Risks and Controls in Internet-Enabled Reverse Auctions: Perspectives from Buyers and Suppliers

References

• Anderson, S.W., and Dekker, H.C. Management control for market transactions: The relation between transaction characteristics, incomplete contract design, and subsequent performance. Management Science, 51, 12 (2005), 1734–1752.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Attewell, P. Technology diffusion and organizational learning: The case of business computing. Organization Science, 3, 1 (1992), 1–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baird, I., and Thomas, H. Toward a contingency model of strategic risk taking. Academy of Management Review, 10, 2 (1985), 230–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakos, J., and Brynjolfsson, E. Information technology, incentives, and the optimal number of suppliers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10, 2 (1993), 37–53.
   Google Scholar
• Beall, S.; Carter, C.; Carter, P.; and Germer, T. The role of reverse auctions in strategic sourcing. CAPS, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Bensaou, M., and Anderson, E. Buyer–supplier relations in industrial markets: When do buyers risk making idiosyncratic investments? Organization Science, 10, 4 (1999), 460–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, K.S. Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32, 5 (1986), 539–553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardinal, L.B. Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: The use of organizational control in managing research and development. Organization Science, 12, 1 (2001), 19–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter, C., and Kaufmann, L. The impact of electronic reverse auctions on supplier performance: The mediating role of relationship variables. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 43, 1 (2007), 16–26.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, C.; Kaufmann, L.; Beall, S.; Carter, P.; Hendrick, T.; and Petersen, K. Reverse auctions: Grounded theory from the buyer and supplier perspective. Transportation Research Part E, 40, 3 (2004), 229–254.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, C., and Stevens, C. Electronic reverse auction configuration and its impact on buyer price and supplier perceptions of opportunism: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 5 (2007), 1035–1054.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charki, M., and Josserand, E. Online reverse auctions and the dynamics of trust. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24, 4 (2008), 175–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charki, M.H.; Josserand, E.; and Charki, N.B. Toward an ethical understanding of the controversial technology of online reverse auctions. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 1 (2011), 17–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davenport, T.H. The coming commoditization of processes. Harvard Business Review, 83, 6 (2005), 100–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson, G.S.; Watson, R.T.; and Boudreau, M.C. Information asymmetry in information systems consulting: Toward a theory of relationship constraints. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27, 3 (2010), 143–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyer, J.H., and Singh, H. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 4 (1998), 660–679.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K.M. Agency-and institutional-theory explanations: The case of retail sales compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 3 (1988), 488–511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K.M. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14, 1 (1989), 57–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elmaghraby, W. Auctions within e-sourcing events. Production and Operations Management, 16, 4 (2007), 409–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emiliani, M. Regulating B2B online reverse auctions through voluntary codes of conduct. Industrial Marketing Management, 34, 5 (2005), 526–534.
   Google Scholar
• Emiliani, M., and Stec, D. Realizing savings from online reverse auctions. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 7, 1 (2002), 12–23.
   Google Scholar
• Emiliani, M., and Stec, D. Squaring online reverse auctions with the Caux Round Table Principles for Business. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 7, 2 (2002), 92–100.
   Google Scholar
• Emiliani, M., and Stec, D. Aerospace parts suppliers’ reaction to online reverse auctions. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9, 2 (2004), 139–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emiliani, M., and Stec, D. Wood pallet suppliers’ reaction to online reverse auctions. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 10, 4 (2005), 278–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn, B.B.; Huo, B.; and Zhao, X. The impact of supply chain integration on performance: A contingency and configuration approach. Journal of Operations Management, 28, 1 (2010), 58–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fugger, N.; Katok, E.; and Wambach, A. Collusion in dynamic buyer-determined reverse auctions. Management Science, 62, 2 (2015), 518–533.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gattiker, T.; Huang, X.; and Schwarz, J. Negotiation, email, and Internet reverse auctions: How sourcing mechanisms deployed by buyers affect suppliers’ trust. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 1 (2007), 184–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giampetro, C., and Emiliani, M. Coercion and reverse auctions. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12, 2 (2007), 75–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffiths, A. Trusting an auction. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 8, 3 (2003), 190–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gumussoy, C.A., and Calisir, F. Understanding factors affecting e-reverse auction use: An integrative approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 4 (2009), 975–988.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haruvy, E., and Jap, S.D. Differentiated bidders and bidding behavior in procurement auctions. Journal of Marketing Research, 50, 2 (2013), 241–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins, T.; Gravier, M.; and Wittmann, C. Enhancing reverse auction use theory: An exploratory study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 15, 1 (2010), 21–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins, T.G.; Pohlen, T.L.; and Prybutok, V.R. Buyer opportunism in business-to-business exchange. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 8 (2013), 1266–1278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hur, D.; Hartley, J.; and Mabert, V. Implementing reverse e-auctions: A learning process. Business Horizons, 49, 1 (2006), 21–29.
   Google Scholar
• Jap, S. The impact of online, reverse auctions on buyer-supplier relationships. In Proceedings of Ecommerce Research Forum. Atlanta, GA: Cleveland Research Company, pp. 1–45. 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Jap, S. Online reverse auctions: Issues, themes, and prospects for the future. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30, 4 (2002), 506–525.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jap, S. An exploratory study of the introduction of online reverse auctions. Journal of Marketing, 67, 3 (2003), 96–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jap, S. The impact of online reverse auction design on buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Marketing, 71, 1 (2007), 146–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jap, S., and Mohr, J. Leveraging Internet technologies in B2B relationships. California Management Review, 44, 4 (2002), 24–38.
   Google Scholar
• Joshi, A.W., and Arnold, S.J. The impact of buyer dependence on buyer opportunism in buyer–supplier relationships: The moderating role of relational norms. Psychology and Marketing, 14, 8 (1997), 823–845.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufmann, L., and Carter, C. Deciding on the mode of negotiation: to auction or not to auction electronically. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 40, 2 (2004), 15–26.
   Google Scholar
• Kohli, A. Determinants of influence in organizational buying: A contingency approach. Journal of Marketing, 53, 3 (1989), 50–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lüscher, L.S., and Lewis, M.W. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 2 (2008), 221–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luthans, F., and Stewart, T.I. A general contingency theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 2, 2 (1977), 181–195.
   Google Scholar
• Madhok, A. Crossroads—The organization of economic activity: Transaction costs, firm capabilities, and the nature of governance. Organization Science, 7, 5 (1996), 577–590.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, D., and Sardais, C. Angel agents: Agency theory reconsidered. Academy of Management Perspectives (formerly the Academy of Management Executive)(AMP), 25, 2 (2011), 6–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mithas, S., and Jones, J. Do auction parameters affect buyer surplus in e-auctions for procurement? Production and Operations Management, 16, 4 (2007), 455–470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mithas, S.; Jones, J.; and Mitchell, W. Buyer intention to use Internet-enabled reverse auctions? The role of asset specificity, product specialization, and non-contractibility. MIS Quarterly, 32, 4 (2008), 705–724.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okoli, C., and Pawlowski, S.D. The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information and Management, 42, 1 (2004), 15–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng, L., and Calvi, R. Why don’t buyers like electronic reverse auctions? Some insights from a French study. International Journal of Procurement Management, 5, 3 (2012), 352–367.
   Google Scholar
• Puto, C.; Patton, W. III; and King, R. Risk handling strategies in industrial vendor selection decisions. Journal of Marketing, 49, 1 (1985), 89–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rai, A.; Brown, P.; and Tang, X. Organizational assimilation of electronic procurement innovations. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26, 1 (2009), 257–296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ring, P.S., and Van de Ven, A.H. Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 7 (1992), 483–498.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruytenbeek, J. Reverse auctions: Turning winners into losers. Journal of Contract Management, October (2012), 40–45.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, R.; Lyytinen, K.; Keil, M.; and Cule, P. Identifying software project risks: An international Delphi study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17, 4 (2001), 5–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma, A. Professional as agent: Knowledge asymmetry in agency exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 3 (1997), 758–798.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smart, A., and Harrison, A. Reverse auctions as a support mechanism in flexible supply chains. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 5, 3 (2002), 275–284.
   Google Scholar
• Smart, A., and Harrison, A. Online reverse auctions and their role in buyer–supplier relationships. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 9, 5–6 (2003), 257–268.
   Google Scholar
• Smeltzer, L., and Carr, A. Electronic reverse auctions: Promises, risks and conditions for success. Industrial Marketing Management, 32, 6 (2003), 481–488.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein, A.; Hawking, P.; and Wyld, D. The 20% solution? A case study on the efficacy of reverse auctions. Management Research News, 26, 5 (2003), 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Sutton, S.; Khazanchi, D.; Hampton, C.; and Arnold, V. Risk analysis in extended enterprise environments: Identification of critical risk factors in B2B e-commerce relationships. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9, 4 (2008), 153–176.
   Google Scholar
• Tait, P., and Vessey, I. The effect of user involvement on system success: A contingency approach. MIS Quarterly, 12, 1 (1988), 91–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talluri, S., and Ragatz, G. Multi-attribute reverse auctions in B2B exchanges: A framework for design and implementation. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 40, 1 (2004), 52–60.
   Google Scholar
• Tassabehji, R.; Taylor, W.; Beach, R.; and Wood, A. Reverse e-auctions and supplier–buyer relationships: An exploratory study. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 26, 2 (2006), 166–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiwana, A., and Bush, A.A. A comparison of transaction cost, agency, and knowledge-based predictors of IT outsourcing decisions: A U.S.–Japan cross-cultural field study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24, 1 (2007), 259–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van de Ven, A.H. Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Weill, P., and Olson, M.H. An assessment of the contingency theory of management information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 6, 1 (1989), 59–86.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, O.E. Credible commitments: Using hostages to support exchange. American Economic Review, 73, 4 (1983), 519–540.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson, O.E. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 2 (1991), 269–296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyld, D.C. Reverse Auctioning: Saving Money and Increasing Transparency. Washington, D.C.: IBM Center for the Business of Government, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Zmud, R.W., and Cox, J.F. The implementation process: A change approach. MIS Quarterly, 3, 2 (1979), 35–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar