Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine the significance and the role of supplier rating as a formalised supplier quality measure to achieve better- negotiated prices and to identify price premium resulting from improved rating.
Methodology/Approach: Data from real B2B environment of electronic reverse auction SW solution ProeBiz were obtained and processed. Data from the reverse rating approach were used where the default rating value is 1 and improvements of rating lead to decreasing the rating value. Except standard descriptive statistics, non-parametric correlation and Kruskal-Wallis tests, the knowledge discovery techniques by decision trees CHAID algorithm were used.
Findings: From our empirical research results, there is the evidence of a significant positive relation of supplier quality or rating improvements on a negotiated price for suppliers. Improving rating from the default value (1.00) to (0.98-0.95) can lead to better- negotiated prices for suppliers in English auction expressed as price premium in the value of 4%.
Research Limitation/implication: Research has several limitations, esp. in the size of the sample and sectorial view as the research is based on data from construction, electro-mechanics and logistics sector.
Originality/Value of paper: The paper is original and not published in other publications.Full text article
References
AlMaian, R.Y., Needy, K.L., Alves, T.D.C. and Walsh, K.D., 2016. Analyzing effective supplier-quality-management practices using simple multiattribute rating technique and value-focused thinking. Journal of Management in Engineering, [e-journal] 32(1), 04015035, pp.1-13. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000364.
Beall, S., Carter, C.R., Carter, P.L., Germer, T., Hendrick, T.E., Jap, S.D., Kaufmann, L., Maciejewski, D., Monczka, R.M. and Petersen, K., 2003. The Role of Reverse Auctions in Strategic Sourcing. Tempe, AZ: CAPS Research.
Charki, M. and Josserand, E., 2006. Does trust still matter in Business relationships based on online reverse auctions?. In: F. Feltz, B. Otjacques, A. Oberweis and N. Poussing, AIM 2006 – Information Systems and Collaboration: State of the Art and Perspectives (AIM). Luxembourg, 8-9 June 2006. Bonn, Germany: Association information and management.
Dellarocas, C., 2006. Reputation mechanisms. In: T. Hendershott, ed., Handbook on Information Systems and Economics. Elsevier Publishing. pp.629-659.
Dor?ák, P., Pollák, F. and Szabo, S., 2014. Analysis of the Possibilities of Improving an Online Reputation of Public Institutions. In: P. Doucek, G. Ch. and V. Oškrdal, IDIMT-2014: Networking Societies - Cooperation and Conflict: 22nd Interdisciplinary Information Management Talks. Poděbrady, Czech Republic, 10-12 September 2014. Linz: Trauner Verlag.
Fukuyama, F., 1995. Trust: the social virtues and the creation of prosperity. Free Press.
Lekovic, V., 2012. Trust as an Institutional Factor of Economic Success. Economic Horizont, [e-journal] 14(2), pp.65-78. DOI: 10.5937/ekonhor1202063L.
Locke, R.M., 2001. Building Trust. In: APSA (American Political Science Association), Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association. San Francisco, California, 1 September 2001.
Santos, G., Murmura, F. and Bravi, L. 2019. Developing a model of vendor rating to manage quality in the supply chain. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, [e-journal] 11(1), pp.34-52. DOI: 10.1108/IJQSS-06-2017-0058.
Schwarts, R., 2001. The electronic call auction: Market mechanism and trading: Building a better stock market: Too Much Transparency can be detrimental. Springer Science + Business Media New York.
Szabo, S., 2015. Determinants of Supplier Selection in E-procurement Tenders. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, 10(7(37)), p.1153-1159.
Tsai, K. and Chou, F., 2011. Developing a Fuzzy Multi-attribute Matching and Negotiation Mechanism for Sealed-bid Online Reverse Auctions. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, [e-journal] 6(3), pp.13-14. DOI: 10.4067/S0718-18762011000300007.
Knack, S. and Zack, P.J., 2003. Building Trust: Public Policy, Interpersonal Trust, and Economic Development. Supreme Court Economic Review, 10, pp.91-107.
Authors
This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access. This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.
Authors who publish with the Quality Innovation Prosperity agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.