Electronic Business: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (4-Volumes) P200 pot

1924 &RQVXPHUV¶3UHIHUHQFHVDQG$WWLWXGHV7RZDUG0RELOH2I¿FH8VH by the individual´DQGGLIIXVLRQLV³the process by which an innovation spreads.” As a consequence, diffusion processes result in the acceptance or penetration of a new idea, behavior, or physical i n n o v a t i o n ( R o g e r s , 19 9 5 ). To m a k e a n i n n o v a t i o n VXFFHVVIXO5RJHUV¶,'7KDVLGHQWL¿HG¿YHFULWLFDO characteristics: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, communicability, and trialability. Further, Moore and Benbasat (1991) expanded IDT by proposing perceived characteristics of innovating (PCI) in which three additional con- structs, including voluntariness, image, and result GHPRQVWUDELOLW\ZHUHLGHQWL¿HGIRU,'UHVHDUFK As the key antecedents to technology adoption decision (Plouffeet al., 2001), these PCI factors, along with the additional constructs resided in MO context, must be explored and explained. • Relative advantage (perceived useful- ness): The degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than its precursor (Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Rogers, 1995; Venkatesh et al., 2003). This construct, par- ticularly in MO study, contains issues such as usability and availability. Here, usability relates to enhanced 3G network throughput for wireless business applications or services and application design to deliver the right information to the right users; availability relates to assured network that is reliable in the wireless network in terms of seam- less service coverage and handy mobile access. • Compatibility: The degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, needs, and past experiences of potential adopters (Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Rogers, 1995; Venkatesh et al., 2003). This relates to the issue of rel- evance of technology (Wang & Butler, 2003) and interoperability, as well as integration in terms of open standard, of the MO envi- URQPHQWZLWKPDLQOLQHEXVLQHVVDQGRI¿FH support systems. • Complexity, also referred to as perceived ease-of-use (PEOU), is the degree to which DQLQQRYDWLRQLVSHUFHLYHGDVEHLQJGLI¿FXOW to use (Davis, 1989, 1993; Moore & Benba- sat, 1991; Rogers, 1995; Venkatesh et al., 2003). This can relate to ease of accessing business information, the amount of effort it takes to comprehend the functionality of mobile devices and programs, and how easy it is to retrieve and send information in 3G networks. • Communicability: The extent to which the innovation lends itself for communication, particularly the extent to which the use of the innovation is observable by others (Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Rogers, 1995; Venkatesh HWDO7KLVUHODWHVWRVRFLDOLQÀXHQFH DOVRNQRZQDV³VRFLDOQRUP´VLQFHXVHRI DQLQQRYDWLRQLVRIWHQLQÀXHQFHGE\DVRFLDO context, including supervisors, peers, and others that are highly regarded (Karahanna & Straub, 1999; Kleijnen & Ruyter, 2003). Users might perceive the need to use MO services to achieve work objectives with job-related participants. • Image: The degree to which use of an in- novation is perceived to enhance one’s image or status in one’s social system (Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Rogers, 1995; Venkatesh et al., 2003). According to Plouffe et al. (2001), LWV LJ Q L ¿ H VW K H H[ W H QW W RZK LFK DXVH U E HO L HY HV an innovation will add social prestige or status. • Result demonstrability (RD): The tangi- bility of the results of using the innovation, including their observability and communi- cability (Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Rogers, 1995; Venkatesh et al., 2003). This relates to visibility, which Wang and Butler (2003) consider as the degree to which change is apparent to users. The more visible and more accessible technology changes are, the more likely individual users are to be aware of them and, therefore, more likely to 1925 &RQVXPHUV¶3UHIHUHQFHVDQG$WWLWXGHV7RZDUG0RELOH2I¿FH8VH carefully evaluate them. This is in line with Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek (1973), and 0RRUHDQG%HQEDVDWWKDW³the more amenable to demonstration the innovation is and the more its advantages are, the more likely it is to be adopted.” Additionally, we propose that perceived risk (PR) andperceived security (PS)be included into the ID taxonomy for wireless computing. Despite VLJQL¿FDQWO\LPSURYHG WHFKQLFDODGYDQFHPHQWV in 3G security mechanisms, MO users might still be concerned about sensitive information transmitting in the open airwaves. In fact, one of the most pressing concerns for businesses considering wireless computing relates to the security in operations. PR refers to the extent to which a functional or psychosocial risk a consumer feels he/she is taking when purchasing and use a product. Kleijnen and Ruyter (2003) further GH¿QHSHUFHLYHGULVNVDVWKHH[WHQWWRZKLFKULVNV are attributed to the mobile services. It greatly affects a user’s intention to use a particular prod- uct/service (Featherman & Pavlou, 2003; Pavlou & Gefen, 2004). User’s perception of unsatisfac- tory security on the Internet is one of the primary reasons hindering online operation (Zellweger, 1997). From a user’s perspective, adapted from &KHOODSSDZHGH¿QHPS as the subjective probability with which users believe their sensi- tive information (business or private) will not be viewed, stored, and manipulated during work sessions by unauthorized parties in a manner FRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHLUFRQ¿GHQWH[SHFWDWLRQV$QG we deem that the relationship between perceived risk and perceived security for user adoption is reversed: the more risks perceived by users, the less likely users are to adopt the MO services; the more security perceived by users, the more likely users are to adopt the MO services. Based on TAM, IDT, and PCI, as well as such new constructs as perceived risk and perceived security, a conceptual framework for mobile RI¿FH DGRSWLRQ LV SURSRVHG VHH )LJXUH :H argue that PR and PS are negatively related to WKHLQWHQWLRQWRXVHPRELOHRI¿FH)XUWKHURWKHU )LJXUH3URSRVHGIUDPHZRUNIRUPRELOHRI¿FHDGRSWLRQ TAM & IDT Intention to Use PU PEOU Compatibilit y PR PS Communicabilit y PCI Image RD Compatability Communicability Perceived Usefulness Perceived Ease of Use Perceived Risk Perceived Security Result Demon- strability Intention to Use 1926 &RQVXPHUV¶3UHIHUHQFHVDQG$WWLWXGHV7RZDUG0RELOH2I¿FH8VH constructs, such as perceived usefulness, com- plexity, compatibility, communicability, image, and result demonstrability are positively related WRWKHLQWHQWLRQWRXVHPRELOHRI¿FH IMPLICATIONS AND RESEARCH AGENDA The rapid and innovative developments in wireless WHFKQRORJLHV FDQ EH RIVLJQL¿FDQW FRQWULEXWLRQ to current and future professional communica- WLRQV 0RELOH RI¿FH WHFKQRORJ\ KDV WKH VWURQJ SRWHQWLDOWRH[WHQGWKHRI¿FHERXQGDU\WRZDUG an anywhere/anytime model. It is of crucial im- portance to gauge how MO users would make the decision for technology acceptance and what key IDFWRUVLQÀXHQFHWKHLUGHFLVLRQPDNLQJ7DEOH containing guidelines for research and practice, is thereby proposed for both researchers and practitioners for further analysis and investigation on MO acceptance and trade-off research. It is necessary for both practitioners and researchers to understand which factor is the most important and which factor is comparatively the least important toward technology adoption. IS researchers should develop and pursue sound empirical research based on the IS accep- tance theories, including TAM, IDT, and PCI, FRPELQHG ZLWK SUDFWLFDO ¿HOGEDVHG UHVHDUFK utilizing the case method and surveys of MO us- ers. Such research would introduce a new avenue for innovative technology adoption research and ZRXOGEHRIKHOSIRUSUDFWLWLRQHUVLQWKH¿HOGRI professional communications to understand the trade-offs that consumers are willing to make for the technology adoption decision. 0RELOHRI¿FHPXVWEHDVWUDWHJLFSDUWRID company’s IT portfolio, rather than simply a technological tool for tactical productivity gains. Furthermore, the workplace of the future will be an open, collaborative realm, with less reliance on geographic limitations between the physical location of the organization and its employees. Table 1. Guidelines for research and practice What are the objectives? • Understand how users make the decision for MO technology acceptance.  8QGHUVWDQGZKLFKNH\IDFWRUVLQÀXHQFH02XVHUV¶GHFLVLRQPDNLQJZKHQHOHFW - ing to adopt MO for professional communications. What are the trade-offs? • Understand the user’s requirements, so that appropriate MO technologies can be adopted. • Understand the impact of the technology on teams and organizations. • Train individuals and teams so the technology can be applied most effectively. • Understand the factors that lead to greater success with the technology.  7UDLQWROHYHUDJHWKHWHFKQRORJ\IRUWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQ¶VEHQH¿W • Understand the expected outcomes of various implementation scenarios. • Provide awareness to employees so that individuals use technologies in best ways.  'HYHORS³EHVWSUDFWLFHV´IRU02LPSOHPHQWDWLRQWRJXLGHIXUWKHUXVDJHSDW- terns. 1927 &RQVXPHUV¶3UHIHUHQFHVDQG$WWLWXGHV7RZDUG0RELOH2I¿FH8VH We must also pursue practical questions such as (1) which factors are consumers most concerned with when electing to adopt MO for professional communications?, and (2) what is the trade-off that consumers might make for accepting and adopting MO technology? The application of emerging technologies must be accompanied by careful organizational research that allows managers to understand the user’s requirements, the impact of the technology on teams and organizations, the factors that lead to greater success with the technology, and the expected outcomes of various implementation scenarios. Without careful a priori and ex poste analysis, technology can have unintended con- sequences. The research factors and preliminary agenda detailed in this paper will facilitate greater understanding of this important socio-technical phenomenon, and will contribute to its success. 7KH¿QGLQJVRIWKLVVWUHDPRIUHVHDUFKZLOOHQ- DEOHIXWXUHPDQDJHUVWRFRQ¿GHQWO\LPSOHPHQW MO with a presumption of positive strategic outcomes for the individual users and also for the entire organization. REFERENCES Chellappa, R. K. (2005). Consumers’ trust in electronic commerce transactions: The role of perceived privacy and perceived security. Under review. Cisco. (2002). &LVFR PRELOH RI¿FH Retrieved August 15, 2005 from http://www.cisco.com/asia- SDFPRELOHRI¿FHLQGH[VKWPO Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, per- ceived ease of use, and user acceptance of infor- mation technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 318. Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user percep- tions and behavior impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 475-487. Featherman, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predict- ing e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, 59, 451-474. Gruman, G. (2005). Taking it to the streets: 3g arrives. InfoWorld, 27(10), 30. Heijden, H. v. d. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 695-704. IBM. (2004). 0RELOHRI¿FH7KHQH[WEUHDNWKURXJK in professional productivity gains. Retrieved August 15, 2005 from http://www.incentric. FRPVROXWLRQVVROXWLRQV0RELOHRI¿FHB7KHBQH[W- breakthrough.pdf Intel. (2004a). Anytime, anywhere mobile of- ¿FH. Retrieved August 15, 2005 from http:// cache-www.intel.com/cd/00/00/10/28/102829_ pp022001_sum.pdf Intel. (2004b). Solutions for mobile network operators. Retrieved August 15, 2005 from http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns341/ ns396/ns177/networking_solutions_white_pa- per09186a00801fc7fa.shtml Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (1999). Informa- tion technology adoption across time: A cross- sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post- adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 31. Kleijnen, M., & Ruyter, K. d. (2003). Factors in- ÀXH Q FL Q J W KH D GRS W LR Q RI P RE L OH JDPLQJ VHU Y LF H V In B. E. Mennecke & T. J. Strader (Eds.), Mobile commerce technology, theory and applications (Vol. 11, pp. 202-217). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Liang, T P., & Wei, C P. (2004). Introduction to the special issue: Mobile commerce applications. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(3), 7. Mahajan, V., & Peterson, R. A. (1985). Models for innovation diffusion (quantitative applications 1928 &RQVXPHUV¶3UHIHUHQFHVDQG$WWLWXGHV7RZDUG0RELOH2I¿FH8VH in the social sciences). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173-191. Muthaiyah, S., & Ehsan, S. D. (2004). Readiness towards 3g: Antecedents of 3g adoption and deployment in Malaysia. Paper presented at the Wireless Information Systems. North-Smith, L. (2002). 0RELOHRI¿FH6ROXWLRQV Real-time access to PIM/e-mail. Retrieved August 15, 2005 from http://www03.ibm.com/industries/ wireless/doc/content/bin/real-time_access.pdf Pavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2004). Building ef- fective online marketplaces with institution-based trust. Information Systems Research, 15(1), 37. Plouffe, C. R., Hulland, J. S., & Vandenbosch, M. (2001). Richness versus parsimony in modeling technology adoption decisions—understanding merchant adoption of a smart card-based pay- ment system. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 208. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovation (4 th ed.). New York: Free Press. Suoranta, M., & Mattila, M. (2004). Mobile bank- ing and consumer behavior: New insights into the diffusion pattern. Journal of Financial Service Marketing, 8(4), 354-366. Varshney, U., & Vetter, R. (2002). Mobile com- merce: Framework, applications and networking support. Mobile Networks and Applications, 7, 185-198. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of informa- WLRQWHFKQRORJ\7RZDUGDXQL¿HGYLHZMIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425. Wang, X., & Butler, B. S. (2003). Individual tech- nology acceptance under conditions of change. Paper presented at the International Conference on Information Systems, Seattle, WA. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley and Sons. =HOOZHJHU3:HEEDVHGVDOHV'H¿QLQJ the cognitive buyer. Electronic Markets, 7(3), 10-16. This work was previously published in E-Business Process Management: Technologies and Solutions, edited by J. Sounder- pandan and T. Sinha, pp. 175-284, copyright 2007 by IGI Publishing (an imprint of IGI Global). 1929 Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Chapter 6.14 The Purchasing Agent’s View of Online Reverse Auctions Peggy D. Lee The Pennsylvania State University—Great Valley, USA ABSTRACT This chapter views online reverse auctions from the purchasing agent’s perspective. I found that purchasing agents with a high level of buying ex- p e r i e n c e w i l l p e r c e i v e t h a t o n l i n e r e v e r s e a u c t i o n s have a negative impact on the trust and cooperation i n s u p p l i e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . P u r c h a s i n g a g e n t s d i d n o t see a negative impact of online reverse auctions on long term viability of suppliers. The chapter discusses the evolution of the buyer-supplier rela- tionship, emphasizing the critical success factors in supplier selection. Further, it discusses the role of the online reverse auction in the buyer-supplier relationship. By understanding the lens through w h i c h p u r c h a s i n g a g e n t s v i e w o n l i n e r e v e r s e a u c - t i o n s , m a n a g e r s c a n d o a b e t t e r j o b o f m a n a g i n g t h e procurement function through improved training programs for purchasing agents that incorporate the appropriateness of online reverse auctions vs. other sourcing strategies. In addition, they will be able to better manage online reverse auctions, minimizing any negative impact of the auction on existing supplier relationships. INTRODUCTION Auctions have been used to buy and sell goods and services throughout the centuries (Smeltzer & Carr, 2003). However, technological innova- tion, improvements in communications, and the Internet have made online auctions more popular in business-to-business purchasing as well as in consumer sales. The online reverse auction (ORA) is one of the latest tools to improve purchasing costs by giving buyers access to a broader range of suppliers and allowing suppliers to bid on items that they might not have had the chance to bid on in the past. Online reverse auctions have saved buyers and sellers millions of dollars in the last decade and estimates are that this can only continue. Academics and practitioners alike have H[WROOHGWKHEHQH¿WVRIRQOLQHUHYHUVHDXFWLRQV primarily in the form of reductions in the costs to procure goods and services as well as to bid. 1930 The Purchasing Agent’s View of Online Reverse Auctions The research in this area has focused on the decision to implement an ORA (Parente, Venkata- raman, Fizel, & Millet, 2004; Stein, Hawking, & Wyld, 2003) how to structure an ORA (Nair, 2005); how to determine the suppliers to invite to bid (Talluri & Ragatz, 2004) and the impact of the auction on the suppliers (Gattiker, Huang, & Schwarz, 2007; Jap, 2007). The success of ORAs u s u a l l y i s m e a s u r e d b y h o w m u c h pu r c h a s e r s’ a n d sellers’ costs are reduced, estimated to be about *ULI¿WKV)HZUHVHDUFKHUVKDYHVWXG- ied the purchasing agent’s perceptions on the suc- cess of the auction, despite the fact that an online reverse auction is one of the many methods that purchasing agents use to procure goods for their companies (Emiliani & Stec, 2001). Consequently, the purpose of this chapter is to view online auc- tions from the purchasing agent’s perspective. The next two sections discuss the evolution of the buyer-supplier relationships, emphasizing the success factors in supplier selection; and ORAs in the buyer-supplier relationships. The second section ends with the hypotheses derived from prior research in supplier relationship and online reverse auctions. The last sections describe the study methodology, followed by survey results, D GLVFXVVLRQ RIP\¿QGLQJV OLPLWDWLRQV RIWKH study and thoughts on the direction of future research. SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS: EVOLUTION AND SUCCESS FACTORS Strategic sourcing involves creating a plan to discover, evaluate, select, develop, and manage a v i a b l e s u p p l y b a s e ( B u r t , D o b l e r , & S t a r l i n g , 2 0 0 3; Kumar, Bragg, & Creinin, 2003). This systematic DSSURDFKWRVRXUFLQJSRVLWLYHO\DIIHFWVD¿UP¶V performance (Chen, Paulraj, & Lado, 2004; Paulraj & Chen, 2005). Of the activities involved in stra- tegic sourcing, supplier management is perhaps one of the most important tasks of the purchasing agent since the cost of externally procured goods can account for nearly 50% of total costs (De- graeve & Roodhooft, 1999). The buyer-supplier relationship is a crucial component in strategic sourcing (Leenders & Fearon, 1997). Buyer-sup- plier relationships are characterized by a high level of communication and information sharing between the partners, often including their cost structures and production plans (Burt et al., 2003). 7KXVUHVHDUFKHUVKDYHLGHQWL¿HGtrust, quality, delivery reliability, economic performance of the VXSSOLHUDQGWKHVXSSOLHU¶V¿QDQFLDOVWDELOLW\DV important decision factors in selecting a supplier (Choi, 1996; Ellram, 1990; Kannan & Tan, 2002; Kumar et al., 2003; Min, 1994). The buyer-supplier relationship is a dyadic relationship formed for the purpose of purchasing goods and/or services and it has evolved over the years from an adversarial one to one characterized by partnerships, strategic alliances, and collab- orative relationships (Burt et al., 2003; Hoyt & Huq, 2000). In the early years of the purchasing profession, supplier management meant that the purchasing agent’s job was to negotiate the best price, quality and delivery terms with his or her vendors and suppliers, once the decision was made to buy vs. make a component used in the manufacturing process. Grounded in transaction cost theory (Williamson, 1979), procurement ac- tivities were basically arms’ length transactions with no relational content and were governed by a contractual arrangement. Burt, Dobler, and S t a r l i n g ( 2 0 0 3) r e f e r t o t h i s a s r e a c t i v e p u r c h a s i n g , where the buyer-seller relationship is transactional rather than being collaborative. They describe WUDQVDFWLRQDOUHODWLRQVKLSVDVKDYLQJ³DQDEVHQFH of concern by both parties about the other party’s well being” (p. 81). Each transaction is an inde- pendent deal. Costs, production schedules, and demand forecasts are not shared. Transactional relationships are arm’s-length transactions where LIRQHSDUW\³ZLQV´WKHRWKHU³ORVHV´7KHUROHRI the purchasing agent was to manage (i.e., reduce) risk and transaction costs (Hoyt & Huq, 2000). 1931 The Purchasing Agent’s View of Online Reverse Auctions 7UXVWZDVDUWL¿FLDOO\PDLQWDLQHGE\WKHWKUHDWRI losing the business and power resided with the buyer (Burt et al., 2003). In the late 1990s, suppliers recognized that there were advantages in partnering with their customers. Salespersons were encouraged to development relationships with their key cus- tomers. At the same time, purchasing managers recognized that partnerships and strategic alli- ances with a few, carefully selected suppliers was preferable to many independent transactions with many suppliers (Hoyt & Huq, 2000). Although price was still an important criterion used to select a supplier, purchasing managers began to realize that the lowest priced supplier may be the most costly, considering costs related to unreliable delivery, inadequate product quality, and poor communication. Reducing the number of suppli- HUVPHDQWWKDWWKHSXUFKDVLQJ¿UPKDGWRKDYH a higher level of trust in the supplier, especially when the supplier was the sole source of the good or service (Burt et al., 2003). When the buyer-supplier relationship is IRXQGHGRQVWUDWHJLFLQLWLDWLYHVRIEHQH¿WWRERWK parties, an alliance usually results (Burt et al., 2003). Alliances and cooperative buyer-supplier relationships are characterized by trust, collabo- ration, and cooperation. Partners often share a common vision (Buono, 1997); communicate frequently (Cooper, Ellram, Gardner, & Hanks, 1997); use electronic media (Scott & Westbrook, 1991) and have access to shared business systems (Bowersox & Closs, 1996). All of these actions require a high degree of trust between the buyer and the seller (Claro, Claro, & Hagelaar, 2006; Doney & Cannon, 1997; Smeltzer & Carr, 2003). ,QVKRUWWKHQRQTXDQWL¿DEOHVXSSOLHUVHOHFWLRQ criteria (such as supplier’s strategic commitment to the buyer and suppliers’ willingness and ability to share information) have a greater impact on EX\HU¶VEXVLQHVVSHUIRUPDQFHWKDQTXDQWL¿DEOH variables (Kannan & Tan, 2002). ONLINE REVERSE AUCTIONS AND THE BUYER-SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIP I n a n o n l i n e r e v e r s e a u c t i o n t h e s u p p l i e r i s s e l e c t e d based on its self-expressed ability to meet the requirements described in the auction documen- tation. The purchasing manager might not even be familiar with the supplier prior to the auction. This means that often the sole basis for selecting a supplier in an online reverse auction is price. In fact, online reverse auctions have been found to work best in situations where the requirements DUHGH¿QHGSUHFLVHO\DQGGRQRWUHTXLUHLQWHUDF- tion between the buyer and seller except for the bid (Jap, 2002; Smeltzer & Carr, 2003). Since the WZR¿UPVPD\QRWKDYHKDGDSUHYLRXVEXVLQHVV relationship, trust, information sharing, and/or cooperation, have not been established. The pres- e n c e o f a b u y e r- s u p p l i e r r e l a t i o n s h i p ( p a r t n e r s h i p , strategic alliance, etc.) is not needed in order for an ORA to be successful, However, researchers have found that it increases the likelihood of establishing a buyer-supplier relationship in the long term (Hohner, Rich, Ng, & Reid, 2003). Therefore, the QRQTXDQWL¿DEOH YDULDEOHV HJ trust, information sharing, and collaboration, cooperation) are not likely to be critical success factors in an auction. In fact, researchers have found that online reverse auctions work best in situations where the product to be purchased is a commodity and the requirements are very well GH¿QHG3DUHQWHHWDO H o h n e r, e t a l . ( 20 0 3) r e p o r t e d o n c o l l a b o r a t i o n in a Web-based auction between Mars Inc. and ,%0WKDWUHÀHFWWKHFRPSOH[ELGVWUXFWXUHVRID strategic sourcing situation. They found that the auction must be a win-win for the buyer and the suppliers in order for relationships to be sustained RYHUWKHORQJWHUP7UXVWVLJQL¿FDQWO\DIIHFWVWKH level of commitment of the parties, which in turn promotes the formation (and the ability to sustain) 1932 The Purchasing Agent’s View of Online Reverse Auctions a long term relationship. Long term relationships were found to be helpful in achieving a buyer’s operational performance (Hsieh, 2004). Johnston (2004) found that the supplier’s trust in the buyer was strongly linked to cooperative behaviors such DVVKDUH GSOD Q QL QJD QGÀH[ LELOLW \L QFRRUG LQDWL QJ activities. (Prahinski & Benton, 2004) found that when there is collaboration and communication, WKHVXSSOLHUSHUFHLYHVDSRVLWLYHLQÀXHQFHRQWKH relationship. The purchasing agent manages the process of collaboration and is responsible for communicating with suppliers. Online reverse auctions are used extensively DVSDUWRID¿UP¶Vsourcing strategy (Smeltzer & Carr, 2003). This research focuses on the purchas- ing agent’s perception of the impact of the online UHYHUVHDXFWLRQRQWKH¿UP¶VUHODWLRQVKLSZLWKLWV suppliers in terms of trust and cooperation. The purchasing agent’s attitude towards the online reverse auction can affect the success of the auction. When the auction has not been handled properly, the experience can be negative for all involved (Jap, 2000, 2007; Kwak, 2001). Jap (2000) warns that not all online reverse auctions are positive experiences. While they save money for the buyers, online reverse auctions can undermine the buyer’s relationship with its suppliers. A long term relationship with a valued supplier can be ruined when the customer initi- ates an online reverse auction. The supplier sees this as a betrayal and the loss of many years of cultivating the customer relationship (Tassabehji, Taylor, Beach, & Wood, 2006). Opportunism can also be seen as a byproduct of online reverse auctions (Jap, 2000). Suppliers suspect that the buyer is taking advantage of the auction to gain cost advantages or to switch suppliers without notifying the current supplier (Jap, 2007). This involves matters of trust since a collaborative transactional relationship requires more trust than an arm’s length relationship. If the supplier s u s p e c t s t h a t t h e b u y e r i s e n g a g i n g i n o p p o r t u n i s t i c behavior by initiating the online reverse auction, the relationship between the two parties is likely to be irreparably damaged (Jap, 2007). Some suppliers might elect not to bid even if they are invited to participate in the auction. Pressey and Tzokas (2004) provided support for the assertion that more experienced purchasing agents may not value ORAs very highly. They found that long term relationships diminish over time unless they have relational content. Pressey and Tzokas (2004) further assert that high rela- WLRQDOFRQWHQWSRVLWLYHO\DIIHFWV¿UPSHUIRUPDQFH Increased use of ORAs can lead to a lower level of relational content in the buyer-seller relationship. Therefore, experienced purchasing agents (i.e., those who have been in long term relationships with suppliers) would see ORAs as having a nega- tive impact on the level of trust and cooperation with suppliers. Millet, Parente, Fizel, and Venkataraman SRVLWHGWKDWWKHPRUHH[SHULHQFHGD¿UP is in participating in online auctions, the more VXFFHVVIXOWKDW¿UPLVOLNHO\WREH7KLVDUJXPHQW can be extended to the purchasing agent in the EX\LQJ¿UPQDPHO\WKDWWKHPRUHH[SHULHQFHG purchasing agents will be well versed in st rategic sourcing methods that make positive contribu- WLRQVWRKLVRUKHU¿UP¶VSHUIRUPDQFH7KHUHIRUH experienced purchasing agents are more likely to use multiple supplier selection strategies, includ- ing ORAs, making them more conversant about the positive and negative traits of online reverse auctions. Consequently, I hypothesize the following: H1: 7KHUHLVDVLJQL¿FDQWGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQ experienced and inexperienced buyers in the perceived impact of online reverse auctions on the trust in the buyer-seller relationship. H1a: Experienced buyers will perceive a negative impact on trust. H2: 7KHUHLVDVLJQL¿FDQWGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQ experienced and inexperienced buyers 1933 The Purchasing Agent’s View of Online Reverse Auctions in the perceived impact of online reverse auctions on cooperation in the buyer-seller relationship. H2a: E x p e r i e n c e d b u y e r s w i l l p e r c e i v e t h a t o n l i n e reverse auctions will negatively impact co- operation in the buyer-seller relationship. H3: 7KHUH LV D VLJQL¿FDQW GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ experienced and inexperienced buyers in the perceived impact of online reverse auctions on the long term viability of suppliers. H3a: E x p e r i e n c e d b u y e r s w i l l p e r c e i v e t h a t o n l i n e reverse auctions will negatively impact long term viability of the suppliers. METHODOLOGY A survey was administered to purchasing agents of a major multinational corporation, which has EHHQWKHEX\LQJ¿UPLQPLOOLRQVRIRQOLQHUHYHUVH auction transactions. The purchasing agents rep- resent many industries, including manufacturing, ¿QDQFLDOVHUYLFHVDHURVSDFHWHFKQRORJLHVKHDOWK care, and transportation. The respondents were a diverse group, representing a wide range of products purchased, size of purchasing respon- sibility, geographical areas, and cultures. Given this high level of diversity in respondents, they represent a broad range of environments within which the procurement decisions are made. The respondents were asked: ³:KDW LVWKHLPSDFW RI RQOLQH UHYHUVH DXF- tions on: 1. Trust in relationship with suppliers 2. Cooperation in relationship with suppliers 3. Long term viability of suppliers 4. Ability of your business area to gain leader - ship in cost. A 7-point Likert scale was used, with 1 indicat- ing very negative and 7 indicating very positive. They were also asked how long (in years) they had been a buyer and how long they had been working their current product buying category. The means and standard deviations for the answers to these questions are presented in Table 1. We can see from Table 1 that, as a group, the p u r c h a s i n g a g e n t s b e l i e v e t h a t t h e i m p a c t o f O R A s on the level of trust within the supplier relationship (mean = 4.03), cooperation within the supplier relationships (mean = 4.16) and on the long term viability of suppliers (mean = 4.07) is somewhat positive. As would be expected, the purchasing agents rated the impact of ORAs on cost (mean = 5.47) higher than the other three variables. Mean Std Deviation N Buying Experience (Buy_exp) 6.51 years 144 Trust in relationship with suppliers (Sup_Trst) 4.03 7.0021 144 Cooperation in relationships with suppliers (Sup_CoOp) 4.16 1.563 144 Long term viability of suppliers (Sup_viab) 4.07 1.331 144 Ability to gain cost leadership (Cost) 5.47 1.509 144 Table 1. Descriptive statistics . further analysis and investigation on MO acceptance and trade-off research. It is necessary for both practitioners and researchers to understand which factor is the most important and which factor. service coverage and handy mobile access. • Compatibility: The degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, needs, and past experiences of potential adopters. trade-offs? • Understand the user’s requirements, so that appropriate MO technologies can be adopted. • Understand the impact of the technology on teams and organizations. • Train individuals and teams