WHAT DEMAND-MANAGEMENT CONFIGURATIONS IMPROVE PROCUREMENT SATISFACTION IN UNIVERSITIES? A NEURAL-NETWORK-BASED NONLINEAR RECOGNITION AND CSQCA ANALYSIS
Keywords:
Universities, Government procurement, Demand management, Procurement satisfaction, Neural-network, CsQCAAbstract
After the implementation of procurement demand-management rules, whether university procurement satisfaction improves cannot be explained adequately by any single institutional arrangement or isolated managerial measure. Based on 50 valid questionnaire responses collected in September 2024, this study adopts a sequential mixed analytical design. First, neural-network-based nonlinear recognition is used to assess the independent and joint explanatory capacity of graded review rules, procurement-demand coordination, professional support, financial/audit supervision, flexible review arrangements, and several extended governance-context variables. Second, after the neural-network results show that single-condition and net-effect explanations are insufficient, crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis (csQCA) is used to identify sufficient configurations associated with improved procurement satisfaction. The results show that 82% of the cases report improvement, yet the mean balanced accuracy of single-condition neural-network models is only 0.544, and the balanced accuracy of the five-condition model is 0.470. When whole-process cognition, goal understanding, review-team scale, and other contextual variables are added, the balanced accuracy rises to 0.564 and AUC rises to 0.620, suggesting a limited but meaningful nonlinear configurational space. The csQCA results identify no single necessary condition with adequate discriminating power. Under a frequency threshold of 2, a consistency threshold of 0.85, and conservative minimization without logical remainders, three sufficient paths emerge: professional-flexible compensation, graded coordination-supervision, and professional-led transition. The overall solution consistency is 1.000 and the overall solution coverage is 0.415. The findings suggest that university procurement demand-management reform should move beyond the isolated optimization of rules, experts, or review modes and instead construct matched bundles of classification rules, cross-departmental coordination, expertise, supervision, and procedural adaptation.References
[1] Ministry of Finance of the People's Republic of China. Government Procurement Demand Management Measures (Cai Ku [2021] No. 22). Ministry of Finance of the People's Republic of China, 2021. https://gks.mof.gov.cn/guizhangzhidu/202105/t20210510_3699403.htm.
[2] OECD. Public procurement performance: A framework for measuring efficiency, compliance and strategic goals. OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 36. OECD Publishing, 2023. DOI: 10.1787/0dde73f4-en.
[3] Rothery R. China’s legal framework for public procurement. Journal of Public Procurement, 2003, 3(3): 370-388. DOI: 10.1108/jopp-03-03-2003-b003.
[4] Bergman M A, Lundberg S. Tender evaluation and supplier selection methods in public procurement. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 2013, 19(2): 73-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.pursup.2013.02.003.
[5] Oenga N O, Thogori D M, Wabwire D J M. Influence of Procurement Plan on the Effectiveness of Procurement Process among Public Universities in Eastern Region, Kenya. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research, 2022, 6(2): 106-121. DOI: 10.51505/ijebmr.2022.6207.
[6] Rendon R G, Rendon J M. Auditability in public procurement: an analysis of internal controls and vulnerability. International Journal of Procurement Management, 2015, 8(6): 710. DOI: 10.1504/ijpm.2015.072388.
[7] Cao F, Wang C. Corruption, accountability, and discretion of procurement officials: An analysis of selection Preferences for Performance-based Evaluation Criteria (PBEC) in PPP procurement. PLOS ONE, 2023, 18(3): e0282542. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282542.
[8] Kelly S, Marshall D, Walker H, et al. Supplier satisfaction with public sector competitive tendering processes. Journal of Public Procurement, 2021, 21(2): 183-205. DOI: 10.1108/jopp-12-2020-0088.
[9] Karttunen E, Matela M, Hallikas J, et al. Public procurement as an attractive customer: a supplier perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 2022, 42(13): 79-102. DOI: 10.1108/ijopm-05-2021-0346.
[10] Fridner D. Becoming an attractive public customer to strategic suppliers. Journal of Public Procurement, 2025, 25(2): 205-228. DOI: 10.1108/jopp-05-2024-0058.
[11] Creswell J W, Plano Clark V L. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3rd ed. SAGE Publications, 2018. ISBN: 9781483344379.
[12] Ragin C C. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. University of Chicago Press, 2008. DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226702797.001.0001.
[13] Schneider C Q, Wagemann C. Standards of Good Practice in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy-Sets. Comparative Sociology, 2010, 9(3): 397-418. DOI: 10.1163/156913210X12493538729793.
[14] Fiss P C. Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research. Academy of Management Journal, 2011, 54(2): 393-420. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2011.60263120.
[15] OECD. Recommendation of the Council on Public Procurement. OECD, 2015. Available at: https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0411.
[16] Hong Z, Lee C K M, Zhang L. Procurement risk management under uncertainty: a review. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 2018, 118(7): 1547-1574. DOI: 10.1108/imds-10-2017-0469.
[17] Wang C, Cao F, Yang J. Whole-process performance management of government procurement: a quantitative analysis of 58 policy texts. SN Business & Economics, 2021, 1(12): 163. DOI: 10.1007/s43546-021-00168-0.
[18] Haykin S. Neural Networks and Learning Machines. 3rd ed. Pearson, 2009. ISBN: 9780131471399.
[19] He H, Garcia E A. Learning from Imbalanced Data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2009, 21(9): 1263-1284. DOI: 10.1109/TKDE.2008.239.
[20] Pedregosa F, et al. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2011, 12: 2825-2830. https://jmlr.org/papers/v12/pedregosa11a.html.
[21] Schneider C Q, Wagemann C. Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2012. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139004244.
[22] Greckhamer T, Furnari S, Fiss P C, et al. Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization research. Strategic Organization, 2018, 16(4): 482-495. DOI: 10.1177/1476127018786487.