Electronic Commerce Research

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 493–511 | Cite as

How organizing visions influence the adoption and use of reverse auctions

  • Susan Standing
  • Craig Standing
  • Peter Love
  • Denise Gengatharen
Article

Abstract

This research investigates strategic and tactical approaches to reverse auction use, and how they are influenced by organizing visions. Organizing visions are real and perceived forces that influence the adoption of information technology. We use an extensive literature review and a case study of a reverse auction provider, that has managed thousands of auctions for organizations, to investigate how organizing visions impact on decision making in relation to reverse auction adoption and use.

The findings from the study show that e-auctions are used to reduce procurement costs and improve efficiency and are more likely to be used for commodity purchases. The narrower tactical role for e-auctions that is now evident in some organizations is shaped by the fear and disdain surrounding past use and in particular the perception of the damage to supplier relationships that their widespread adoption in procurement could create. The reverse auction vendor legitimates tactical adoption through the type of service provided. The paper makes an original contribution to theory in extending the concept of organizing visions. It concludes that although an organizing vision is often viewed as a force for adopting technology it can also be a limiting force that inhibits organizations from obtaining significant benefits from technological opportunities.

Keywords

Electronic auctions Organizing visions Technology adoption 

References

  1. 1.
    Angeles, R., & Nath, R. (2007). Business-to-business e-procurement: success factors and challenges to implementation. Supply Chain Management, 12(2), 104–115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range Planning, 43, 195–215. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cerquides, J., López-Sánchez, M., Reyes-Moro, A., & Rodríguez-Aguilar, J. A. (2007). Enabling assisted strategic negotiations in actual-world procurement scenarios. Electronic Commerce Research, 7(3–4), 189–220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, R. R., Roundy, R. O., Zhang, R. Q., & Janakiraman, G. (2005). Efficient auction mechanisms for supply chain procurement. Management Science, 51(3), 467–482. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cousins, K., & Robey, D. (2005). The social shaping of electronic metals exchanges: an institutional theory perspective. Information Technology & People, 18(3), 212–229. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elmaghraby, W. (2005). The effect of asymmetric bidder size on an auction’s performance: are more bidders always better? Management Science, 51(12), 1763–1776. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Emiliani, M. L. (2006). Executive decision-making traps and B2B online reverse auctions. Supply Chain Management, 11(1), 6–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fawcett, S. E., Magnan, G. M., & McCarter, M. W. (2008). Benefits, barriers, and bridges to effective supply chain management. Supply Chain Management, 13(1), 35–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giampietro, C., & Emiliani, M. L. (2007). Coercion and reverse auctions. Supply Chain Management, 12(2), 75–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gregg, D. G., & Walczak, S. (2010). The relationship between website quality, trust and price premiums at online auctions. Electronic Commerce Research, 10(1), 1–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grover, V., & Ramanlal, P. (1999). Six myths of information markets: information technology networks, electronic commerce, and the battle for consumer surplus. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 23(4), 465. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hackney, R., Jones, S., & Losch, A. (2007). Towards an e-government efficiency agenda: the impact of information and communication behaviour on e-reverse auctions in public sector procurement. European Journal of Information Systems, 16, 178–191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hartley, J. L., Lane, M. D., & Hong, Y. (2004). An exploration of the adoption of E-auctions in supply management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(2), 153–161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Irwin, N., & Applebaum, B. (2008). Bailout’s tricky balancing act: how much is too much? Architects of government plan face dilemma in deciding how to price Wall Street’s shaky mortgage-related assets. Washington Post, September 23, 2008. From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202443.html
  15. 15.
    Jap, S. D. (2002). Online reverse auctions: issues, themes and prospects for the future. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4), 506–525. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jin, B. (2006). Performance implications of information technology implementation in an apparel supply chain. Supply Chain Management, 11(4), 309–316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jin, M., & Wu, S. D. (2006). Supplier coalitions in on-line reverse auctions: validity requirements and profit distribution scheme. International Journal of Production Economics, 100(2), 183–194. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kumar, S., & Maher, M. (2008). Are the temptations of online reverse auctions appropriate for your business? Supply Chain Management, 13(4), 304–316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li, X., Gupta, J. N. D., & Koch, J. V. (2006). Effect of technological breakthroughs on electronic markets. Electronic Commerce Research, 6(3–4), 389–404. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lin, C., Huang, Y.-A., & Burn, J. (2007). Realising B2B e-commerce benefits: the link with IT maturity, evaluation practices, and B2BEC adoption readiness. European Journal of Information Systems, 16, 806–819. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lu, J., Wang, L.-Z., Yu, & Wu, J.-Y. (2009). E-auction web assessment model in China. Electronic Commerce Research, 9(3), 149–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mithas, S., Jones, J. L., & Mitchell, W. (2008). Buyer intention to use Internet-enabled reverse auctions: the role of asset specificity, product specialization, and non-contractibility. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 32(4), 705–724. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    Oh, W., & Pinsonneault, A. (2007). On the assessment of the strategic value of information technologies: conceptual and analytical approaches. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 31(2), 239–265. Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Orlikowski, W. J., & Barley, S. R. (2001). Technology and institutions: what can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other? Management Information Systems Quarterly, 25(2), 145–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parente, D., Venkatraramen, R., Fizel, J., & Millet, I. (2004). A conceptual research framework for analysing online auctions in a B2B environment. Supply Chain Management, 9(4), 287–294. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Power, D. (2005). Determinants of business-to-business e-commerce implementation and performance: a structural model. Supply Chain Management, 12(2), 104–115. Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Premkumar, G. P. (2003). Perspectives of the E-Marketplace by multiple stakeholders. Communications of the ACM, 46(12), 279–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rowe, R. (2003). Handling under the hammer. Retrieved from http://www.swissport.com/download/publications/swissreporter_2003_11.pdf. April 2003.
  31. 31.
    Scott, W. R. (2000). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sebastiao, H. J., & Golicic, S. (2008). Supply chain strategy for nascent firms in emerging technology markets. Journal of Business Logistics, 29(1), 75–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sila, I. (2013). Factors affecting the adoption of B2B e-commerce technologies. Electronic Commerce Research, 13(2), 199–236. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage. Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Standing, C., Stockdale, R., & Love, P. (2007). Hybrid buyer supplier relationships. Information and Organization, 17(2), 89–109. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Standing, C., Sims, I., & Love, P. (2009). Information technology non-conformity in institutional environments: e-marketplace adoption in the government sector. Information & Management, 46(2), 138–149. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Standing, S., Standing, C., & Love, P. E. D. (2010). A review of e-marketplace literature, 1997–2008. Decision Support Systems, 49(1), 41–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Swanson, E. B., & Ramiller, N. C. (1997). The organizing vision in information systems innovation. Organization Science, 8(5), 458–473. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Swanson, E. B., & Ramiller, N. C. (2004). Innovation mindfully with information technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 28(4), 553–583. Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Teo, T. S. H., Ang, J. S. K., & Pavri, F. N. (1997). The state of strategic IS planning practices in Singapore. Information & Management, 33, 13–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Varadarajan, P. R., & Yadav, M. S. (2002). Marketing strategy and the Internet: an organizing framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4), 296–312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    White, A., Daniel, E., Ward, J., & Wilson, H. (2007). The adoption of consortium B2B e-marketplaces: an exploratory study. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 16(1), 71–103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yin, R. (1994). Case study research; design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Standing
    • 1
  • Craig Standing
    • 1
  • Peter Love
    • 2
  • Denise Gengatharen
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Innovative PracticeEdith Cowan UniversityJoondalupAustralia
  2. 2.School of Built EnvironmentCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations