Skip to main content

Optimal framing of scores in procurement auctions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 5464 Accesses

Part of the book series: Advanced Studies in Supply Management ((ASSM))

Zusammenfassung

In many procurement projects buyers face suppliers who differ with regard to the nonprice attributes of the goods and services they offer. In order to make the offers of different suppliers comparable to each other, buyers can use so called scores that assign a monetary value to the non-price attributes. These scores are often framed as bonuses or handicaps and are part of most procurement auctions. In this paper, we examine how the framing of these scores as bonuses or handicaps influences suppliers’ beliefs about the strength of their competitors and thereby affects their bidding behavior in first-price reverse auctions. Our main finding is that suppliers who receive a bonus (handicap) underestimate (overestimate) the strength of their competitors. As a consequence, procurement auctions with non-price differences framed as handicaps result in lower prices than auctions in which scores are expressed as bonuses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Asker, J.; Cantillon, E. (2008): Properties of Scoring Auctions, in: RAND Journal of Economics, 39(1), 69–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beall, S. et al. (2003): The Role of Reverse Auctions in Strategic Sourcing. CAPS Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branco, F. (1997): The Design of Multidimensional Auctions, in: RAND Journal of Economics, 28(1), 63–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, C. R. et al. (2004): Reverse Auctions – Grounded Theory From the Buyer and Supplier Perspective, in: Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 40(3), 229–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Che, Y.-K. (1993): Design Competition Through Multidimensional Auctions, in: RAND Journal of Economics, 24(4), 668–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dini, F.; Pacini, R.; Valletti, T. (2006): Scoring Rules, in: Dimitri, N.; Piga, G.; Spagnolo, G. (eds.): Handbook of Procurement, New York: Cambridge University Press, 293–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dufwenberg, M.; Kirchsteiger, G. (2004): A Theory of Sequential Reciprocity, in: Games and Economic Behavior, 47(2), 268–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmaghraby, W. J. (2007): Auctions within E-Sourcing Events, in: Production and Operations Management, 16(4), 409–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelbrecht-Wiggans, R.; Haruvy, E.; Katok, E. (2007): A Comparison of Buyer-Determined and Price-Based Multiattribute Mechanisms, in: Marketing Science, 26(5), 629–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischbacher, U. (2007): Z-Tree: Zurich Toolbox for Ready-Made Economic Experiments, in: Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fugger, N.; Katok, E.; Wambach, A. (2016): Collusion in Dynamic Buyer-Determined Reverse Auctions, in: Management Science, 62(2), 518–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiner, B. (2015): Subject Pool Recruitment Procedures: Organizing Experiments with ORSEE, in: Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1(1), 114–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, V. (2010): Auction Theory, 2nd edition, San Diego: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Naegelen, F. (2002): Implementing Optimal Procurement Auctions with Exogenous Quality, in: Review of Economic Design, 7(2), 135–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabin, M. (1993): Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics, in: American Economic Review, 83(5), 1281–1302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shugan, S. M. (2005) Marketing and Designing Transaction Games, in: Marketing Science, 24(4), 525–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strecker, S. (2010): Information Revelation in Multiattribute English Auctions, in: Decision Support Systems, 49(3), 272–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verespej, M. A. (2002): E-Procurement Explosion, in: Industry Week, 24–26.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Fugger, N., Paul, C., Wambach, A. (2019). Optimal framing of scores in procurement auctions. In: Bode, C., Bogaschewsky, R., Eßig, M., Lasch, R., Stölzle, W. (eds) Supply Management Research. Advanced Studies in Supply Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-23818-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-23818-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-23817-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-23818-6

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics