, overseeing numerous projects. The present study targeted 15 governmental
authorities, of which 12 responded.
Next, the Contractors Grading Agency of the Ministry of Municipality and Rural Affairs
website (MOMRA, 2019) was consulted to prepare a list of all the Grades I and II contractors
located in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. With a total population of Grades I and II

Range of significance (%) Classification of significance levels

0–12.5 Low significance

12.5–37.5 Medium-low significance Table II.
37.5–62.5 Medium significance Range of significance
62.5–87.5 Medium-high significance and classification of
87.5–100 High significance importance levels
BEPAM contractors equal to 51, the representative sample size of the region was computed using the
10,1 Kish (1995) formulas as shown below:

ðp  qÞ
no ¼ ;
v2

22 n
 0 ;
n¼
1 þ n0 =N

where no is the the first estimate of sample size; p is the the proportion of the characteristic
being measured in the target population; q ¼ 1−p; N is the population size; n is the sample
size; and v is the maximum standard error allowed.
Both the values of ( p) and (q) were assumed to be 0.5. The maximum standard error
allowed (v) in this study was considered to be 10 percent. Hence, the sample size was
determined to be:

ð0:5  0:5Þ
no ¼ ¼ 25:
0:12
This yielded a minimum required sample size of:

25
n¼   ¼ 16:77:
1 þ 2551

This figure was rounded up to 17 contractors, translating to a minimum required response

rate of (17/51)×100 ¼ 33.33 percent. In the interest of obtaining more reliable results, the
authors obtained responses from 20 contractors. Based on this latter figure, the response
rate from contractors was determined to be (20/51)×100 ¼ 39.2 percent. The primary
participants of the present study were the top management and personnel of the contracting
firms. This enhanced the reliability of the collected data.

Respondent’s profile
Of the 20 contractors who participated in the study, 10 percent had less than 5 years of
experience, 20 percent had 5 to less than 10 years of experience, 25 percent had 10 to less
than 15 years of experience, 10 percent had 15 to less than 20 years of experience and
35 percent had 20 or more years of experience. With respect to the educational qualifications
of the contractors, 95 percent had Bachelor degrees, while the remainder had higher degrees.
Of the 12 governmental authorities that participated in the study, 8.33 percent had less than
5 years of experience, 33.33 percent had 5 to less than 10 years of experience, 25 percent had
10 to less than 15 years of experience, 8.33 percent had 15 to less than 20 years of experience
and 25 percent had 20 or more years of experience. With respect to the educational
qualifications of the governmental authorities’ professionals, 66.67 percent had Bachelor
degrees, while the remainder had higher degrees. This combination of working experiences
indicates that the respondents were in a good position to provide reliable opinions on the
most significant drivers.

Findings
This section is divided into two subsections. The first section presents the ranking of the
drivers based on the assessment of each of the participating parties. The second section
presents the test of agreement between the two parties.
Analysis of drivers Drivers of
The following section presents the findings of the study based on the responses from each of e-bidding
the parties. implementation
Contractors. Table III presents the SI and rankings of all the drivers, as perceived by the
contractors. The driver “reduction in the physical storage requirements of bidding
paperwork” received the highest SI of 87 percent. This driver was classified to be of a
“medium-high significance” level. It appears that the contractors appreciate the elimination 23
of wasteful paperwork as being the most significant benefit of e-bidding systems. The least
significant driver was “increasing contractors’ profit margins” with a SI of 48 percent, and a
classification of “medium significance” level. To explain this finding, it is possible that
despite the lower operational costs resulting from the adoption of e-bidding systems,
increased competition among the contractors will offset these cost reductions. This is
especially true when it is assumed that all large contractors would have the same
technology at their disposal. The determinant of higher profit margins then becomes a
question of other cost cutting measures adopted by the contractors. It is interesting to note
that all drivers were assessed to be either “medium significance” or “medium-high
significance.” This finding indicates the significance and relevance of the identified drivers.
Governmental authorities. Table IV presents the SI and rankings of all the drivers as
perceived by the governmental authorities. The governmental authorities considered one

R No. Drivers SI (%) SL

1 4 Reduction in the physical storage requirements of bidding paperwork 87 MHS

2 6 Increasing the speed of the communication process between the various stakeholders 78 MHS
3 9 Enhancement of quality through better communication 74 MHS
4 7 Increasing the transparency of the communication process between the various 64 MHS
stakeholders
5 1 Reduction in the cost of the bidding process for both contractors and governmental 61 MS
authorities
6 8 Enhancement of quality through increased competition 59 MS
7 5 Reduction in the staffing requirements 57 MS
8 3 Reduction in the time required to undertake the bidding process 57 MS Table III.
9 2 Increasing contractors’ profit margins 48 MS Contractor’s
Notes: R, rank; SI, significance index; SL, significance level; HS, high significance; MHS, medium-high assessment of
significance; MS, medium significance; MLS, medium-low significance; LS, low significance the drivers

R No. Drivers SI (%) SL

1 4 Reduction in the physical storage requirements of bidding paperwork 95 HS

2 7 Increasing the transparency of the communication process between the various 80 MHS
stakeholders
3 6 Increasing the speed of the communication process between the various stakeholders 75 MHS
4 9 Enhancement of quality through better communication 75 MHS
5 3 Reduction in the time required to undertake the bidding process 70 MHS
6 1 Reduction in the cost of the bidding process for both contractors and governmental 66.67 MHS
authorities
7 5 Reduction in the staffing requirements 61.67 MS Table IV.
8 8 Enhancement of quality through increased competition 58.33 MS Governmental
9 2 Increasing contractors’ profit margins 51.67 MS authorities’
Notes: R, rank; SI, significance index; SL, significance level; HS, high significance; MHS, medium-high assessment of
significance; MS, medium significance; MLS, medium-low significance; LS, low significance the drivers
BEPAM driver to be of “high significance,” namely, “reduction in the physical storage requirements
10,1 of bidding paperwork,” with a SI of 95 percent. This result was in agreement with the
contractor’s assessment who also saw the same driver as being the most significant driver
of e-bidding adoption. The governmental authorities did not perceive any driver to be of
“low significance.” Instead, three drivers were classified as “medium-low significance.”
These were “reduction in the staffing requirements,” “enhancement of quality through
24 increased competition” and “increasing contractors’ profit margins,” with SI of 61.67,
58.33 and 51.67 percent, respectively. Noteworthy, governmental authorities, similar to
contractors also viewed the driver “increasing contractors’ profit margins” as the least
significant driver in e-bidding adoption. This confirms the previous observation where it
was noted that as a result of more competition from rival contracting organizations also
embracing e-bidding systems, profit margins will likely to remain the same.
The most probable reason why the driver “reduction in the physical storage
requirements of bidding paperwork” was considered by the two parties to be the most
significant driver, is that all the transactions within e-bidding systems are electronic. This
will facilitate in rapid data retrieval, sharing and prevent or reduce data loss and damage.

Test of agreement
The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (Aczel et al., 2012) was used to assess the level
of agreement between the two parties with respect to the ranking of the drivers of
e-bidding adoption:
P
6 D2
p ¼ 1 ;
nðn2 1Þ
where p is the rank order coefficient of correlation; ΣD2 is the sum of the squared differences in
ranks of the paired values; and n is the number of parameters for which the ranking is made.
The test generated a value of 0.802. This indicated that there was a strong level
of agreement between the two parties. This result is valid since wide-scale adoption of
e-bidding systems will equally be beneficial to both parties. More specifically, contractors
will streamline their bidding processes, removing unnecessary expenses, while
governmental authorities will experience more accurate and competitive bids. This
explains the nearly uniform perception of the key drivers to e-bidding systems.

Conclusions and recommendations

Given the increased interest in e-bidding systems in Saudi Arabia, the present study
investigated the key drivers for e-bidding adoption in public construction work. Altogether,
nine drivers were identified through a detailed review of the literature. These drivers were
grouped under four categories, namely, “cost and time reduction,” “efficient use of resources,”
“increasing the speed of communication and permitting transparency” and “improved
quality.” In total, 32 professionals participated in the study, including 20 contractors and 12
governmental authorities, as owners of construction projects. The most significant and least
significant drivers in e-bidding adoption from the viewpoints of both parties were found to be
“reduction in the physical storage requirements of bidding paperwork” and “increasing
contractors’ profit margins,” respectively. This indicated a strong agreement between the two
parties. For the most significant driver, the result was found to be sensible since adopting the
use of an electronic system to manage electronic documents will remove the challenges
inherent in the management of cumbersome paperwork, which are prone to frequent
misplacement. This will serve to add efficiency to the process of document storage and
retrieval and absolve the contractors from the need to acquire and maintain expensive storage
space. Similarly, for the least significant driver, the finding was valid. Specifically, as various
competing contractors experience improvements in their respective operations through Drivers of
e-bidding adoption, the cost of their services will correspondingly decrease as they strive to e-bidding
bid and win projects. The reduced revenue would translate to reduced profit margins for all implementation
concerned contractors. Thus, the research corroborates this observation by finding
“increasing contractors’ profit margins” as the least significant driver.
The study recommends the following measures for increasing e-bidding adoption:
• Organizations should provide their employees with the necessary training through 25
workshops.
• Organizations should expound the potential benefits gained from implementing
e-bidding systems, as discussed in the present study. This can be done through the
sharing of success stories and best practices of e-bidding system implementation in
construction forums. Since the extensive adoption of this system will benefit all
organizations involved, this should act as an incentive for more collaboration.
• Project owners are encouraged to lead the way in enforcing contractors to adopt
e-bidding systems, as suggested by Anumba and Ruikar (2002). This is owing to the
fact that owners have the power to dictate how their projects are procured.
While the results indicated a general appreciation of the benefits of e-bidding adoption, and were
thus found to be encouraging, several challenges have to be addressed before the region can
witness a widespread adoption of the technology. These challenges are wide ranging, including
human-related factors, such as staff resistance to change (Tindsley and Stephenson, 2008; Eadie
et al., 2010); lack of competent staff (Hawking et al., 2004); training requirements (Tindsley and
Stephenson, 2008); legal factors (Oyediran and Akintola, 2011); and technological factors
(Oyediran and Akintola, 2011), such as data integrity (Kajewski et al., 2001; Chan et al., 2007)
software incompatibility (Chan et al., 2007), and security concerns (Kajewski et al., 2001; Chan
et al., 2007; Oyediran and Akintola, 2011; Shukla et al., 2016), among other challenges, which are
interrelated (Lou and Alshawi, 2009). Given these numerous challenges, it is clear that e-bidding
systems cannot be completely implemented in a short time frame. Instead, the implementation
process should commence in an incremental fashion (Wong and Sloan, 2004). Overcoming these
challenges will necessitate the investment in resources for training (Tindsley and Stephenson,
2008; Lou and Alshawi, 2009), building confidence through familiarizing employees with the
e-bidding technology (Tindsley and Stephenson, 2008; Lou and Alshawi, 2009), concreted
intense efforts in promoting the benefits of e-tendering systems (Tindsley and Stephenson, 2008)
and support from top management (Lou and Alshawi, 2009; Oyediran and Akintola, 2011).
The present study provides impetus for adopting e-bidding systems by detailing the key
drivers of the system from the perspective of professionals practicing in Saudi Arabia. The
findings of the present study highlighted the potential of widespread e-bidding adoption in
the geographical area of focus. This will provide the project owners with relevant
information for developing suitable policies to facilitate the process of adopting e-bidding
systems. Since no previous research has attempted to assess the drivers of e-bidding
adoption in Saudi Arabia, this research contributes to the domain of construction research.

References
Aczel, A.D., Sounderpandian, J., Saravanan, P. and Rohit, J. (2012), Complete Business Statistics, 7th ed.,
McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Aleid, F., Rogerson, S. and Fairweather, B. (2009), “Factors affecting consumers adoption of ecommerce
in Saudi Arabia from a consumers’ perspective”, Proceedings of International Association for
Development of the Information Society Multi Conference on Computer Science and Information
Systems, Algarve, June 19–21, pp. 11-18.
BEPAM Anumba, C.J. and Ruikar, K. (2002), “Electronic commerce in construction: trends and prospects”,
10,1 Automation in Construction, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 265-275.
Arslan, G., Kivrak, S., Birgonul, M.T. and Dikmen, I. (2008), “Improving sub-contractor selection
process in construction projects: web-based sub-contractor evaluation system (WEBSES)”,
Automation in Construction, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 480-488.
Badu, E., Owusu-Manu, D., Edwards, D.J., Adesi, M. and Lichtenstein, S. (2013), “Rural infrastructure
26 development in the volta region of Ghana: Barriers and interventions”, Journal of Financial
Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 142-159.
Betts, M., Black, P., Christensen, S.A., Dawson, E., Du, R., Duncan, W. and Gonzalez Nieto, J. (2006),
“Towards secure and legal e-tendering”, Journal of Information Technology in Construction,
Vol. 11, pp. 89-102.
Blayse, A.M. and Manley, K. (2004), “Key influences on construction innovation”, Construction
Innovation, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 143-154.
Carayannis, E.G. and Popescu, D. (2005), “Profiling a methodology for economic growth and
convergence: learning from the EU e-procurement experience for central and Eastern European
countries”, Technovation, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Chan, L.S., Chiu, D.K. and Hung, P.C. (2007), “E-tendering with web services: a case study on the
tendering process of building construction”, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Services Computing, Salt Lake City, UT, July 9–13, pp. 582-588.
Eadie, R., Perera, S. and Heaney, G. (2010), “Identification of e-procurement drivers and barriers for UK
construction organisations and ranking of these from the perspective of quantity surveyors”,
Journal of Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 15, pp. 23-43.
Eadie, R., Perera, S., Heaney, G. and Carlisle, J. (2007), “Drivers and barriers to public sector
e-procurement within Northern Ireland’s construction industry”, Journal of Information
Technology in Construction, Vol. 12, pp. 103-120.
Egbu, C., Vines, M.P. and Tookey, J. (2003), “The role of knowledge management in e-procurement
initiatives for construction organizations”, Proceedings of the 19th Annual ARCOM Conference,
University of Brighton. Association of Researchers in Construction Management, September 3–5,
Vol. 2, pp. 661-669.
Hawking, P., Stein, A., Wyld, D.C. and Foster, S. (2004), “E-procurement: is the ugly duckling actually a
swan down under?”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 3-26.
Juaim, M.N. and Hassanain, M.A. (2011), “Assessment of factors influencing the development and
implementation of the architectural program”, Structural Survey, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 320-336.
Kajewski, S.L., Tilley, P.A., Crawford, J.R., Remmers, T.R., Chen, S.E., Lenard, D. and Haug, M. (2001),
“Electronic tendering: an industry perspective”, technical report, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane, 76pp.
Kheng, C.B. and Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2002), “The adoption of electronic procurement in Singapore”,
Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 2 Nos 1-2, pp. 61-73.
Kish, L. (1995), Survey sampling, Wiley, New York, NY.
Lavelle, D. and Bardon, A. (2009), “E-tendering in construction: time for a change?”, Northumbria
Working Paper Series: Interdisciplinary Studies in the Built and Virtual Environment, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 104-112.
Liao, T.S., Wang, M.T. and Tserng, H.P. (2002), “A framework of electronic tendering for government
procurement: a lesson learned in Taiwan”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 11 No. 6,
pp. 731-742.
Lou, E.C.W. and Alshawi, M. (2009), “Critical success factors for e-tendering implementation in
construction collaborative environments: people and process issues”, Journal of Information
Technology in Construction, Vol. 14, pp. 98-109.
MOMRA (2019), “Contractor classification”, Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs, Riyadh, available at:
https://contractors.momra.gov.sa/listofclassifieddefaultnewaj.aspx (accessed March 5, 2019).
MONAFASAT (2019), “Find competitions”, available at: https://monafasat.etimad.sa/ (accessed Drivers of
March 7, 2019). e-bidding
Mose, J.M., Njihia, J.M. and Peterson, O.M. (2013), “The critical success factors and challenges in implementation
e-procurement adoption among large scale manufacturing firms in Nairobi, Kenya”, European
Scientific Journal, Vol. 9 No. 13, pp. 375-401.
Oyediran, O.S. and Akintola, A.A. (2011), “A survey of the state of the art of e-tendering in Nigeria”,
Journal of Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 16, pp. 557-576.
27
Panayiotou, N.A., Gayialis, S.P. and Tatsiopoulos, I.P. (2004), “An e-procurement system for
governmental purchasing”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 90 No. 1,
pp. 79-102.
Perdomo, J.L. (2006), “The e-revolution: how could e-applications change the traditional construction
management approach in Puerto Rico”, Proceedings of the Fourth International Latin American
and Caribbean Conference for Engineering and Technology: Breaking Frontiers and Barriers in
Engineering: Education, Research and Practice, Mayagüez, June 21–23, pp. 1-10.
Rankin, J.H., Chen, Y. and Christian, A.J. (2006), “E-procurement in the Atlantic Canadian AEC
industry”, Electronic Journal of Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 11, pp. 75-87.
Saudi Vision 2030 (2019), “Vision 2030 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia”, available at: https://vision2030.gov.
sa/download/file/fid/417 (accessed March 7, 2019).
Shukla, A., Khan, M.A. and Shah, M. (2016), “Literature review of adoption of e procurement practices
by construction industries”, AIMA Journal of Management and Research, Vol. 10 Nos 2/4,
pp. 1-25.
Tindsley, G. and Stephenson, P. (2008), “E-tendering process within construction: a UK perspective”,
Tsinghua Science and Technology, Vol. 13 No. S1, pp. 273-278.
Wong, C.H. and Sloan, B. (2004), “Use of ICT for e-procurement in the UK construction industry: a
survey of SMES readiness”, Proceedings of ARCOM Twentieth Annual Conference, Heriot Watt
University, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, September 1–3, Vol. 1,
pp. 620-628.
Yang, J., Ahuja, V. and Shankar, R. (2007), “Managing building projects through enhanced
communication: an ICT based strategy for small and medium enterprises”, Proceedings of the
CIB World Building Congress: Construction for Development, Cape Town, May 14–17,
pp. 2344-2357.

Corresponding author
Mohammad A. Hassanain can be contacted at: mohhas@kfupm.edu.sa

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats