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 />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 entric.
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
/>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 />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