Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of a new potential supplier on business to business negotiations performance: evidence-based analysis

  • Published:
Electronic Commerce Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Technology innovations significantly determine supplier selection and competition in supply chains. We are enhancing current research using empirical data and examining new supplier effect on procurement performance in terms of (1) transparency (2) market structure (3) competition and (4) effect size. Through clustering, Mann–Whitney U tests, correlation effect size and CHAID classification algorithm we have found that a new potential supplier generates higher savings than only qualified suppliers in negotiation with higher effect in a transparent environment (additional 3.4% savings). We have identified the effect of the price premium for the procurer between 1.9 and 9.1% based on different procurement strategies.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bravi, L., Murmura, F., & Santos, G. (2019). The ISO 9001:2015 quality management system standard: Companies’ drivers, benefits and barriers to its implementation. Quality Innovation Prosperity, 23(2), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.12776/QIP.V23I2.1277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Christopher, M. (2000). The agile supply chain: Competing in volatile markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00110-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Prater, E., Biehl, M., & Smith, M. A. (2001). International supply chain agility tradeoffs between flexibility and uncertainty. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21(5–6), 823–839. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110390507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gosling, J., Purvis, L., & Naim, M. M. (2010). Supply chain flexibility as a determinant of supplier selection. International Journal of Production Economics, 128(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.08.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chai, J., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2020). Decision-making techniques in supplier selection: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Expert Systems With Applications. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Koufteros, X., Vickery, S. K., & Dröge, C. (2012). The effects of strategic supplier selection on buyer competitive performance in matched domains: Does supplier integration mediate the relationships? Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48(2), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2012.03263.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Thornton, L. M., Autry, C. W., Gligor, D. M., & Brik, A. B. (2013). Does socially responsible supplier selection pay off for customer firms? A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(3), 66–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Che, Z. H., & Wang, H. S. (2008). Supplier selection and supply quantity allocation of common and non-common parts with multiple criteria under multiple products. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 55(1), 110–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2007.12.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Szabo, S. (2015). Determinants of supplier selection in E-procurement tenders. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, 10(37), 1153–1155.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Szabo, S., Dorcák, P., & Ferencz, V. (2013). The significance of global market data for smart E-Procurement processes. IDIMT 2013–Information Technology Human Values, Innovation and Economy, 21st Interdisciplinary Information Management Talks, 42(February), 217–224.

  11. Dubois, A., Gadde, L. E., & Mattsson, L. G. (2021). Purchasing behaviour and supplier base evolution – a longitudinal case study. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 36(5), 689–705. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-11-2018-0328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Duffy, R. (2005). Supply base rationalization. Tehnical report, CAPS Research, Tempe, AZ.

  13. McMillan, J. (1990). Managing suppliers: Incentive systems in Japanese and U.S. industry. California Management Review, 32(4), 38–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Li, C. (2006). Supply base design for supplier competition and investment of effort under cost and demand uncertainties. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Supply-Base-Design-for-Supplier-Competition-and-of-Li/0d18319b9ec50e6884997251934aa76053aa219e#citing-papers

  15. Bauner, C., & Wang, E. (2019). The effect of competition on pricing and product positioning: Evidence from wholesale club entry. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 67, 102525. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJINDORG.2019.102525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Arora, A., Arora, A. S., Sivakumar, K., & Burke, G. (2020). Strategic sustainable purchasing, environmental collaboration, and organizational sustainability performance: The moderating role of supply base size. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 25(6), 709–728. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-07-2019-0284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ateş, M. A., Wynstra, F., & van Raaij, E. M. (2015). An exploratory analysis of the relationship between purchase category strategies and supply base structure. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 21(3), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2015.04.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hamdi, F., Ghorbel, A., Masmoudi, F., & Dupont, L. (2018). Optimization of a supply portfolio in the context of supply chain risk management: Literature review. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 29(4), 763–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-015-1128-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pant, P., Vishal, H., & Sarmah, S. P. (2020). Does disruptive event affect supply base size: Evidence from an emerging economy. Foreign Trade Review, 55(4), 496–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0015732520947903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Delina, R., & Olejarova, R. (2021). Evidence-based analysis: The success factors of a new competitor entering the negotiation in B2B e-procurement. Applied Economics Letters. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2020.1808164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mathur, S., & Dewani, P. P. (2015). Market entry, product quality and price competition. Studies in Business and Economics, 10(2), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.1515/sbe-2015-0021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. McCann, B. T., & Vroom, G. (2010). Pricing response to entry and agglomeration effects. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 284–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Smart, A., & Harrison, A. (2003). Online reverse auctions and their role in buyer–supplier relationships. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 9(5–6), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PURSUP.2003.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Newberry, P. W. (2015). The effect of competition on eBay. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 40, 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJINDORG.2015.03.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/009207002236925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Blees, J., Kemp, R., Maas, J., & Mosselman, M. (2003). Barriers to Entry Differences in barriers to entry for SMEs and large enterprises. EIM research report H200301. Zoetermeer, (2003), ISBN 90-371-0893-8

  27. Vickers, J. (1995). Concepts of competition. Oxford economic papers. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/2663661

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Li, C. (2013). Sourcing for supplier effort and competition: Design of the supply base and pricing mechanism. Management Science, 59(6), 1389–1406. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hanak, T., & Muchova, P. (2015). Impact of competition on prices in public sector procurement. Procedia Computer Science, 64, 729–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCS.2015.08.601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wyld, D. C. (2011). Current research on reverse auctions: PART II-implementation issues associated with putting competitive bidding to work. International Journal of Managing Value and Supply Chains, 2(4), 139–215. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijmvsc.2011.2401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Standaert, W., Muylle, S., & Amelinckx, I. (2015). An empirical study of electronic reverse auction project outcomes. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 14(2), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Brannman, L., Klein, J. D., & Weiss, L. W. (1987). The price effects of increased competition in auction markets. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(1), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/1937897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Millet, I., Parente, D. H., Fizel, J. L., Venkataraman, R. R., Millet, I., Parente, D. H., & Venkataraman, R. R. (2004). Metrics for managing online procurement auctions. Interfaces, 34(3), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.l040.0073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Costantino, N., Dotoli, M., Falagario, M., & Sciancalepore, F. (2012). Balancing the additional costs of purchasing and the vendor set dimension to reduce public procurement costs. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 18(3), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PURSUP.2012.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wagner, S. M., & Schwab, A. P. (2004). Setting the stage for successful electronic reverse auctions. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 10(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PURSUP.2003.11.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Beall, S., Carter, C., Carter, P. L., Germer, T., Hendrick, T., Jap, S., Petersen, K. (2003). The role of reverse auctions in strategic sourcing. Retrieved from http://lilgerry.com/beall2003ecom.pdf

  37. Shalev, M., & Asbjornsen, S. (2010). Electronic reverse auctions and the public sector: Factors of success. JOURNAL OF PUBLIC PROCUREMENT, 10(3), 428–452. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1727409

  38. Emanuelli, P. (2018). Electronic reverse auctions: Debunking myths and misconceptions. Retrieved from http://procurementoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/Paper-Electronic-Reverse-Auctions.pdf

  39. Mcafee, R. P., Mialon, H. M., & Williams, M. A. (2004). What is a barrier to entry? American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 94(2), 461–465. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041302235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mcafee, R. P., Mialon, H. M., & Williams, M. A. (2003). Economic and antitrust barriers to entry. The American Economic Review, 94, 1–26. Retrieved from https://www.mcafee.cc/Papers/PDF/Barriers2Entry.pdf

  41. Beck, A. (2011). Barriers to entry in rail passenger services: Empirical evidence for tendering procedures in Germany. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 11(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.18757/ejtir.2011.11.1.2908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Karakaya, F. (2002). Barriers to entry in industrial markets. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17(5), 379–388. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858620210439059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Zhou, Z. Z., & Zhu, K. X. (2010). The effects of information transparency on suppliers, manufacturers, and consumers in online markets. Marketing Science, 29(6), 1125–1137. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1100.0585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pham, L., Teich, J., Wallenius, H., & Wallenius, J. (2015). Multi-attribute online reverse auctions: Recent research trends. European Journal of Operational Research, 242(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.08.043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Monostori, J. (2021). Mitigation of the ripple effect in supply chains: Balancing the aspects of robustness, complexity and efficiency. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 32, 370–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2021.01.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ivanov, D., & Sokolov, B. (2013). Control and system-theoretic identification of the supply chain dynamics domain for planning, analysis and adaptation of performance under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 224(2), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJOR.2012.08.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Biazzin, C., & Carvalho, L. C. (2019). Big data in procurement: The role of people behavior and organization alignment. Dimensión Empresarial. https://doi.org/10.15665/dem.v17i4.1688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. D’Orazio, P. (2017). Big data and complexity: Is macroeconomics heading toward a new paradigm? Journal of Economic Methodology, 24(4), 410–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2017.1362151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Shukla, R. (2019). Market structure, entry barriers, and firms’ R&D intensity: Panel data evidence from electronics goods sector in India. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-019-00308-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Delina, R., & Grof, M. (2019). Empirical problems of savings calculation in electronic reverse auction. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 14(2), 138–152. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762019000200111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lu, Y., Gupta, A., Ketter, W., & Van Heck, E. (2017). Information transparency in B2B auction markets: The role of winner identity disclosure. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2949785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lauermann, B. S., & Viräg, G. (2012). Auctions in markets: Common outside options and the continuation value effect. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4(4), 107–130. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23358362

  53. Verma, R., & Goodale, J. C. (1995). Statistical power in operations management research. Journal of Operations Management, 13(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-6963(95)00020-S

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Basker, E., & Noel, M. (2009). The evolving food chain: Competitive effects of Wal-Mart ’ s entry into the supermarket industry. Journal of economics & Management Strategy, 18(4), 977–1009. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2009.00235.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Geng, R., Mansouri, S. A., & Aktas, E. (2017). The relationship between green supply chain management and performance: A meta-analysis of empirical evidences in Asian emerging economies. International Journal of Production Economics, 183, 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Cohen, A., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203774441

    Book  Google Scholar 

  58. Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Nisbet, R., Elder, J., & Miner, G. (2009). Theoretical considerations for data mining. Handbook of statistical analysis and data mining applications (pp. 15–32). Elsevier Inc.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  60. Guo, X., Yuan, Z., & Tian, B. (2009). Expert systems with applications. Expert Systems With Applications, 36(3), 6978–6985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.08.074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Heidarzade, A., Mahdavi, I., & Mahdavi-amiri, N. (2016). Supplier selection using a clustering method based on a new distance for interval type-2 fuzzy sets: A case study. Applied Soft Computing Journal, 38, 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.09.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Kara, M. E. (2018). Supplier risk assessment based on best-worst method and K-means clustering: A case study. Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, 10(4), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Murray, M. J. (2016). Factor analysis, cluster analysis, and nonparametric research methods for heterodox economic analysis. In F. S. Lee & B. Cronin (Eds.), Handbook of research methods and applications in heterodox economics (pp. 190–209). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Kamalahmadi, M., & Parast, M. M. (2017). An assessment of supply chain disruption mitigation strategies. International Journal of Production Economics, 184, 210–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.12.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Nepal, B., & Yadav, O. P. (2015). Bayesian belief network-based framework for sourcing risk analysis during supplier selection. International Journal of Production Research, 53(20), 6114–6135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1027011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Skokic, V., Lynch, P., & Morrison, A. (2016). Hotel entrepreneurship in a turbulent environment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 53, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.11.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kraljic, P. (1983). Purchasing must become supply management. Operations Management. Retrieved January 27, 2020, from https://hbr.org/1983/09/purchasing-must-become-supply-management

  68. Fisher, R. A. (1925). The Influence of rainfall on the yield of wheat at Rothamsted. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 213, 89–142. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1925.0003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Coppinger, V. M., Smith, V. L., & Titus, J. O. N. A. (1980). Incentives and behavior in English, Dutch and sealed-bid. Production and Operations Management, 22(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1980.tb00556.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Athey, S., Levin, J., & Seira, E. (2011). Comparing open and sealed bid auctions: Evidence from Timber auctions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 207–257. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjq001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Krishna, V. (2009). Auction Theory–Vijay (second edn.). San Diego: Academic Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.sk/books?hl=sk&lr=&id=qW1128ktG1gC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Krishna+Auction+Theory,+2nd+ed.+2009&ots=SU8eaP0LHh&sig=TqYbF7mHhX_sGJh0-4MvgXW-Ius&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=KrishnaAuctionTheory%2C2nded.2009&f=false

  72. Cho, S. J., Paarsch, H. J., & Rust, J. (2014). Is the “linkage principle” valid? Evidence from the field. Journal of Industrial Economics, 62(2), 346–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/joie.12048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Hong, Y., Wang, C. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Wang, C. A. (2016). Comparing open and sealed bid auctions: Evidence from online labor markets. Information Systems Research, 27(March), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Zgodavova, K., Hudec, O., & Palfy, P. (2017). Culture of quality: Insight into foreign organisations in Slovakia. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 28(9–10), 1054–1075. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1309120

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency [project APVV-16-0368].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics, Technical University of Kosice, Bozeny Nemcovej 32, 040 01, Kosice, Slovakia

    Radoslav Delina & Renata Olejarova

  2. Faculty of Informatics and Statistics, University of Economics and Business Prague, nam W. Churchilla 4, 130 67, Praha 3, Czech Republic

    Petr Doucek

Authors
  1. Radoslav Delina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Renata Olejarova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Petr Doucek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renata Olejarova.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Delina, R., Olejarova, R. & Doucek, P. Effect of a new potential supplier on business to business negotiations performance: evidence-based analysis. Electron Commer Res 23, 1941–1970 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-021-09524-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-021-09524-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation