IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v23y2014i3d10.1007_s10726-013-9353-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-attribute Auction and Negotiation for e-Procurement of Logistics

Author

Listed:
  • Nicola Bellantuono

    (Politecnico di Bari)

  • Donatella Ettorre

    (Politecnico di Bari)

  • Gregory E. Kersten

    (Concordia University)

  • Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo

    (Politecnico di Bari)

Abstract

The paper addresses the topic of e-procurement of logistics services and examines how the system that companies adopt to support this task affects the process performance. The system is evaluated in terms of substantive outcomes (e.g., logistics providers’ profits) and other performances related to perceptions and behavioral issues. Specifically, the considered system is characterized by the exchange mechanism that rules the transaction (multi-attribute auction vs. negotiation) and the level of problem complexity. The analysis, conducted via a laboratory experiment, shows that both the exchange mechanism and the problem complexity affect performance. Practical implications, which could help companies design effective e-procurement systems, are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicola Bellantuono & Donatella Ettorre & Gregory E. Kersten & Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo, 2014. "Multi-attribute Auction and Negotiation for e-Procurement of Logistics," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 421-441, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:23:y:2014:i:3:d:10.1007_s10726-013-9353-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-013-9353-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-013-9353-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-013-9353-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Armin Falk & James J. Heckman, 2009. "Lab Experiments are a Major Source of Knowledge in the Social Sciences," Working Papers 200935, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    2. Akbar Zaheer & Bill McEvily & Vincenzo Perrone, 1998. "Does Trust Matter? Exploring the Effects of Interorganizational and Interpersonal Trust on Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 141-159, April.
    3. Steven Tadelis, 2009. "Auctions Versus Negotiations in Procurement: An Empirical Analysis," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 372-399, October.
    4. Martin Bichler & Gregory Kersten & Stefan Strecker, 2003. "Towards a Structured Design of Electronic Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 311-335, July.
    5. Smeltzer, Larry R. & Carr, Amelia, 2002. "Reverse auctions in industrial marketing and buying," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 47-52.
    6. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    7. Oliver, Richard L. & Balakrishnan, P. V. (Sundar) & Barry, Bruce, 1994. "Outcome Satisfaction in Negotiation: A Test of Expectancy Disconfirmation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 252-275, November.
    8. Carter, Craig R. & Kaufmann, Lutz & Beall, Stewart & Carter, Phillip L. & Hendrick, Thomas E. & Petersen, Kenneth J., 2004. "Reverse auctions--grounded theory from the buyer and supplier perspective," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 229-254, May.
    9. Ching-Hua Chen-Ritzo & Terry P. Harrison & Anthony M. Kwasnica & Douglas J. Thomas, 2005. "Better, Faster, Cheaper: An Experimental Analysis of a Multiattribute Reverse Auction Mechanism with Restricted Information Feedback," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1753-1762, December.
    10. Oliver, Richard L, 1993. "Cognitive, Affective, and Attribute BAses of the Satisfaction Response," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(3), pages 418-430, December.
    11. Humphreys, P. K. & Li, W. L. & Chan, L. Y., 2004. "The impact of supplier development on buyer-supplier performance," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 131-143, April.
    12. Liu, Yi & Li, Yuan & Zhang, Leinan, 2010. "Control mechanisms across a buyer-supplier relationship quality matrix," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 3-12, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yu, Hao & Huang, Min & Chao, Xiuli & Yue, Xiaohang, 2022. "Truthful multi-attribute multi-unit double auctions for B2B e-commerce logistics service transactions," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    2. Xiaohu Qian & Shu-Cherng Fang & Min Huang & Tiantian Nie & Xingwei Wang, 2019. "Bidding Decisions with Nonequilibrium Strategic Thinking in Reverse Auctions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 757-786, August.
    3. Bo Yu & Rustam Vahidov, 2019. "Applying Social Interaction Theory to Negotiation Modeling: Design of E-negotiation System," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 703-718, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ginny Seung Choi & Virgil Henry Storr, 2020. "Market interactions, trust and reciprocity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-32, May.
    2. Chen, Songlin & Tseng, Mitchell M., 2010. "A Negotiation-Credit-Auction mechanism for procuring customized products," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(1), pages 203-210, September.
    3. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    4. Potters, Jan & Stoop, Jan, 2016. "Do cheaters in the lab also cheat in the field?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 26-33.
    5. Lechthaler, Wolfgang & Ring, Patrick, 2021. "Labor force participation, job search effort and unemployment insurance in the laboratory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 748-778.
    6. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2019. "How natural field experiments have enhanced our understanding of unemployment," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(1), pages 33-39, January.
    7. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    8. Ashleigh Shelby Rosette & Shirli Kopelman & JeAnna Lanza Abbott, 2014. "Good Grief! Anxiety Sours the Economic Benefits of First Offers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 629-647, May.
    9. Barmettler, Franziska & Fehr, Ernst & Zehnder, Christian, 2012. "Big experimenter is watching you! Anonymity and prosocial behavior in the laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 17-34.
    10. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    11. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2015. "Do Natural Field Experiments Afford Researchers More or Less Control than Laboratory Experiments? A Simple Model," NBER Working Papers 20877, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Chian Jones Ritten & Christopher Bastian & Jason F. Shogren & Thadchaigeni Panchalingam & Mariah D. Ehmke & Gregory Parkhurst, 2017. "Understanding Pollinator Habitat Conservation under Current Policy Using Economic Experiments," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-13, August.
    13. Olivier Armantier & Amadou Boly, 2013. "Comparing Corruption in the Laboratory and in the Field in Burkina Faso and in Canada," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 123(12), pages 1168-1187, December.
    14. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With A Response To Camerer," Artefactual Field Experiments j0001, The Field Experiments Website.
    15. Simons, Andrew M. & Beltramo, Theresa & Blalock, Garrick & Levine, David I., 2017. "Using unobtrusive sensors to measure and minimize Hawthorne effects: Evidence from cookstoves," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 68-80.
    16. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    17. Andrej Gill & Florian Hett & Johannes Tischer, 2022. "Time Inconsistency and Overdraft Use: Evidence from Transaction Data and Behavioral Measurement Experiments," Working Papers 2205, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    18. Bosley, Stacie, 2016. "Student-crafted experiments “from the ground up”," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 1-7.
    19. Brian Albrecht & Omar Al-Ubaydli & Peter Boettke, 2022. "Testing the Hayek hypothesis: Recent theoretical and experimental evidence," Artefactual Field Experiments 00759, The Field Experiments Website.
    20. Yu, Ya-wen & Yu, Hsiao-Cheng & Itoga, Holly & Lin, Tyng-Ruu, 2008. "Decision-making factors for effective industrial e-procurement," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 163-169.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:23:y:2014:i:3:d:10.1007_s10726-013-9353-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.