On Comparison of Mechanisms of Economic and Social Exchanges: The Times Model

  • Gregory E. Kersten
  • Eva Chen
  • Dirk Neumann
  • Rustam Vahidov
  • Christof Weinhardt
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 2)

Abstract

An e-market system is a concrete implementation of a market institution; it embeds one or more exchange mechanisms. E-market systems are also information systems which are information and communication technologies artifacts. This work puts forward an argument that the study of e-markets must incorporate both the behavioral economics as well as the information systems perspectives. To this end the paper proposes a conceptual framework that integrates the two. This framework is used to formulate a model, which incorporates the essential features of exchange mechanisms, as well as their implementations as is artefacts. The focus of attention is on two classes of mechanisms, namely auctions and negotiations. They both may serve the same purpose and their various types have been embedded in many e-market systems.

Keywords

Design research E-markets Information systems Auctions Negotiations Experiments System comparison Mechanism comparison 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hayek, F.: The Use of Knowledge in Society. American Economic Review 35(4), 519–530 (1945)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hurwicz, L.: The Design of Mechanisms for Resource Allocation. American Economic Review 63(2), 1–30 (1973)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roth, A.: The Economist as Engineer: Game Theory, Experimentation, and Computation as Tools for Design Economics. Econometrica 70(4), 1341–1378 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maskin, E., Sjöström, T.: Implementation Theory. In: Arrow, K.J., Sen, A., Suzumura, K. (eds.) Handbook osf Social Choice and Welfare, pp. 237–288. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roth, A.E.: Introduction to Experimental Economics. In: Kagel, J.H., Roth, A.E. (eds.) The Handbook of Experimental Economics, pp. 3–110. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith, V.: Markets, Institutions and Experiments. In: Nadel, L. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, pp. 991–998. Nature Publishing Group, London (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Friedman, D., Sunder, S.: Experimental Methods: A Primer for Economists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith, V.: Economics in the Laboratory. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(1), 113–131 (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.: The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten Years Update. Journal of Management Information Systems 19(4), 9–30 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodhue, D.L.: Understanding User Evaluation of Information Systems. Management Science 41, 1827–1844 (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iivari, J.: An Empirical Test of the DeLone-McLean Model of Information System Success. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems 36(2), 8–27 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User Acceptance of Information Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science 35(8), 982–1003 (1989)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Venkatesh, V., et al.: User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View. MIS Quarterly 27(3), 425–478 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Orlikowski, W.J., Lacono, C.S.: Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the ’IT’ in IT Research - A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact. Information Systems Research 12(2), 121–134 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Turner, M., Budgen, D., Brereton, P.: Turning Software into a Service. Computer 36(10), 38–44 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neumann, D., et al.: Applying the Montreal Taxonomy to State of the Art E-negotiation Systems. Group Decision and Negotiation 12(4), 287–310 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kiser, L.L., Ostrom, E.: The three worlds of action: A metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In: Ostrom, E. (ed.) Strategies of Political Inquiry, pp. 179–222. Sage, Beverly Hills (1982)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wolfstetter, E.: Topics In Microeconomics. Industrial Organization, Auctions, and Incentives 2000, pp. 182–242. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lucking-Reiley, D.: Auctions on the Internet: What’s Being Auctioned, and How? Journal of Industrial Economics 48(3), 227–252 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wolfstetter, E.: Auctions: An Introduction. Journal of Economic Surveys 10(4), 367–420 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McAfee, R.P., McMillan, J.: Auctions and Bidding. Journal of Economic Literature 25(2), 699–738 (1987)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reiter, S.: Information and Performance in the (New)2 Welfare Economics. American Economic Review 67(1), 226–234 (1977)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mount, K., Reiter, S.: The Informational Size of Message Spaces. Journal of Economic Theory 8(1), 161–192 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bichler, M.: An Experimental Analysis of Multi-attribute Auctions. Decision Support Systems 29(3), 249–268 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Parkes, D.C.: Iterative Combinatorial Auctions: Achieving Economic and Computational Efficiency. In: Department of Computer and Information Science. University of Pennsylvania (2001) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bichler, M., Kersten, G.E., Strecker, S.: Towards a Structured Design of Electronic Negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation 12(4), 311–335 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ströbel, M., Weinhardt, C.: The Montreal Taxonomy for Electronic Negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation 12(2), 143–164 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nash, J.F.: The Bargaining Problem. Econometrica 18, 155–162 (1954)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    De Fraja, G., Sakovics, J.: Walras Retrouve: Decentralized Trading Mechanisms and the Competitive Price. Journal of Political Economy 109(4), 842–863 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Satterthwaite, M., Shneyerov, A.: Convergence of a Dynamic Matching and Bargaining Market with Two-sided Incomplete Information to Perfect Competition. Working Paper (2003) Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Satterthwaite, M., Shneyerov, A.: Dynamic Matching, Two-sided Incomplete Information, and Participation Costs: Existence and Convergence to Perfect Competition. Econometrica 75(1), 155–200 (2007)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thomas, C.J., Wilson, B.J.: A Comparison of Auctions and Multilateral Negotiations. RAND Journal of Economics 33(1), 140–155 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kumar, M., S.I.F.: Internet Auctions, in IBM Research Division, T.J. Watson Research Center (1999) Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Segev, A., Beam, C.: A New Market-based Negotiation Paradigm (1999), http://haas.berkeley.edu/~citm/nego/newnego.html
  35. 35.
    Teich, J., et al.: Designing Electronic Auctions: An Internet-Based Hybrid Procedure Combining Aspects of Negotiations and Auctions. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 1, 301–314 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Leskela, R.L., et al.: Decision Support for Multi-Unit Combinatorial Bundle Auctions. Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki (2006) Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shakun, M.F.: Multi-bilateral Multi-issue E-negotiation in E-commerce with a Tit-for-Tat Computer Agent. Group Decision and Negotiation 14(5), 383–392 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bulow, J., Klemperer, P.: Auctions versus Negotiations. American Economic Review 86(1), 80–194 (1996)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kirkegaard, R.: Auctions versus Negotiations Revisited, in Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of Aarhus, Aarhus (2004) Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Che, Y.-K.: Design Competition through multidimensional auctions. RAND Journal of Economics 24(4), 668–680 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Branco, F.: The Design of Multidimensional Auctions. Rand Journal of Economics 28(1), 63–81 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Beil, D.R., Wein, L.: An inverse-optimization-based auction mechanisms to support a multiattribute RFQ process. Management Science 49(11), 1529–1545 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Thomas, C.J., Wilson, B.J.: Verifiable Offers and the Relationship Between Auctions and Multilateral Negotiations. The Economic Journal 115(506), 1016–1031 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Koppius, O., van Heck, E.: Information Architecture and Electronic Market Performance in Multidimensional Auctions. In: Erasmus Research Institute of Management, p. 38. Erasmus University, Rotterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Strecker, S.: Multiattribute Auctions in Electronic Procurement - Theory and Experiment. In: Economics and Business Engineering. University of Karlsruhe (TH), Karlsruhe, Germany (2004) Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Chen-Ritzo, C.-H., et al.: Better, Faster, Cheaper: An Experimental Analysis of a Multi-attribute Reverse Auction Mechanism with Restricted Information Feedback. Management Science 51(12), 1753–1762 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bajari, P., McMillan, R., Tadelis, S.: Auctions versus Negotiations in Procurement: An empirical analysis. Working Paper (2002) Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Beckert, J.: Economic Sociology and Embeddedness: How shall we conceptualize Economic Action? Journal of Economic Issues 27(3), 769–787 (2003)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Simon, H.A.: Rationality in Psychology and Economics. The Journal of Business 59(4), 209–224 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Palfrey, T.: Implementation Theory. In: Aumann, R.J., Hart, S. (eds.) Handbook of Game Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Legris, P., Ingham, J., Collerete, P.: Why Do People Use Information Technology? A Critical Review of the Technology Acceptance Model. Information and Management 40, 191–204 (2003)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    ISR.: Editorial Statement and Policy. Information Systems Research 13(4) (2002) Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Tichy, W.F., et al.: Experimental Evaluation in Computer Science: A Quantitative Study. Journal of Systems and Software 28(1), 9–18 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zelkowitz, M., Wallace, D.: Experimental models for validating technology. IEEE Computer 31(5), 23–31 (1998)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Glass, R.L., Ramesh, V., Vessey, T.: An Analysis of Research in Computing Disciplines. Communications of the ACM 47(6), 89–94 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Szajna, B.: Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model. Management Science 42(1), 85–92 (1996)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Al-Khaldi, M.A.: The Influence of Attitudes on Personal Computer Utilization among Knowledge Workers. The Case of Saudi Arabia. Information and Management 36(4), 185–204 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jackson, C.M., Chow, S., Leitch, R.A.: Toward an Understanding of the Behavioral Intention to Use an Information System. Decision Sciences 28(2), 357–389 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Agarwal, R., Prasad, J.: The Role of Innovation Characteristics and Perceived Voluntariness in the Acceptance of Information Technologies. Decision Sciences 28(3), 557–582 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science 46(2), 186–204 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G.: Why Don’t Men Ever Stop To Ask For Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115–140 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Goodhue, D.L., Thompson, R.L.: Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance. MIS Quarterly 19(2), 213–236 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Dishaw, M.T., Strong, D.M.: Explaining Information Technology Utilization with the Task-technology Fit Conctructs. In: First INFORMS Conference on Information Systems and Technology. Providence, RI: INFORMS (1996) Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Dishaw, M.T., Strong, D.M.: Assessing Software Maintenance Tool Utilization using Task–technology Fit and Fitness-for-use Models. Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice 10(3), 151–179 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Doll, W.J., Torkzadeh, G.: The Measurement of End User Computing Satisfaction Issues. MIS Quarterly 12, 259–274 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    DeLone, W., McLean, E.: Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable. Information Systems Research 3(1), 60–95 (1992)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Doll, W.J., Torkzadeh, G.: Issues and Options. The Measurement of End User Computing Satisfaction: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. MIS Quarterly 15, 5–10 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Pikkarainen, K., et al.: The Measuremnet of End-user Computing Satisfaction of online Banking Services: Empirical Evidence from Finland. International Journal of Banki Marketing 24(3), 158–172 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Benbasat, I., Weber, R.: Research commentary: Rethinking "diversity" in information systems research. Information Systems Research 7(4), 389–399 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Benbasat, I., Zmud, R.W.: The Identity Crisis within the IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline’s Core Properties. MIS Quarterly 27(2), 183–194 (2003)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Benbasat, I., Zmud, R.W.: Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance. MIS Quarterly 23(1), 3–16 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Smith, V.: Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science. American Economic Review 72(5), 923–955 (1982)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Rothkopf, M.H., Pekec, A., Harstad, R.M.: Computationally Manageable Combinatorial Auctions. Management Science 44(8), 1131–1147 (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Ledyard, J.: The Design of Coordination Mechanisms and Organizational Computing. Journal of Organizational Computing 3(1), 121–134 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Dufner, D.: The IS Core-I: Economic and Systems Engineering Approaches to IS Identity 12(31), 527–538 (2003)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Gregg, D.G., Kulkarni, U.R., Vinze, A.S.: Understanding the Philosophical Underpinnings of Software Engineering Research in Information Systems. Information Systems Frontiers 3(2), 169–183 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hevner, A.R., et al.: Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Markus, M.L., Majchrzak, A., Gasser, L.: A Design Theory for Systems that Support Emergent Knowledge Processes. MIS Quarterly 26(3), 179–212 (2002)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Nunamaker, J.F.J., Chen, M., Purdin, T.D.M.: Systems Development in Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems 7(3), 89–106 (1991)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Torkzadeh, G., Doll, W.J.: The Development of a Tool for Measuring the Perceived Impact of Information Technology on Work. Omega 27(3), 327–339 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Simon, H.: The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edn. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1996)Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology. Decision Support Systems 15, 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Walls, J.G., Widmeyer, G.R., El Sawy, O.A.: Building an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research 3(1), 36–59 (1992)Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Subrahmanian, E., Talukdar, S.N.: Engineering of Markets and Artifacts. Electronic Commerce: Research and Applications 3(4), 369–380 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Zhu, K.: The Complementarity of Information Technology Infrastructure and E-Commerce Capability: A Resource-Based Assessment of Their Business Value. Journal of Management Information Systems 21(1), 167–202 (2004)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Zwass, V.: Electronic Commerce: Structures and Issues. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 1(2), 3–23 (1996)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Bhargava, H.K., Sundaresan, S.: Computing as Utility: Managing Availability, Commitment, and Pricing through Contingent Bid Auctions. Journal of Management Information Systems 21(2), 201–227 (2004)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Alter, S.: 18 Reasons Why IT-Reliant Work Systems Should Replace The IT Artifact as the Core Subject Matter of the IS Field. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 12(23), 366–395 (2003)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Iivari, J.: The IS Core - VII: Towards Information Systems as a Science of Meta-Artifacts. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 12(37), 568–581 (2003)Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Vahidov, R.: Design Researcher’s IS Artifact: A Representational Framework. In: First International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (CD-ROM Proceedings),Claremont, CA (2006) Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Hyder, E.B., Prietula, M.J., Weingart, L.R.: Getting to Best: Efficiency vs. Optimality in Negotiation. Cognitive Science 24(2), 169–204 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Rangaswamy, A., Starke, K.: Computer-Mediated Negotiations: Review and Research opportunities. In: Kent, A., Williams, J.G.(eds.) Encyclopedia of Microcomputers, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, pp. 47–72 (2000) Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Wixom, B.H., Todd, P.A.: A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance. Information Systems Research 16(1), 85–102 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Baroudi, J., Orlikowski, W.: A Short-form Measure of User Information Satisfaction: A Psychometric Evaluation and Notes on Use. Journal of Management Information Systems 4(4), 44–59 (1988)Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Doll, W.J., Hendrickson, A., Deng, X.: Using Davis’s Perceived Usefulness and Ease-of-use Instruments for Decision Making: A Confirmatory and Multigroup Invariance Analysis. Decision Sciences 29(4), 839–869 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Galinsky, A.D., Mussweiler, T., Medvec, V.H.: Disconnecting Outcomes and Evaluations: The Role of Negotiator Focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83(5), 1131–1140 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory E. Kersten
    • 1
  • Eva Chen
    • 1
  • Dirk Neumann
    • 2
  • Rustam Vahidov
    • 1
  • Christof Weinhardt
    • 2
  1. 1.InterNeg Research CentreConcordia UniversityCanada
  2. 2.IISMUniversität KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations