Service Business

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 41–62 | Cite as

Factors influencing suppliers’ participation in private electronic markets

  • Sang M. LeeEmail author
  • Seong-bae Lim
Original Paper


This study is intended to identify factors, which influence suppliers’ participation in the private electronic market (PEM). The results of this study show that many suppliers do not recognize the potential benefits that PEM could offer and they do not believe their off-line relationships with a buyer could be transferred to on-line. Thus, buyers need to convince their suppliers that PEM is not just a price based marketplace but instead a business model where mutual benefits can be achieved based on existing trust relationships between a buyer and limited number of qualified suppliers.


Business to business market Private electronic markets Electronic data interchange Incomplete contract 


  1. Anderson E, Weitz B (1989) Determinant of continuity in conventional industrial channel dyads. Mark Sci 8(4):310–323Google Scholar
  2. Bakos J, Brynjolfsson E (1993) From vendors to partners: information technology and incomplete contract in buyer–supplier relationships. J Organ Comput 3(3):301–328Google Scholar
  3. Banker R, Kalvenes J, Patterson R (2000) Information technology, contract completeness, and buyer–supplier relationships. ICIS2000 proceedings, pp 218–228Google Scholar
  4. Barua A, Lee B (1997) An economic analysis of the introduction of an electronic data interchange system. Inf Syst Res 8(4):398–422Google Scholar
  5. Blau P (1964) Exchange and power in social life. Wiley, New York, pp 88–97Google Scholar
  6. Burrow P (1990) EDI: still awaiting takeoff but already flying high. Electron Bus 16(13):60–61Google Scholar
  7. Business Week (2005a) The best global brand: the 100 top brands, August 7Google Scholar
  8. Business Week (2005b) The information technology 100, June 20Google Scholar
  9. Cap Gemini Ernst & Young (2001) Unraveling the private marketplace mystique, accessed 15 July 2003 at
  10. Chau P, Hui K (2001) Determinants of small business EDI adoption: an empirical investigation. J Organ Comput Electron Commer 11(4):229–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chwelos P, Benbasat I, Dexter A (2001) Research report: empirical test of an EDI adoption model. Inf Syst Res 12(3):304–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clemons E, Peddi S, Row M (1993) The impact of information technology on the organization of economic activity: the “move to the middle” hypothesis. J Manag Inf Syst Fall:10–35Google Scholar
  13. Dao Q, Kauffman R (2000) To be or not to B2B?: an evaluative model for E-Procurement channel adoption. Fifth INFORMS conference on information systems and technology, November, San AntonioGoogle Scholar
  14. Dyer J (1996) Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: evidence from the auto industry. Strateg Manag J 17(4):271–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dyer J, Chu W (2000) The determinants of trust in supplier–automaker relationships in the US, Japan, and Korea. J Int Bus Stud 31(2):259–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ganesan S (1994) Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer–seller relationships. J Mark 58:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gravetter F, Wallnau L (1996) Statistics for the behavioral sciences. West Publishing Company, St PaulGoogle Scholar
  18. Grewal R, Comer J, Metha R (2001) An investigation into the antecedents of organizational participation in business-to-business electronic markets. J Mark 65:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grossman S, Hart O (1986) The cost and benefits of ownership: a theory of vertical and lateral integration. J Polit Econ 24(4):691–717Google Scholar
  20. Hart O, Moore J (1990) Property right and the nature of the firm. J Polit Econ 98(6):1119–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hart O, Moore J (1999) Foundation of incomplete contract. Rev Econ Stud 66:115–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hart P, Saunders C (1997) Power and trust: critical factors in the adoption and use of electronic data interchange. Organ Sci 8(1):23–42Google Scholar
  23. Hess C, Kemerer C (1994) Computerized loan origination system: an industry case study of the electronic market hypothesis. MIS Q 18(3):251–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Howells J, Wood M (1995) Diffusion and management of electronic data interchange: Barriers and opportunities and healthcare industries. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 7(4):371–386Google Scholar
  25. Iacovou C, Banbasat I, Dexter A (1995) Electronic data interchange and impact of technology. MIS Q 19(4):465–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. IBM Global Services (2001) Private exchanges: looking to the pioneers for value earned and lessons learnedGoogle Scholar
  27. Jupiter Research Center (2001) Vision report, 1, April 10Google Scholar
  28. Kirchsteiger G, Niederle M, Potters J (2001) Public versus private exchanges. Discussion paper, Tilburg University, Center for Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  29. Kumar N (1996) The power of trust in manufacturer–retailer relationships. Harv Bus Rev 74(6):92–109Google Scholar
  30. Laudon K, Laudon J (2005) Management information systems: managing the digital firm. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  31. Laudon K, Traver C (2006) E-commerce: business, technology, society. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee SM (2003) From the land of morning calm to ICT hot bed, Acad Manag Exec 17(2):7–18Google Scholar
  33. Lee S, Lim G (2005) The impact of partnership attributes on EDI implementation success. Inf Manag 42:505–516Google Scholar
  34. Maingot M, Quon T (2000) A survey of electronic data interchange (EDI) in Canada, including a discussion of EDI audit issues and audit implications. Proceedings of 23rd annual congress of EAA, MunichGoogle Scholar
  35. Mohan S (1995) EDI’s move to prime time stalled by cost perception. Computerworld 29(8):91Google Scholar
  36. Moozakis C (2001) Update: new CEO should shape up covisint., April
  37. Mukhopadhyay T, Kekre S, Kalathur S (1995) Business value of information technology: a study of electronic data interchange. MIS Q 19(2):137–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Munson C, Rosenblatt M, Rosenblatt Z (1999) The use and abuse of power in supply chains. Bus Horiz 42(Jan–Feb):55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nunally J (1978) Psychometric, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Callaghan R, Kaufmann P, Konsynski (1992) Adoption correlates and share effects of electronic data interchange systems in marketing channels. J Mark 56:45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parkhe A (1998) Understanding trust in international alliances. J World Bus 33(3):219–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pedhazur E (1997) Multiple regression in behavioral research, 3rd edn. Harcourt Brace, Forth WorthGoogle Scholar
  43. Pierce R (2002) XML spells the end for EDI eventually., July 23
  44. Premkumar G, Ramamurthy K (1995) The role of interorganizational and organizational factors on the decision mode for adoption of interorganizational systems. Decis Sci 26(3):303–336Google Scholar
  45. Premkumar G, Ramamurthy K, Nilakanta S (1994) Implementation of electronic data interchange: an innovation diffusion perspective. J Manag Inf Syst 11(2):157–186Google Scholar
  46. Ramamurthy K, Premkumar G, Crum M (1999) Organizational and interorganizatioal determinants of EDI diffusion and organizational performance: a causal model. J Organ Comput 9(4):253–285Google Scholar
  47. Ratnasingam P (2000) The influence of power on trading partner trust in electronic commerce. Internet Res Electron Netw Appl Policy 10(1):56–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smeltzer L (1997) The meaning and origin of trust in buyer–supplier relationships. Int J Purch Mater Manag 33(Jan):40–48Google Scholar
  49. Subramani M, Walden E (2000) Economic returns to firms from business-to-business electronic commerce initiatives: an empirical examination. The ICIS2000 proceedings 229–241Google Scholar
  50. Teo H, Wei K, Benbasat I (2003) Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: an institutional perspective. MIS Q 27(1):19–49Google Scholar
  51. Vijayasarathy L, Tyler M (1997) Adoption factors and electronic data interchange use: a survey of retail companies. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 25(9):286–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wang E, Seidmann A (1995) Electronic data interchange: competitive externalities and strategic implementation policies. Manag Sci 41(3):401–418Google Scholar
  53. Whitaker J, Stephens J, Traham C (2001) Successfully securing suppliers. Supply Chain Excellence 4, May 29Google Scholar
  54. Williams L (1994) Understanding distribution channels: an inter-organizational study of EDI adoption. J Bus Logist 15(2):173–203Google Scholar
  55. Williamson O (1975) Market and hierarchies. Free, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Wise R (2000) Beyon the exchange: the future of B2B. Harv Bus Rev Nov–Dec:88–96Google Scholar
  57. Young-Ybarra C, Wiersema M (1999) Strategic flexibility in information technology alliance: the influence of transaction cost economics and social exchange theory. Organ Sci 10(4):439–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zaheer A, McEvily B, Perrone V (1998) Does trust matter?: exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organ Sci 9(2):141–159Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ManagementUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA
  2. 2.Jones School of BusinessSUNY-GeneseoGeneseoUSA

Personalised recommendations