Effect of Information Feedback on the Outcomes and Dynamics of Multisourcing Multiattribute Procurement Auctions

References

• Adomavicius, G.; Curley, S. P.; Gupta, A.; and Sanyal, P. Effect of information feedback on bidder behavior in continuous combinatorial auctions. Management Science, 58, 4 (2012), forthcoming.
   Google Scholar
• Anton, J. J., and Yao, D. A. Split awards, procurement, and innovation. RAND Journal of Economics, 20, 4 (1989), 528-552.
   Google Scholar
• Anton, J. J., and Yao, D. A. Coordination in split award auctions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 2 (1992), 681-707.
   Google Scholar
• Arora, A.; Greenwald, A.; Kannan, K.; and Krishnan, R. Effects of information-revelation policies under market-structure uncertainty. Management Science, 53, 8 (2007), 1234-1248.
   Google Scholar
• Asker, J., and Cantillon, E. Properties of scoring auctions. RAND Journal of Economics, 39, 1 (2008), 69-85.
   Google Scholar
• Balzer, W.; Doherty, M.; and O'Connor, R. J. R. Effects of cognitive feedback on performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 3 (1989), 410-433.
   Google Scholar
• Bakos, Y., and Nault, B. Ownership and investment in electronic networks. Information Systems Research, 8, 4 (1997), 321-341.
   Google Scholar
• Banks, J.; Olson, M.; Porter, D.; Rassenti, S.; and Smith, V. Theory, experiment and the Federal Communications Commission spectrum auctions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 51, 3 (2003), 303-350.
   Google Scholar
• Bapna, R.; Goes, P.; Gupta, A.; and Jin, Y. User heterogeneity and its impact on electronic auction market design: An empirical exploration. MIS Quarterly, 28, 1 (2004), 21-43.
   Google Scholar
• Beall, S.; Carter, C.; Carter, P. L.; Germer, T.; Hendrick, T.; Jap, S.; Kauffman, L.; Maciejeweski, D.; Monczka, R.; and Peterson, K. The role of reverse auctions in strategic sourcing. Research paper, CAPS Research, Tempe, AZ, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Beil, D. R., and Wein, L. M. An inverse-optimization-based auction mechanism to support a multiattribute RFQ process. Management Science, 49, 11 (2003), 1529-1545.
   Google Scholar
• Bichler, M. An experimental analysis of multi-attribute auctions. Decision Support Systems, 29, 3 (2000), 249-268.
   Google Scholar
• Bichler, M., and Kalagnanam, J. Configurable offers and winner determination in multi-attribute auctions. European Journal of Operational Research, 160, 2 (2005), 380-394.
   Google Scholar
• Bichler, M.; Kaukal, M.; and Segev, A. Multi-attribute auctions for electronic procurement. Paper presented at the First IBM IAC Workshop on Internet Based Negotiation Technologies, Yorktown Heights, NY, March 18-19, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Branco, F. The design of multidimensional auctions. RAND Journal of Economics, 28, 1 (1997), 63-81.
   Google Scholar
• Brehmer, B. In one word: Not from experience. Acta Psychologica, 45, 2 (1980), 223-241.
   Google Scholar
• Brunner, C.; Goeree, J. K.; Holt, C. A.; and Ledyard, J. O. An experimental test of flexible combinatorial spectrum auction formats. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2, 1 (2010), 39-57.
   Google Scholar
• Cachon, G. P., and Zhang, F. Procuring fast delivery: Sole sourcing with information asymmetry. Management Science, 52, 6 (2006), 881-896.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, C. R.; Kauffman, L.; Beall, S.; Carter, P. L.; Hendrick, T. E.; and Peterson, K. J. Reverse auctions—Grounded theory from the buyer and supplier perspective. Transportation Research, 40, 3 (2004), 229-254.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, C. R., and Stevens, C. K. 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.
   Google Scholar
• Che, Y. K. Design competition through multidimensional auctions. RAND Journal of Economics, 24, 4 (1993), 668-680.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, F. Auctioning supply contracts. Management Science, 53, 10 (2007), 1562-1576.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, J.; Xu, L.; and Whinston, A. Managing project failure risk through contingent contracts in procurement auctions. Decision Analysis, 7, 1 (2010), 23-39.
   Google Scholar
• Chen-Ritzo, C. H.; Harrison, T. P.; Kwasnica, A. M.; and Thomas, D. J. Better, faster, cheaper: An experimental analysis of a multi-attribute reverse auction mechanism with restricted information feedback. Management Science, 51, 12 (2005), 1753-1762.
   Google Scholar
• Coppinger, V. M.; Smith, V. L.; and Titus, J. A. Incentives and behavior in English, Dutch and sealed-bid auctions. Economic Inquiry, 18, 1 (1980), 1-22.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, J. C.; Smith, V. L.; Walker, J. M. Theory and individual behavior of first-price auctions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 1 (1988), 61-99.
   Google Scholar
• Daly, S. P., and Nath, P. Reverse auctions for relationship marketers. Industrial Marketing Management, 34, 2 (2005), 157-166.
   Google Scholar
• De Smet, Y. Multi-criteria auctions without full comparability of bids. European Journal of Operational Research, 177, 3 (2007), 1433-1452.
   Google Scholar
• Easley, R. F., and Tenerio, R. Jump bidding strategies in Internet auctions. Management Science, 50, 10 (2004), 1407-1419.
   Google Scholar
• Elmaghraby, W. J. Supply contract competition and sourcing policies. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 2, 4 (2000), 350-371.
   Google Scholar
• Elmaghraby, W. J. The effect of asymmetric bidder size on an auction's performance: Are more bidders always better? Management Science, 51, 12 (2005), 1763-1776.
   Google Scholar
• Elmaghraby, W. J. Auctions within e-sourcing events. Production Operations Management, 16, 4 (2007), 409-422.
   Google Scholar
• Engelbrecht-Wiggans, R., and Katok, E. E-sourcing in procurement: Theory and behavior in reverse auctions with noncompetitive contracts. Management Science, 52, 4 (2006), 581-596.
   Google Scholar
• Février, P. He who must not be named. Review of Economic Design, 8, 1 (2003), 99-119.
   Google Scholar
• Ganesan, S. Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 58, 2 (1994), 1-19.
   Google Scholar
• Granados, N. F.; Gupta, A.; and Kauffman, R. J. The impact of IT on market information and transparency: A unified theoretical framework. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7, 3 (2006), 148-178.
   Google Scholar
• Granados, N. F.; Gupta, A.; and Kauffman, R. J. Information transparency in business-to-consumer markets: Concepts, framework, and research agenda. Information Systems Research, 21, 2 (2010), 207-226.
   Google Scholar
• Greenwald, A.; Kannan, K.; and Krishnan, R. On evaluating information revelation policies in procurement auctions: A Markov decision process approach. Information Systems Research, 21, 1 (2010), 15-36.
   Google Scholar
• Herbsman, Z.; Chen, W. T.; and Epstein, W. C. Time is money: Innovative contracting methods in highway construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121, 3 (1995), 273-281.
   Google Scholar
• Holt, C. A. Markets, Games, & Strategic Behavior. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Isaac, R. M.; Salmon, T. C.; and Zillante, A. A theory of jump bidding in ascending auctions. Journal of Economic Behavior, 62, 1 (2007), 144-164.
   Google Scholar
• Jap, S. D. Online reverse auctions: Issues, themes, and prospects for the future. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30, 4 (2002), 506-525.
   Google Scholar
• Jap, S. D. An exploratory study of the introduction of online reverse auctions. Journal of Marketing, 67, 3 (2003), 96-107.
   Google Scholar
• Jap, S. D. The impact of online reverse auction design on buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Marketing, 71, 1 (2007), 146-159.
   Google Scholar
• Jeitschko, T. D. Learning in sequential auctions. Southern Economic Journal, 65, 1 (1998), 98-112.
   Google Scholar
• Jofre-Bonet, M., and Pesendorfer, M. Bidding behavior in a repeated procurement auction: A summary. European Economic Review, 44, 4-6 (2000), 1006-1020.
   Google Scholar
• Kagel, J. H.; Harstad, R. M.; and Levin, D. Information impact and allocation rules in auctions with affiliated private values: A laboratory study. Econometrica, 55, 6 (1987), 1275-1304.
   Google Scholar
• Kagel, J. H.; Lien, Y.; and Milgrom, P. Ascending prices and package bidding: A theoretical and experimental analysis. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2, 1 (2010), 160-185.
   Google Scholar
• Kasilingam, R. G., and Lee, C. P. Selection of vendors—A mixed-integer programming approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 31, 1-2 (1996), 347-350.
   Google Scholar
• Kauffman, 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
• Keloharju, M.; Nyborg, K. G.; and Rydqvist, K. Strategic behavior and underpricing in uniform price auctions: Evidence from Finnish treasury auctions. Journal of Finance, 9, 4 (2005), 1865-1902.
   Google Scholar
• Kleindorfer, P., and Wu, D. J. Integrating long- and short-term contracting via business-to-business exchanges for capital intensive industries. Management Science, 49, 11 (2003), 1597-1615.
   Google Scholar
• Koppius, O. R.; Kumar, M.; and van Heck, E. Electronic multidimensional auctions and the role of information feedback. In H. R. Hanse, M. Bichler, and H. Mahrer (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems, vol. 1. Vienna: Association for Information Systems, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Koppius, O. R., and van Heck, E. Information architecture and electronic market performance in multidimensional auctions. Working paper, Erasmus Research Institute of Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Kwasnica, A. M.; Ledyard, J. O.; Porter, D. P.; and DeMartini, C. A new and improved design for multiobject iterative auctions. Management Science, 51, 3 (2005), 419-434.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, J.; Ding, F.; and Lall, V. Using data envelopment analysis to compare suppliers for supplier selection and performance improvement. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 5, 3 (2000), 143-150.
   Google Scholar
• Lyytinen, K., and Hirschheim, R. Information systems failures—A survey and classification of the empirical literature. In P. Zorkoczy (ed.), Oxford Surveys in Information Technology, New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, pp. 257-309.
   Google Scholar
• Mendelson, H., and Tunca, T. I. Strategic spot trading in supply chains. Management Science, 53, 5 (2007), 742-759.
   Google Scholar
• Millet, I.; Parente, D. H.; Fizel, J. L.; and Venkatraman, R. R. Metrics for managing online procurement auctions. Interfaces, 34, 3 (2004), 171-179.
   Google Scholar
• Minahan, T.; Howarth, F.; and Vigoroso, M. Making e-sourcing strategic. Research report, Aberdeen Group, Boston, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Monczka, R. M.; Trent, R. J.; and Handfield, R. B. Purchasing and Supply Chain Management, 3d ed. Cincinnati, OH: Thompson/South-Western, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Narasimhan, R.; Talluri, S.; and Mahapatra, S. K. Effective response to RFQs and supplier development: A supplier's perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 115, 2 (2008), 461-470.
   Google Scholar
• Nyborg, K. G.; Rydqvist, K.; and Sundaresan, S. M. Bidder behavior in multiunit auctions: Evidence from Swedish treasury auctions. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 2, (2002), 394-424.
   Google Scholar
• Ockenfels, A., and Roth, A. E. Late and multiple bidding in second price Internet auctions: Theory and evidence concerning different rules for ending an auction. Games and Economic Behavior, 55, 2 (2006), 297-320.
   Google Scholar
• Parkes, D. C., and Kalagnanam, J. Models for iterative multiattribute procurement auctions. Management Science, 51, 3 (2005), 435-451.
   Google Scholar
• Pinker, E. J.; Seidmann, A.; and Vakrat, Y. Managing online auctions: Current business and research issues. Management Science, 49, 11 (2003), 1457-1484.
   Google Scholar
• Sandholm, T. Expressive commerce and its application to sourcing: How we conducted $35 billion of generalized combinatorial auctions. AI Magazine, 28, 3 (2007), 45-58.
   Google Scholar
• Sandholm, T. Expressiveness in mechanisms and its relation to efficiency: Our experience from $40 billion of combinatorial multiattribute auctions, and recent theory. Paper presented at the 2d International Workshop on Computational Social Choice, Liverpool, UK, September 3-5, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Smart, A., and Harrison, A. Reverse auctions as a support mechanism in flexible supply chains. International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications, 5, 3 (2002), 275-284.
   Google Scholar
• Smeltzer, L. R., and Carr, A. S. Electronic reverse auctions promises, risks and conditions for success. Industrial Marketing Management, 32, 6 (2003), 481-488.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, N. Dynamic pricing effects on strategic sourcing and supplier relations. Leaders for Manufacturing thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, V. L. Experimental economics: Induced value theory. American Economic Review, 66, 2 (1976), 274-279.
   Google Scholar
• Snir, E. M., and Hitt, L. M. Costly bidding in online markets for IT services. Management Science, 49, 11 (2003), 1504-1520.
   Google Scholar
• Solinger, J. ARIBA spend management. Paper presented at the Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Strecker, S. Information revelation in multi-attribute English auctions: A laboratory study. Decision Support Systems, 49, 3 (2010), 272-280.
   Google Scholar
• Teich, J.; Wallenius, H.; and Wallenius, J. Multiple-issue auction and market algorithms for the World Wide Web. Decision Support Systems, 26, 1 (1999), 49-66.
   Google Scholar
• Tunca, T. I., and Wu, Q. Multiple sourcing and procurement process selection with bidding events. Management Science, 55, 5 (2009), 763-780.
   Google Scholar
• Tunca, T. I., and Zenios, S. A. Supply auctions and relational contracts for procurement. Manufacturing Service and Operations Management, 8, 1 (2006), 43-67.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, C. A. A data envelopment analysis approach to measuring vendor performance. Supply Chain Management, 1, 1 (1996), 28-39.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, R. The architecture of power markets. Econometrica, 70, 4 (2002), 1299-1341.
   Google Scholar
• Wise, R., and Morrison, D. Beyond the exchange—The future of B2B. Harvard Business Review, 78, 6 (2000), 86-96.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, D. J., and Kleindorfer, P. Competitive options, supply contracting and electronic markets. Management Science, 51, 3 (2005), 452-466.
   Google Scholar
• Zhu, K. Information transparency of business-to-business electronic markets. Management Science, 50, 5 (2004), 670-685.
   Google Scholar