Ms 33

ACKNOWLEDGING KNOWLEDGE: THE PERCEPTION

OF KNOWLEDGE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC
PROCUREMENT OFFICIALS AND THEIR
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Adam M. Williams, Fion Lau and Cliff McCue*
* Adam M. Williams, PhD, is an Assistant Professor, Department
of Public Administration, University of Illinois at Springfield. His
research interests are in public procurement and public-private
partnerships. Fion Lau, PhD, is a MPA-MBA student, Department
of Political Science & International Affairs, Kennesaw State
University. Her research interests include public finance and
contracting out. Cliff McCue, PhD, is an Associate Professor,
School of Public Administration, Florida Atlantic University. His
research interests include local public budgeting and public
procurement.

ABSTRACT. This paper examines the knowledge public

procurement professionals perceive as important for
performing their duties. Utilizing the data from the job
analysis study commissioned by the Universal Public
Procurement Certification Council [UPPCC], we examined
the knowledge sets that procurement officials recognize
as necessary and sufficient for daily operations and
professional development. Factor analysis was utilized to
validate the six domains of knowledge covered on the
survey. This paper identifies sets of core knowledge that
are essential for procurement administration, sourcing,
negotiation process, contract administration, supply
management, and strategic procurement planning.
Furthermore, we incorporated anecdotal commentary
information from the same survey to determine what
additional professional development and continuing
education opportunities procurement officials are seeking
in order to improve performance in their current and
future work roles.
INTRODUCTION
What constitutes a public procurement professional?
What knowledge and skill sets are required? How and

what should an individual demonstrate in order to be

certified as a procurement professional? What other
knowledge do these professionals seek to further their
training and career development?
These are the
questions the Universal Public Procurement Certification
Council [UPPCC] wished to answer when it commissioned
a job analysis study in 2012.
The UPPCC is the governing body that administers the
Certified Professional Public Buyer [CPPB] and the
Certified Public Procurement Officer [CPPO] examinations.
It
provides
certification
to
public
procurement
professionals practicing in United States, Canada, and
internationally. In 2012, procurement professionals were
asked to complete the job analysis study survey that
addresses whether the certification examinations are
comprehensive and representative on the tasks and
knowledge that they are required to perform on a regular
basis. The job analysis study provides the descriptive
information on the knowledge public procurement
professionals regard as necessary to function in their
roles.
Public procurement professionals are confronted by
competing demands such as meeting fiscal benchmarks
and efficiency as purchasing professionals, transparency
and compliance as government officials and ethical and
social responsibilities as public servants (Cooper, Farank,
& Kemp, 2000; Errigde, 2002; Giuniperio & Dawn, 2000).
Furthermore, as the landscape for the field of
procurement is being transformed by the influence from
globalization, internal organizational change, and external
stakeholders interests, procurement professionals must
also evolve to meet these changing demands (Faes,
Knight,
&
Mattyssens,
2001;
Macbeth,
1994).
Procurement professionals are no longer merely
purchasing agents but managers of physical and
intellectual assets (Carr & Smeltzer, 2000, Hansen,
Nohria, & Tierney, 1999).
Scholars who study
procurement argue that professionals in this field must
develop a well-rounded set of abilities including business
skills, interpersonal skills, technical skills, transactional
skills, strategic skills, and ethical leadership skills

(Guinipero, Handfield, & Eltantawy, 2006; Humphrey,

2001; Murphy, 1995).
Using the results of the job analysis survey, this paper
aims to address questions surrounding the knowledge
requirements to be a public procurement professional. Six
different
components
associated
with
being
a
procurement professional are explored with the variety of
specific knowledge elements relevant to the given
component. This analysis is accompanied by a series of
questions addressing the holistic nature of these elements
within their given components. Therefore, two primary
research questions are answered in this study.
1. What elements comprise the six primary components
of knowledge (procurement administration, sourcing,
negotiation process, contract administration, supply
management, and strategic procurement planning)
for public procurement officials?
2. Have the elements of knowledge presented in the
UPPCC job analysis survey enveloped the whole of
knowledge elements perceived most important to
public procurement officials?
The paper first identifies extant literature addressing
the knowledge contexts of the six different components
prior to analyzing them against the various elements
found within the survey. Using of a form of factor analysis,
principal
components
analysis
[PCA],
those
six
components are examined and the elements found to be
important to the given component are identified.
Additionally, a nonparametric test - One Sample Wilcoxon
Sign Test - for difference is analyzed to assess the
sentiments of officials on the holistic nature of the survey
for the domains. This study concludes with a discussion of
the importance to the profession and the training of
current and future public procurement professionals.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Public procurement is an interdisciplinary practice
because of its scope. Procurement of goods and services
are essential to the functioning of all government
agencies (McCue & Gianakis, 2001). The importance of

procurement is beginning to gain recognition in practice

and in academic research (Snider & Rendon, 2012; Thai,
2001). Since World War II, the practice of procurement
became increasingly complex due to its integration with
all levels of government operations (Cooper, 1980;
Callendar & Mathews, 2000).
To further complicate
matters, public procurement is a dynamic system
continuously changing and evolving through interaction
among procurement laws and regulations, organizational
structure,
procurement
processes
and
methods,
techniques and technology, procurement professionalism
and personnel (Childs, Maull & Bennett, 1994; Thai,
2001). There are increasing expectations for procurement
professionals to be cross-trained in category expertise,
business administration, and leadership skills (Hochman &
Boll, 2009).
The current study addresses the perceived domains of
knowledge associated with the present practices in public
procurement. These domains include procurement
administration, sourcing, the negotiation process, contract
administration, supply management and strategic
procurement planning. In the following discussion, a look
at the significance to each of these domains in public
procurement
is
provided
and
supplements
the
understanding for how the current study examines these
within the context of critical knowledge within the field
and practice.
Procurement Administration
Procurement administration provides the overall
framework
for
efficient
and
effective
financial
administration.
The administration of procurement
encompasses skills and knowledge that are vast and wide
in scope.
The laws, regulations, and policies for
procurement are fragmented and they vary depending on
the level of government and the specific agency. There
are nearly 500 statutes regulating procurement for federal
agencies alone, not including regulations for state and
local governments (Thai, 2001).
Procurement professionals must exercise considerable
managerial and technical responsibilities in implementing

the procurement policies. In additional to managerial

decision-making, their daily activities have tremendous
impact on the economy and require knowledge in
budgeting and accounting. According to Callendar and
Mathews (2000), the financial transactions involving
public procurement average to 10%-30% of the Gross
National Product.
Unlike private sector, government agencies often have
diverse and competing objectives, leading to disparate
interpretation of what constitutes efficient and effective
administration (Arlbjorn & Freytag, 2012).
These
competing goals fall under two general categories:
procurement goals and non-procurement goals (Thai,
2001). The procurement goals include the monetary and
tangible objectives such as quality, timeliness, cost,
minimizing business, financial and technical risks,
maximizing competition, and maintaining ethical practice
and integrity. The non-procurement goals include the
social, equity and intangible objectives such as improving
domestic or local economy, environmental protection and
sustainable procurement, social goals, and international
relations.
Finally, in addition to procurements function in
operation,
procurement
administration
includes
interaction with personnel and monitoring of their
compliancy to the rule and regulations set forth by
governments and their watchdog agencies.
Sourcing
Sourcing has become one of the conduits to transform
the nature of the procurement profession. It has evolved
from transaction processing to an analytical, complex, and
strategic function (Hochman & Boll, 2009). Sourcing
requires a multi-faceted approach.
In addition to
managing supplier relationships, employing advanced
techniques, understanding and being able to analyze the
supply market dynamics are essential (Hochman & Boll,
2009). Sourcing is no longer an isolated function but is
integrated as part of the strategic operations of
organizations.
The
demands
on
procurement
professionals proficiency in sourcing are equally elevated.

Although all six domains of knowledge and skills

intertwine, sourcing is closely connected to the
negotiation process due to product specification,
competitive procurement, offer evaluation, supplier
requirements and relationships just to name a few
(Soares-Aguiar & Palma-dos-Reis, 2008).
Negotiation Process
Although negotiation is an integrated element in
sourcing, it has a separate domain in procurement
certification because it is a vital skill for any professional
to come to a business agreement with its trading partners
(Ertel, 1999; Ritter, Wilkinson & Johnston, 2004; Smeltzer,
Manship, & Rossetti, 2006). One unique aspect of the
negotiation process compared to other procurement skills
and knowledge is the need for procurement professionals
to establish rapport with suppliers (Carr & Pearson, 1999).
The ability to establish trust is essential in the negotiation
process (Butler, 1999). Similar to all aspects of the public
procurement profession, negotiation processes also
evolved from operational to strategic level; increasing the
organizations competitiveness by providing better
pricing, faster response, consolidating processes, and
reducing documentation requirements (Attaran and
Attaran, 2002).
Contract Administration
Contract
administration
is
the
extension
of
collaborative relationships between buyers and suppliers.
Contract administration now goes beyond simply
awarding
contracts
to
the
lowest
bidder,
the
multiparameter approach is now part of the equation
including examination of cost, time, and quality of the
suppliers (Herbsman & Ellis, 1992). The entire contract
administration process includes awards to completion.
Procurement professionals must also handle contract
termination and any disputes stemming from or causing
the termination. A clear understanding of statutes, rules,
and regulations are essential to contract administration.
Monitoring of supplier compliance to specifications,
supplier performance evaluation, and settlement of
disputes are based on extensive sets of statutes and

regulations (Lieberman & Morgan, 2007). Contracting

administration is a daunting task due to the jargon of the
industry, tremendous number of statutes and regulations,
disputes from contractors and bidders, and potential civil
and criminal liability for contractors for non-compliance
(Lieberman & Morgan, 2007).
Supply Management
Supply management replaced the simple purchasing
agent function of procurement professionals.
Supply
management transformed the traditional process-based
purchasing to knowledge and accountability based
procurement, which enhances the quality considerations,
promotes adaptive decision-making and innovative
solutions (Korosec, 2003). One of the key components is
to utilize advanced technology to streamline the
procurement supply chain and to reduce redundancies
(Bajjaly,
1999;
Hammer,
1990).
Furthermore,
procurement professionals must master information
technology in order to coordinate and integrate activities
among the participants along the supply chain (Holley,
Dufner, & Reed, 2002; Sundarraj & Talluri, 2003). Another
important component is to decentralize the supply chain
process for ease of adapting to changing needs, forecast
needs, track performance and reduce reaction time (Choy
& Lee, 2003). Procurement professionals must be able to
view the entire process holistically and involve all
participants in the process to promote effectiveness
through communication and transparency (Croom, 2001;
Thompson, 1996).
Finally, procurement professionals
should expand their selection of vendors to promote
efficiency through public-private partnership and healthy
competition (Smith & Rupp, 2002).
Strategic Procurement Planning
The modern procurement professional must be
proficient in forecasting, planning, and developing
analytical techniques in order to meet the demands on
input quality, cost reduction, continuity of supply, and
materials planning (Carter & Narasimham, 1996; Freeman
& Cavinato, 1990; Heberling, 1993). There are different
models for addressing different aspects of strategic

procurement planning including commodity-purchasing

decisions, LP model for contract selection, mixed-integer
programming, and inventory theory (Kingsman, 1986;
Pan, 1989; In essence, strategic procurement planning
balances between the short-term and long-term goals and
objectives taking into account the dynamic nature of
needs, market factors, and economic trends (Bonser &
Wu, 2001).
METHODOLOGY
In order to examine the comprehensiveness of the
certification examinations, six domains of knowledge were
reviewed in the job analysis study. Theses six domains of
knowledge include procurement administration, sourcing,
negotiation process, contract administration, supply
management, and strategic procurement planning.
A survey - job analysis study - of procurement
professionals was administered in 2012 by UPPCC in order
to identify elements of knowledge contained within the six
domains. In total, 2593 responses were collected.
Respondents answered a series of questions pertaining to
demographic information regarding themselves such as
certifications held, organization size, organization
location, experience, salary and age. Coupled with these
demographic questions are 5-point Likert scaled questions
- ordered 0 to 4 - centering on the various supposed
elements of knowledge associated with the six domains.
These domains contain a number of different proposed
elements summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Elements of the Six Procurement Knowledge
Domains
Procurement
Administration
(23)
Common
procurement
performance

Sourcing (39)

Product specifications
Product descriptions
Product prices

Negotiation
Process (3)
Strategies and
techniques
Problem-

measurement
criteria
Automated
procurement
systems
Solicitation contents
Contract file
contents
Cooperative
procurement
programs
Value analysis
Procurement audit
and review
processes
Audit purposes and
reviews
E-procurement
programs
Supplier diversity
programs
Sustainable
procurement
initiatives
Procurement
policies and
procedures
Budgeting methods
Impact of budget
cycle
Operational forms
and templates
Procurement card
programs
Process
improvement
programs
Standardization
programs
Procurement trends
Procurement
information
resources
Professional values
Outreach methods

Scope of work for

service contracts
Benchmarking
techniques and
processes
Procurement methods
and techniques
Supply and demand
concepts
Total cost of ownership
concepts
Make/lease/buy
concepts
Market research
resources
Roles and
responsibilities in the
procurement process
Special considerations
for supplies
Requisition approval
process
Laws
Regulations
Ordinances
Specification
requirements
Specification types
Contract types
Contract terms and
conditions
Small dollar purchases
Competitive sealed bids
and proposals
Competitive
negotiations
Supplier preference
programs
Noncompetitive
procurement
Emergency procurement
Cooperative
procurement
Professional services
procurement

solving and
decisionmaking
techniques
and processes
Process and
documentation
requirements

for internal and

external
stakeholders
Team dynamics
Personnel
management

Contract
Administration
(9)
Techniques to
ensure supplier
compliance to
specifications
Techniques to
evaluate supplier
performance
Elements of a
contract
Contract
management
Contract
performance
deficiencies
Disputes and

Construction
procurement
Pre-solicitation
conferences
Solicitation process
Offer evaluation
Sources of services
and/or supplies
Methods of payment
Payment types
Fair and open
competition concepts
Protest processes and
procedures
Hearing processes and
procedures
Debriefing processes
and procedures
Supplier requirements
Contract document
preparation
Award recommendation
process
Contract approval
process
Supply Management
(5)

Strategic
Procurement
Planning (8)

Ordering processes
Inventory management
techniques and
principles
Disposition of obsolete
and surplus equipment
and materials
Asset management
Supply chain
management

Analytical
techniques
Research
techniques
Forecasting
techniques
and strategies
Procurement
strategies
based on
forecast data,
market factors
and economic
trends
Strategic

resolutions
Contract
modifications
Contract
termination
Contract renewal
process
Contract close-out

planning
Cost/benefit
analyses on
future
acquisitions
Contingency/c
ontinuity of
operations
planning
Succession
planning

The variables comprising the six domains of

knowledge demonstrate that the concepts for examining
proficiency in public procurement are complex and not
easily measured. This paper intends to utilize principal
components analysis to summarize the interrelatedness
among these variables. Principal components analysis is
a form of factor analysis (Dunteman, 1989). Factor
analysis is often applied to discern patterns in a set of
variables and disentangle complex relationships (Kim &
Mueller, 1978a, 1978b; Yong & Pearce, 2013). These
mathematical procedures are employed to examine
whether the observable variables included in the job
analysis study are necessary and sufficient to measure
the six latent constructs (Bartholomew, 1980).
As a type of factor analysis, principal components
analysis [PCA] serves as a data reduction technique
(Blunch, 2008; Dunteman, 1989). In particular, this
technique serves to analyze a set of items serving to
identify a latent component. This identifies the particular
elements as manifestations of the latent component. For
this study, the six domains of knowledge are the latent
components. Using the responses to the survey questions
detailing specific actions presumably associated with
these domains, a principal components analysis can
analyze large quantities of responses for the ability to
correlate them and associate with the latent component.
Furthermore, the purpose for the use of principal
components rather than factor analysis is the lack of

underlying model assumption. A factor analysis requires a

series of assumptions about the factor loading, whereas
principal components analysis attempts to reduce without
a preconceived model to be tested (Dunteman, 1989).
The present study highlights a series of potential
elements within given components, but it does not
attempt to test an assumption of these elements
modeling the domains. Rather, the study explores the
usefulness of these elements in identifying the proposed
domain while also acknowledging the lack of
completeness.
Completing PCA requires testing a series of
assumptions of correlation and test effectiveness. These
tests are the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin [KMO] measure of
sampling adequacy and Bartletts test for sphericity. KMO
is measured on a 0 to 1 scale and identifies whether the
variables are measuring a common component (George &
Mallery, 2014). This is critical to identifying whether PCA
is actually an effective test given the different elements
being reduced to a common component. Likewise,
Bartletts test of sphericity utilizes a Chi-squared test to
determine the correlations of the different variables being
loaded on a common component (Blunch, 2008; George &
Mallery, 2014). Therefore, Bartletts test indicates the
variables being reduced are going to measure the same
component and minimizes the number of actual
components present.
One additional test that is typical is to evaluate a scree
plot to indicate the number of components present.
However, in the current study, this is unused due to the
test forcing the individual elements to load on a single
component - domain of knowledge. Therefore, the
analysis will consist of examining the significance of
Bartletts test of sphericity, the value of the KMO measure
of sampling adequacy and the different loading scores.
Following the assumption tests, a series of PCA tests
assess the capability to load the elements on their
corresponding domain. Each domain is tested using all
respondents, only those holding a Certified Public Buyer
[CPB] certification, those holding a Certified Public

Purchasing Officer [CPPO] certification and those holding

no certification. By examining all four sets of data, a
comparison is made to determine whether the various
elements are viewed differently depending on an officials
certification. In order to determine the appropriateness of
the variable on the given component, evaluation of the
component matrices and their corresponding loading
scores are evaluated. Loading scores must be greater
than 0.5 - on a 0 to 1 scale - in exploratory studies such
as this. Confirmatory studies have greater sensitivity in
social science research requiring a loading score of
greater than 0.7 (George & Mallery, 2014).
Upon examining the loading scores in each domain of
knowledge, one final test is used to analyze a question
from the survey detailing the holistic nature of the
elements presented in each domain. This question asks
how well the domain is covered by the different elements
on a Very Poor [1] to Very Well [5] scale. The use of a One
Sample Wilcoxon Sign Test for each of the six domains
indicates the completeness of these elements and
whether there is a belief something is missing.
Following the sets of results, a discussion as to the
implications for the profession are detailed. Furthermore,
the usefulness of the findings is assessed and potential
impacts examined. Finally, sets of limitations are explored
along with the future research stemming from the
limitations and findings from this study.
RESULTS
The following section provides detailed results for the
various PCA tests and the Sign Tests. First, a look at the
assumption tests for conducting PCA is given to ensure
the effectiveness of the test. Following this is a brief
overview of each resulting PCA for the six knowledge
domains. Finally, the results for the Sign Tests examining
the completeness of the elements for each domain are
produced and discussed.
In examining Table 2, the KMO and Bartlett tests are
presented
for
the
various
knowledge
domains.
Additionally, each domain is divided into four certification

categories - no certification, CPPB only, CPPO and the

Whole sample. Results for KMO and Bartlett are produced.
In every PCA test the KMO and Bartlett results indicate
that PCA is an effective testing mechanism for reducing
these data on the basis of the different knowledge
elements representing the six knowledge domains.
TABLE 2
KMO and Barlett Tests
Certification
Domains

No
Certificatio
n

CPPB
Only

CPPO

Whole

KMO Test
Procurement
Administration

.953

.942

.928

.954

Sourcing

.972

.962

.947

.974

Negotiation
Process

.751

.729

.727

.742

Contract
Administration

.938

.916

.898

.932

Supply
Management

.886

.876

.869

.883

Strategic
Procurement
Planning

.936

.934

.937

.941

Bartletts Test of Sphericity (Chi Squared)

Procurement
Administration

13272.03 10642.24
* *

4159.38
*

27857.50*

Sourcing

34659.36
*

9920.07
*

67846.31*

24103.71
*

Negotiation
Process

2264.34*

2024.59*

668.32*

5019.93*

Contract
Administration

9679.67*

6389.25*

2570.56
*

18997.91*

Supply
Management

3876.67*

3668.09*

1400.84
*

8902.78*

Strategic
Procurement
Planning

9317.93* 7192.39*

2818.21
*

19534.26*

Note: *Significance of p<.001.

Because the assumption tests permit the use of PCA

for the knowledge domains, each domain is presented
with its corresponding loading scores for the various
elements. Each domain has a different number of
elements - Procurement Administration (23), Sourcing
(39), Negotiation Process (3), Contract Administration (9),
Supply Management (5) and Strategic Procurement
Planning (8). Elements are presented as numbers and
reflect the elements from Table 1.
Results from Table 3 - Table 8 indicate all elements
meet the loading score criteria set except for Element 9 implementing a sustainable procurement program - for
Procurement Administration for officials with CPPO
certifications. However, it should be noted that the
loading score of 0.491 is approaching the 0.5 cut point
and this result should not detract from the remaining
results found from the tables. Specifically, it can be stated
that all of the elements load on their corresponding
knowledge domain at an appropriate level regardless of
certification.
TABLE 3
Procurement Administration Domain PCA Results
PCA Loading Scores

Element
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

No
Certification
.650
.626
.604
.696
.759
.745
.728
.677
.613
.741
.607
.716
.701
.611
.583
.766
.753
.794
.728
.611
.698
.671
.663

CPPB
Only
.627
.573
.566
.645
.711
.719
.709
.647
.582
.690
.578
.677
.650
.593
.606
.752
.730
.761
.726
.556
.638
.654
.634

CPP
O
.660
.616
.624
.623
.732
.733
.732
.586
.491
.676
.518
.631
.680
.652
.617
.753
.743
.765
.713
.595
.677
.674
.649

Whol
e
.643
.605
.590
.667
.740
.735
.722
.656
.583
.711
.586
.689
.677
.605
.597
.760
.742
.779
.725
.589
.674
.664
.652

TABLE 4
Sourcing Domain PCA Results
PCA Loading Scores
Element
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6

No
Certification
.628
.734
.722
.734
.708
.727

CPPB
Only
.612
.648
.674
.699
.685
.709

CPP
O
.592
.636
.665
.665
.744
.735

Whol
e
.617
.696
.700
.716
.703
.722

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

.741
.732
.728
.693
.640
.698
.717
.781
.776
.766
.580
.765
.770
.600
.732
.748
.737
.772
.649
.786
.770
.796
.781
.695
.748
.759
.780
.750
.753
.773
.755
.818
.772

.677
.687
.683
.659
.541
.563
.577
.731
.709
.636
.537
.696
.699
.532
.680
.685
.655
.667
.551
.692
.701
.721
.747
.603
654
.680
.722
.679
.661
.692
.709
.723
.745

.699
.667
.678
.681
.645
.580
.658
.745
.747
.624
.637
.663
.642
.576
.642
.642
.719
.652
.501
.772
.702
.653
.756
.694
.703
.555
.623
.535
.677
.686
.620
.659
.649

.712
.711
.706
.674
.604
.639
.666
.761
.750
.712
.559
.734
.736
.565
.703
.711
.702
.722
.590
.754
.741
.761
.773
.658
.709
.716
.747
.701
.713
.735
.729
.773
.752

TABLE 5
Negotiation Process Domain PCA Results
PCA Loading Scores
Element
Number

No
Certification

CPPB
Only

CPP
O

Whol
e

1
2
3

.941
.910
.942

.938 .923
.889 .870
.947 .927

.938
.899
.943

TABLE 6
Contract Administration Domain PCA Results
PCA Loading Scores
Element
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

No
Certification
.802
.838
.884
.911
.928
.889
.913
.893
.853

CPPB
Only
.717
.789
.786
.839
.864
.853
.877
.813
.803

CPP
O

Whol
e

.775
.807
.744
.831
.878
.843
.839
.819
.775

.773
.818
.840
.879
.904
.872
.894
.859
.825

TABLE 7
Supply Management Domain PCA Results
PCA Loading Scores
Element
Number
1
2
3
4
5

No
Certification
.783
.906
.898
.918
.906

CPPB
Only
.736
.887
.899
.925
.925

CPP
O

Whol
e

.825
.888
.905
.906
.887

.769
.896
.899
.919
.911

TABLE 8
Strategic Procurement Planning PCA Results
PCA Loading Scores

Element
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

No
Certification
.881
.879
.937
.939
.929
.926
.876
.867

CPPB
Only
.845
.842
.921
.911
.901
.917
.856
.791

CPP
O

Whol
e

.823
.847
.911
.919
.898
.891
.854
.822

.861
.862
.928
.926
.915
.919
.867
.833

One difference that is minor across Table 3 - Table 8 is

the differences in loading scores dependent upon the
certification. For example, the previously mentioned
element - implementing a sustainable procurement
program - is viewed differently between certifications with
the non-certified professionals having the largest loading
score for that element. These minor fluctuations
demonstrate a difference in importance for that particular
knowledge domain dependent on the professionals
certification. However, these differences are primarily in
the loading scores and not on the significance - except
Element 9 in Procurement Administration - of the
particular element for their knowledge domain.
Finally, in accordance with Table 9, the Sign Tests
follow up on the results from the various PCA tests to
determine the completeness of the elements within the
given domain. Specifically, these tests addressed the level
of adequacy of the test with an expectation that the
various elements would be at least adequate for the given
knowledge domain. Table 9 shows the resulting value for
the nonparametric hypothesis test on the given question
assessing the adequacy and all six tests are significant at
the p<.001 level. Furthermore, the z-score is negative
demonstrating that respondents believe the elements are
more than adequate to identify the knowledge domains.
TABLE 9

Sign Test Results

Procurement
Administratio
n
Z
Sig. (2tailed)

Z
Sig. (2tailed)

Sourcing

Negotiation
Process

-41.020
.000

-41.720
.000

-39.217
.000

Contract
Administratio
n

Supply
Manageme
nt

Strategic
Procurement
Planning

-40.176
.000

-37.977
.000

-37.789
.000

Given the quantity of results, a discussion follows that

highlights the importance of the findings in relation to the
profession of public procurement along with detailing
some of the limitations and needs for future research that
stem from the results of the current study.
DISCUSSION
Results demonstrate that all of the elements in every
knowledge domain are relevant for the given component.
This carries with it simple implications along with practical
significance for the profession in the future.
Firstly, the meaning behind the results produces a
perception of an accurate portrayal of the different
aspects of knowledge relating to public procurement. The
intention of this portion of the survey was to identify
whether these different elements are appropriately
assigned to the given purported domains of knowledge.
According the results, these elements are correctly
assigned to the given domain.
Having these elements associated with the given
domain serves as an expression of what it means to
comprehend the different components to performance as
a procurement official. In applying this to certification

examinations, it confirms the need to address these

elements in assessing an individuals competence.
Moreover, the lack of real difference between varying
levels of certification indicates that there is a common
understanding amongst procurement officials as to these
elements within each domain. Having this level of
commonality allows for identity formation within public
procurement. As a profession in a state of constant
change, the ability to specify comprehension and
correspondence amongst professionals indicates that
there may be some agreement on the notion of being a
public procurement professional.
Additionally, the results from the Sign Tests clearly
demonstrate overwhelming support for the representation
of these elements within their given domain. Thus,
professionals felt that the proposed elements in Table 1 do
holistically
depict
meaning
for
procurement
administration, sourcing, the negotiation process, contract
administration, supply management and strategic
procurement planning. This does not imply the concepts
are sufficiently defined, but rather that the basis of
understanding within the profession is viewed from within
the elements for the given domain.
It is therefore critical to adjust education and training
to account for competency within these various elements,
especially in the case of professionals being assigned the
given domain as a regular task within their place in their
organization. Having a proposed understanding of the
profession is only satisfactory once there is significant
training to ensure consistency across the profession.
Within the context of just the United States, this is difficult
to achieve due to differing standards in procurement
agencies. Therefore, given that the results are easily
generalizable due to the size of the sample, appropriate
trainings and curriculum warrant development. There are
certainly trainings and academic programs made
available, but they are not easily accessible to varying
agencies and their professionals.
Although results certainly portray meaning for what
procurement officials should know, there are a number of

limitations that must be noted. These are primarily

associated with the adequacy of the survey instrument
and capacity. First, the instrument itself implied a level of
understanding
about
public
procurement.
While
professionals are surveyed, the length and complexity of
the survey requires a level of knowledge. This certainly
might skew results towards agreement for the elements
within the different domains. However, this is not
necessarily a negative thing as those viewed to have the
greatest levels of expertise are best suited to provide an
identity for the profession.
Another shortcoming of the survey is the layout.
Specifically, the survey measures items on a five-point
scale and only produces a single measure for each of the
elements. This limits the ability to utilize data for analysis
requiring higher levels of measure. Additionally, it limits
the reliability of each element, as there are no
corresponding questions to ensure that reliability for
views on each element. It should be noted that the
complexity of the survey certainly places this limitation on
the formation of questions and it should not dilute the
results.
One final limitation is in the application of the survey
results. Given the previous discussion, it should be noted
that the usefulness for providing identity and developing
education and training is as far as the data permit
analysis to go. This is certainly not a major negative, but
must be stated in order to clearly demonstrate that the
survey has a specific focus that should not lead
researchers and readers away from the purpose. Thus,
these limitations do provide opportunity for future
research due to these results.
One of the first ways to develop parallels for this study
is to examine the understanding of the various elements
in the real world context. Essentially this produces a
connection between theory and practice. Furthermore,
this could discount the present limitation of the purpose
of the survey through a look at the practical side of these
knowledge elements.

Another future study should also examine procurement

performance relating to the proficiency of the various
knowledge domains. By examining how education and
training related to the knowledge elements and domains
improve
performance
within
the
actual
agency
environment, it would be easier to justify the need for the
educations and trainings in organizations of varying sizes
and also provide incentives for professionals seeking
greater understanding.
Overall, this study demonstrates that there is
agreement as to the necessary knowledge to be a public
procurement professional. This agreement produces a
crude representation of identity and conceptualization for
the six knowledge domains. Within this context, an
identity for procurement professionals themselves is able
to begin to take shape. Future research should focus on
the application of these knowledge domains in practice
and address the development of professionalism in
education
and
training
for
public
procurement
practitioners current and future.
REFERENCES
Attaran, M., & Attaran, S. 2002. Catch the wave of eprocurement. Industrial Management, 44(4), 16-21.
Arlbjorn, J. S., & Freytag, P. V. 2012. Public procurement vs
private purchasing: Is there any foundation for
comparing
and
learning
across
the
sectors?
International Journal of Public Sector Management,
25(3), 203-220.
Bajjaly, S. T. 1999. Managing emerging information
systems in the public sector. Public Productivity and
Management Review, 23(1), 40-47.
Bartholomew, D. J. 1980. Factor analysis for categorical
data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B
(Methodological), 42(3), 293-321.
Blunch, N. J. 2008. Introduction to structural equation
modelling using SPSS and AMOS. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Bonser, J. S., & Wu, S. D. 2001. Procurement planning to

maintain both short-term adaptiveness and long-term

perspective. Management Science, 46(6), 769-786.
Butler, J. 1999. Trust expectations, information sharing,
climate of trust, and negotiation effectiveness and
efficiency. Group & Organization Management, 24(2),
217-238.
Callendar, G., & Mathews, D. 2000. Government
purchasing: An evolving profession? Journal of Public
Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 12(2),
272-290.
Carr, A. S., & Pearson, J. N. 1999. Strategically managed
buyer-supplier
relationships
and
performance
outcomes. Journal of Operations Management, 17(5),
497-519.
Carr, A. S., & Smeltzer, L. R. 2000. An empirical study of
the relationship among purchasing skills and strategic
purchasing, financial performance and supplier
responsiveness. Journal of Supply Chain Management,
36(3), 40-54.
Carter, J. R., & Narasimhan, R. 1996. Is purchasing really
strategic? International Journal of Purchasing and
Materials Management, 32(1), 20-28.
Childs, S. J., Maull, R. S., & Bennett, J. 1994. Frameworks
for understanding business process re-engineering.
International Journal of Operations & Productions
Management, 14(12), 22-34.
Choy, K., & Lee, W. 2003. A generic supplier management
tool for outsourcing manufacturing.
Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 8(2), 140-154.
Cooper, P. J. 1980. Government contracts in public
administration: The role and environment of the
contracting officer. Public Administration Review,
40(5), 459-468.
Cooper, W. R., Farank, L. G., & Kemp, A. R. 2000. A
multinational comparison of key ethical challenges
helps and challenges in the purchasing and supply
management profession: The key implications for

business and professions. Journal of Business Ethics,

23(1), 83-100.
Croom, S. 2001. Restructuring supply chains through
information channel innovation. International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, 21(4), 504515.
Dunteman, G. H. 1989. Principal components analysis.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Errigde, A. 2002. Public procurement and supply
management
strategies.
Public
policy
and
administration, 17(1), 52-71.
Ertel, D. 1999. Turning negotiation into a corporate
capability. Harvard Business Review, 77(3), 55-70.
Faes, W., Knight, L., & Mattyssens, P. 2001. Buyer profiles:
An empirical investigation of changing organizational
requirements. European Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, 7(3), 197-208.
Freeman, V. T., & Cavinato, J. L. 1990. Fitting purchasing to
the strategic firm: Frameworks, processes, and values.
Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management,
26(1), 19-25.
George, D. & Mallery, P. 2014. IBM SPSS statistics 21 step
by step: A simple guide and reference, 13th edition.
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Giuniperio, L. C., & Dawn, H. P. 2000. World-class
purchasing skills: An empirical investigation. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 36(3), 4-13.
Guinipero, L., Handfield, B. R., & Eltantawy, R. 2006.
Supply management evolution: Key skill sets for supply
manager of the future. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 26(7), 822844.
Hammer, M. 1990. Reengineering work: Dont automate,
obliterate. Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 104-122.
Heberling, M. E. 1993. The rediscovery of modern
purchasing. International Journal of Purchasing and
Materials Management, 29(3), 48-53.

Hensen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. 1999. Whats your

strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business
Review, 77(2), 106-116.
Herbsman, Z., & Ellis, R. 1992. Multiparameter bidding
system - Innovation in contract administration. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, 118(1),
142-150.
Hochman, M., & Boll, R. 2009. Procurements chance to
shine. Supply Chain Management Review, 13(2), 5051.
Holly, L. M., Dufner, D., & Reed, B. J. 2002. Got SISP?
Strategic information systems planning in U.S. state
governments. Public Performance and Management
Review, 25(4), 398-412.
Humphreys, P. 2001. Designing a management
development programme for procurement executives.
Journal of Management Development, 20(7), 604-623.
Kim, J. & Mueller, C. W. 1978. Introduction to factor
analysis: What it is and how to do it. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Kim, J. & Mueller, C. W. 1978. Factor analysis: Statistical
methods and practical issues. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kingsman, B. G. 1986. Purchasing raw materials with
uncertain fluctuating prices. European Journal of
Operational Research, 25(3), 358-372.
Korosec, R. L. 2003. Assessing the feasibility of supply
chain
management
within
purchasing
and
procurement. Public Performance and Management
Review, 27(2), 92-109.
Lieberman, R. D., & Morgan, J. D. 2007. The basics of
government
contracts
A
primer.
Contract
Management, 47(8), 32-41.
Macbeth, D. K. 1994. The role of purchasing in a
partnering
relationship.
European
Journal
of
Purchasing and Supply Management, 1(1), 19-25.

McCue, C. P., & Gianakis, G. A. 2001. Public purchasing:

Whos minding the store? Journal of Public
Procurement, 1(1), 71-95.
Murphy, E. 1995. Half the battle is knowing what skills to
acquire. Purchasing, 119(9), 49-54.
Narasimhan, R., & Stoynoff, L. K. 1986.
Optimizing
aggregate procurement allocation decisions. Journal of
Purchasing and Materials Management, 22(1), 23-30.
Pan, A. C. 1989. Allocation of order quantity among
suppliers. Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management, 25(3), 36-39.
Ritter, T., Wilkinson, I. F., & Johnston, W. J. 2004. Managing
in complex business networks. Industrial Marketing
Management, 33(3), 175-183.
Smeltzer, L. R., Manship, J. A., & Rossetti, C. L. 2006. An
analysis of the integration of strategic sourcing and
negotiation planning. Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 39(3), 16-25.
Smith, A. D., & Rupp, W. T. 2002. Application service
providers (ASP): Moving downstream to enhance
competitive advantage. Information Management &
Computer Security, 10(2), 64-72.
Snider, K. F., & Rendon, G. R. 2012. Public procurement:
Public administration and public service perspectives.
Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(2), 327-348.
Soares-Aguiar, A., & Palma-dos-Reis, A. 2008. Why do
firms adopt e-procurement systems? Using logistic
regression to empirically test a conceptual model.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1),
120-133.
Sundarraj, R., & Talluri, S. 2002.
A multi-period
optimization model for the procurement of componentbased
entrepreneurial
information
technologies.
European Journal of Operational Research, 146(2),
339-351.
Thai, K. 2001. Public procurement re-examined. Journal of
Public Procurement, 1(1), 9-50.

Thompson, M. 1996. Effective purchasing strategy: The

untapped source of competitiveness. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 1(3), 6-8.
Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. 2013. A beginners guide to
factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor
analysis.
Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for
Psychology, 9(2), 79-94.