Electronic Marketplace: A Distinct Platform for Business-to-Business (B-to-B) Procurement

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine whether buyers perceive different electronic marketplaces (EMs) as distinct types of procurement platforms. More specifically, it empirically investigates to what extent professional buyers expect different benefits from different EM types and perceive different barriers associated with their usage. Methodology: A Web-based survey of purchasing professionals in the United States was conducted with 359 responses received. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to determine if there are significant differences between EM types with respect to expected benefits (market aggregation and inter-firm collaboration) and perceived barriers (financial risks and trust barriers). Findings: The results show buyers' expectations of benefits differ significantly between public EMs (i.e., third-party exchanges and industry-sponsored marketplaces) and private EMs (i.e., private trading networks), and between neutral EMs (i.e., third-party exchanges) and biased EMs (i.e., private trading networks and industry-sponsored marketplaces). Likewise, their perception of barriers differs significantly between public and private EMs. Research limitations/implications: The research confirmed empirically that EMs are a distinct platform for business-to-business procurement. Nevertheless, by examining EMs from business buyers' perspective, this study necessarily limits itself to purchasing-related issues. Practical implications: By providing insights into buyers' perceptions, our findings can help managers focus their promotional efforts aimed at potential firms that would like to use EM for procurement by emphasizing specific benefits or addressing specific perceived barriers based on the type of EM they manage. Originality/value: This study fills a void in academic literature on EMs that currently contains few empirical studies with respect to EM types. Its main contribution is in establishing empirically that EMs do not constitute a single, homogeneous marketspace but are instead comprised of distinct types that offer users specific benefits and expose them to certain risks.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.