The Impact of Multi-access Technologies on Consumer Electronic Auctions

doi:10.1016/j.emj.2004.06.010

European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 377–392, 2004

� 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain

0263-2373 $30.00

TheImpactofMulti-accessTechnologies onConsumer ElectronicAuctions

STEPHAN DE RUITER, Erasmus University, Rotterdam

ERIC VAN HECK, Erasmus University, Rotterdam

This article addresses the pervasive impact ofadvanced multi-access technologies––such as Inter-net, wireless data, Interactive TV, and wired &wireless voice––on the processes and stakeholdersinvolved in consumer electronic auctions in TheNetherlands. Electronic web-based auctions are apopular mechanism to trade among sellers andbuyers. Little attention has been given to hownew access technologies affect or could affect thefunctioning and outcome of these type of auctions.In this article different exchange processes in elec-tronic auctions are classified and analyzed. Theimpact on the stakeholders of e-auctions has beenexamined by using buyer-seller relationship litera-ture. The focus in this article was on five consumerelectronic auctions. In these auctions consumersbuy and sell all kinds of products by using salesauctions. The investigated auctions are: eBay.nl,Qoop, Ricardo.nl, Start-End, and Wannabid. Ourpaper suggests that new technologies could providemore value-generating business processes andmore interactivity between the stakeholders ofelectronic auctions and therefore will furtherincrease the trade in electronic auctions. However,the impact differs per technology, since eachtechnology has different characteristics andcapabilities.� 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Electronic auctions, Impact, Multi-access technologies, Business processes,Stakeholders

European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 377–392, August 2004

Introduction

Two developments in modern economies are inter-esting to analyze. The first one is the rapid emer-gence of new technologies and access devices.The second interesting development is the rapidgrowth of online auctions in the past few years.Amongst others, Klemperer (1999) and Strobel(2000) argue that a huge volume of economic trans-actions is already conducted through these auc-tions. Klein and O’Keefe (1999) argue that theproliferation of the World Wide Web, decliningcommunication costs and the increased visibilityof online offerings have accelerated the diffusionof electronic auctions. Furthermore, Lucking-Reiley(2000) adds that auctions will be used for an in-creased number of transactions over time. Untilnow, some research has been done on Web auc-tions. However, there has been little attention onhow new access technologies (e.g. GSM, GPRS,UMTS, interactive TV) affect or could affect elec-tronic auctions. Therefore, this paper analyzeshow different access technologies influence thebusiness processes and the stakeholders of e-auc-tions. Note that this research focuses only on con-sumer Web auctions in The Netherlands.

The research questions are:

1. How do multi-access technologies influence thebusiness processes of electronic auctions?

2. How do multi-access technologies influence thestakeholders of electronic auctions?

3. What is the impact of multi-access technologies onthe success of electronic auctions?

377

THE IMPACTOFMULTI-ACCESS TECHNOLOGIES ONCONSUMER ELECTRONICAUCTIONS

This paper has been divided into three main parts: aliterature review, a conceptual framework, and anempirical analysis. First, literature on e-auctions willbe discussed. Second, a conceptual framework willbe formulated, complemented with four proposi-tions. Third, an empirical analysis of five consumere-auctions in The Netherlands will be performed.

E-auctions & Access Technologies

In this section, the terms ‘‘electronic auctions’’ and‘‘multi-access technologies’’ will be specified to nar-row the scope of this research.

Electronic Auctions

Lee (1996) stated that auction markets provide cen-tralized procedures for the exposure of purchaseand sale orders to all market participants simultane-ously. McAfee and McMillan (1987) defined auctionsas market institutions with an explicit set of rulesdetermining resource allocation and prices on the ba-sis of bids from the market participants. Addition-ally, an electronic auction (also called e-auction,online auction or Web auction) is an auction basedon telecommunications networks.

According to Timmers (1998), e-auctions offer anelectronic implementation of the bidding mechanismalso known from traditional auctions. This can beaccompanied by a multimedia presentation of thegoods. Usually they are not restricted to this singlefunction. They may also offer integration of the bid-ding process with contracting, payments and deliv-ery. Benefits for suppliers and buyers are increasedefficiency, time-savings, and no need for physicaltransport until the deal has been established. Becauseof the lower costs, it also becomes feasible to sellsmall quantities of low value goods. Disadvantagesof e-auctions are the inability to physically see andtouch the merchandise, and concerns about securityand privacy. However, Wang et al. (2002) argued thatsuch disadvantages may be alleviated through newtechnology development, application design, and im-proved policies and procedures.

Table 1 Typology of Multi-access Technologies

Static Dynamic

Impersonal (Mass media) Internet

Wireless data

Interactive TV

Personal (Fax) Wired & wireless voice

Multi-access Technologies

In this paper, four different groups of access technol-ogies will be discussed: Internet, wireless data, wired& wireless voice, and interactive television. (See alsoVesa and van Heck (2003).) These four categories willbe explained below:

v Internet: is a worldwide system of computer net-works. Technically, what distinguishes the Inter-net is its use of a set of protocols called TCP/IP.Internet can be accessed through the use of nar-rowband or broadband.

378 Eur

v Wireless data: this category purely focuses on thedata characteristics of devices. Wireless data canbe transmitted over three types of networks:GSM (circuit-switched), GPRS (packet-switched),and UMTS (packet-switched).

v Wired & wireless voice: this category purelyfocuses on the voice characteristics of devices.As a result, the most fundamental characteristicof this category is that voice response betweensender and receiver is possible. Voice technologycommonly uses circuit-switched networks, suchas PSTN and GSM. In the near future, voiceresponses can be sent over packet-switchednetworks.

v Interactive TV: is television with interactive con-tent and enhancements. Interactive TV providesricher entertainment, interaction and more infor-mation pertaining to the shows and peopleinvolved in its creation. In a sense, it combinestraditional television viewing with the interactiv-ity enjoyed by those communicating through anetwork, such as the Internet.

Based on Hoffman and Novak (1996), this categoriza-tion of access technologies can be placed in a typol-ogy as shown in Table 1.

This typology differentiates impersonal (or rathermachine-interaction) from personal (or rather per-son-interaction) access technologies, and dynamic(i.e. audio, video) from static (i.e. text, image) accesstechnologies. Machine-interaction refers to interac-tion with an access device, and thus, it can be charac-terized as ‘‘impersonal’’. The categories ‘‘Internet’’and ‘‘wireless data’’ are impersonal, since users com-municate with these technologies. In contrast, person-interaction refers to interaction through an accessdevice, and thus, it can be characterized as ‘‘per-sonal’’. The category ‘‘wired & wireless voice’’ is per-sonal, since users communicate through thistechnology, rather than with this technology. Finally,iTV is both impersonal (e.g. instant messaging) andpersonal (e.g. videophone). Finally, an importantnote is that access technologies are still developing,and as a result they acquire more capabilities. Anincreasing amount of capabilities, possibly leads toa fading difference between impersonal and personalaccess technologies.

opean Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 377–392, August 2004


Literature Review

This section discusses electronic markets theory, auc-tion theory, and buyer-seller relationship theory.These theories appear to be useful in the context ofthis paper.

Electronic Markets Theory

E-marketplaces have been evolved for a number ofreasons. According to Coase (1937), transactions willtypically be executed at the lowest cost. These costs,or more specifically transaction costs, give insight onthe reason why transactions are performed throughmarketplaces instead of hierarchies. Additionally,Williamson (1975) proposed that the choice betweenmarketplaces and hierarchies depends on threedimensions of transactions: asset specificity, uncer-tainty/complexity, and frequency. Transactions withlow levels of these dimensions are likely to be exe-cuted across marketplaces. Furthermore, Maloneet al. (1987) explained that the essence of transac-tions involves communicating and processing infor-mation, and that therefore the use of IT seems likelyto decrease the transaction costs. According to Mal-one et al. (1987), the electronic communication, bro-kerage, and integration effect will lead to anoverall shift toward proportionately more use ofmarketplaces.

Additionally, Bakos (1998) discussed that e-market-places have many advantages compared to tradi-tional markets, such as personalization andcustomization possibilities, (dis)aggregation of prod-uct offerings, lowered buyers’ search costs, loweredsellers’ communication costs, lowered logistics costs,possibility of new types of price discovery, and animprovement of sharing information between buyersand sellers. Amit and Zott (2001) added that e-mar-kets could create value as a result of efficiency, com-plementarities, lock-in, and novelty.

Of course, e-marketplaces also have disadvantagescompared to traditional marketplaces, such as lackof inspection of goods, lack of trust, etc. However, itcould be argued that these disadvantages could beovercome by the advantages that e-markets provide.Ha (2002) andDowling and Staelin (1994) support thisstatement by arguing that this is possible when mar-ketplaces cooperate with trustworthy companies, im-prove the relationship with their customers, andfoster customer satisfaction programs. Besides, Bar-wise et al. (2002) suggested that, when good measuresare taken, such as implementing new technologiesand procedures to protect information, the serious-ness of the disadvantages can be reduced. Wanget al. (2002) added that disadvantages ofWeb retailingmay be alleviated through new technology develop-ment, application design, and improved policies andprocedures.


Kambil and Van Heck (2002) proposed a model ofkey exchange processes. They discerned two typesof processes: basic trade processes (search, pricing,logistics, payment & settlement, authentication) andtrade context processes (product representation, regula-tion, risk management, influence structures, disputeresolution). The basic trade processes exist within awider context of support processes that implementdispute resolution and other mechanisms to ensurethat the parties involved in the trading process willmeet their obligations. In addition, the ‘‘communica-tions and computing’’ process underlies and bindsall trading processes. New communications capabili-ties in terms of richer media, faster transfer speeds,improved ease of use, and lower infrastructure costs,transform coordination capabilities within and acrosstrade processes.

Auction Theory

E-auctions are a special case of e-markets on the oneside, and of automated negotiations on the other. Thisstatement suggests that an e-auction is a specific formof an e-market. Strobel (2000) has added that the char-acteristics of e-markets are relevant to e-auctions. As aresult, it could be proposed that e-markets and e-auc-tions cannot be seen separately from each other.

Kambil and Van Heck (2002) have explained that ex-change processes apply to anymarket that is involvedin trading goods and/or services. As a result, it can besuggested that the processes not only apply to e-mar-kets, but also to auctions markets. Furthermore, Sch-mid and Lindemann (1998) also have discernedseveral processes in auctions. They referred to theseprocesses as ‘‘transaction phases’’. These transactionphases are rather similar to the exchange processesfrom Kambil and Van Heck (2002). Therefore, theseexchange processes are also applicable to auctions.

Thus, it has been implicitly stated that the exchangeprocesses (Kambil and Van Heck, 2002) and thetransaction phases (Schmid and Lindemann, 1998)are equal to the ‘‘business processes’’ as mentionedin the first research question.

It could be suggested that the importance of e-auc-tions is likely to increase, as a result of the growingpopularity of online auctions (Strobel, 2000; Bapnaet al., 2001b; Rafaeli and Noy, 2002). This is in accord-ance with Fiore (2001, 147–148), who argued, basedon the outcomes of Forrester Research, that anincreasing number of people are purchasing at onlineauctions. The reason for this development probablyis that e-auctions have several important advantagescompared to off-line auctions, such as increased effi-ciency, effectiveness, and convenience (Lucking-Rei-ley, 2000; Fogelgren-Pedersen et al., 2002).

Of course, e-auctions also have disadvantages com-pared to their traditional counterparts, such as lack

379


of inspection of goods, lack of trust, and fraud possi-bilities (Lucking-Reiley, 2000; Wang et al., 2002). Nat-urally, these disadvantages are severe. However,online intermediaries are trying to reduce the seri-ousness of the disadvantages by providing alterna-tives and better solutions. An example is that someonline auctioneers are already working together withtrusted third parties, which could possibly result inan increased level of trust from the stakeholders. An-other example is that some online intermediaries aretrying to better secure transactions with technologiessuch as public key cryptography. As a result, we pro-pose that the advantages could overcome the disad-vantages. This is in accordance with Ha (2002), whoargued that, similarly to the findings of Dowlingand Staelin, ‘‘when the perceived benefits are highrelative to the perceived risks, it may be that the ben-efits completely dominate the risks’’. However, theyadded that e-auctions have to make an effort to re-duce the risks perceived by consumers. This can berealized by cooperating with trustworthy companies,by improving the relationship with their customers,and by fostering customer satisfaction programs.Consequently, it can be expected that the advantageswill help to boost the proliferation of e-auctions.

Furthermore, it could be mentioned that an addi-tional important advantage of e-auctions comparedto off-line auctions is that an increasing number ofpeople are able to access and use e-auctions, due tothe use of ICT. Strobel (2000) referred in this contextto the ‘‘size’’ of markets. The reach of e-auctions islarger than of traditional auctions, because these tra-ditional auctions have temporal and geographicalconstraints. It could be argued that the removal ofthese constraints, caused by ICT, favors the develop-ment of e-auctions.

Additionally, it is important to notice that e-auctionscould be more transparent than conventional auc-tions, because with the help of shopbots or auction-bots (or rather ICT) it is possible to comparedifferent products and/or services in a short periodof time. Transparency could benefit buyers, becausethey can compare products and/or services, result-ing in valuable information based on which theycan make bids. In other words, with the help of highertransparency, buyers can try to constrain the coststhat they have to make. However, transparency is of-ten not favorable for sellers and/or auctioneers, be-cause they benefit most when selling prices arehigh. In this context, Klein et al. (2002) argued thatthese parties can use the Web to deliberately de-crease the price transparency, because it is more fav-orable in their perception.

Buyer-seller Relationship Theory

First, it can be argued that the most fundamentaldifference between traditional and e-auctions is thatthe communication between buyers and sellers in

380 Eur

e-auctions is performed by means of communica-tions technology. Therefore, communication be-tween buyers and sellers in e-auctions requiresICT instead of the direct, face-to-face communica-tion (without the interference of ICT) between buy-ers and sellers in traditional auctions. Thus, thedevelopment of communications technology (e.g.electronic access media) is important in analyzingthe changing relationship between buyers and sell-ers in auctions.

Second, Jap (2000) argued that the relationship con-text should be a strategic consideration to makeinvestments in new technologies. The firm’s choiceof technology impacts or fundamentally changeshow buyers and suppliers coordinate their activitiesand interactions. By understanding the interface be-tween the relationship and emerging technologies,buyers and suppliers can improve their competitiveposition and better exploit the opportunities thatthese technologies offer. Jap proposed a framework,which stressed the interdependence between rela-tionships and emerging technologies.

Third, Day (2000) argued that there are differenttypes of relationships in exchanges, varying from tra-ditional to collaborative. We think that the relation-ship between buyers and sellers in traditionalauctions can be characterized as ‘transactional’. Thisis the result of the fact that buyers in traditional auc-tions have little influence on the exchange process.For example, in traditional auctions, buyers can onlyinfluence the bidding process by making a bid.Therefore, the (potential) buyers can commonly af-fect only one aspect (i.e. the price of the good) ofthe auctions. In these kinds of auctions, buyers arenot given the opportunity to ask questions duringthe auction. Thus, there is no conversation possiblewith the selling party. Furthermore, in a purelytransactional setting, sellers try to earn as muchmoney as possible, while buyers are trying to saveas much money as possible. Strobel (2000) character-ized this relationship as ‘win-lose’.

In contrast, the relationship between buyers and sell-ers in e-auctions can be described as ‘value-adding’.When looking at the same types of auctions, as de-scribed in the example above, the electronic variantsof these auctions could offer buyers the possibility toask questions to sellers. Furthermore, we think thatthe participants in e-auctions are more willing to in-vest in relationships than in traditional auctions. As aresult, it could be proposed that e-auctions add morevalue to the buyers than traditional off-line auctions,because these auctions are trying to create a win-win-win situation for all the stakeholders that are in-volved (Kambil and Van Heck, 2002). Rafaeli andNoy (2002) support this statement by arguing that‘‘with the advent of online communication technolo-gies, participants in online auctions are more likely tobe affected by the proximity and availability of oth-ers. In other words, the social aspects of auctions



are likely to be brought to the fore’’. Furthermore, Jap(2000, 2001) argued that suppliers are more willing tomake investments toward the buyers in online auc-tions, regardless of the auction type.

Fourth, Sally McMillan (2002) distinguished two keydimensions (i.e. direction of communication and le-vel of receiver control) that resulted in a four-partmodel of cyber-interactivity. When combining thismodel with the literature presented in the previousparagraph, it can be concluded that traditional auc-tions can be characterized as ‘feedback’. Since, tradi-tional auctions consist primarily of one-waycommunication and the level of receiver control islimited. Buyers (or rather the ‘‘receivers’’ in the mod-el of McMillan) can only react by making a bid. Onthe contrary, current e-auctions can best be describedas a ‘responsive dialogue’. However, we would liketo propose that e-auctions could be turned into a‘mutual discourse’ as a result of multi-access technol-ogies, since new technologies could enable two-wayor even multiple-way communication and a high le-vel of receiver control. This could result in an im-proved position for buyers, or in other words, inthe empowerment of buyers. These findings arerather similar to the conclusion presented above.

Fifth, Kim and Sawhney (2002) stated that mediatechnologies have historically been structured alonga one-way transmission model. As a result of theconvergence of computer and telecommunicationstechnologies, electronic media are now allowed toperform a two-way or multiple-way communicationbetween buyers and sellers. This corresponds withthe conclusion above that argues that e-auctions,which make use of electronic media, improve therelationships between buyers and sellers, comparedto traditional auctions.

Based on the statements above, we would like tosuggest that ICT leads to more interactive commu-nication between buyers and sellers. As a result,ICT has changed the relationship between buyersand sellers in the exchange processes. In the fol-lowing section, this statement will be further ana-lyzed, by looking at the empirical analysisconcerning the impact of multi-access technologieson e-auctions.

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework


Conceptual Framework

In this section the conceptual framework and four re-lated propositions will be formulated. The followingconstructs have been identified to analyze the impactof multi-access technologies on e-auctions, and, morespecifically, on the expected success (or failure) ofthese e-auctions. see Figure 1.

Sophistication Level of Technologies

Based on the four categories of access technologiesthat have been discerned (i.e. Internet, wireless data,wired & wireless voice, and interactive TV) it is pos-sible to propose a ‘‘sophistication level model of mul-ti-access technologies’’. Kambil and Van Heck (2002)argued that e-markets should be as rich, complex,and complete as traditional markets. The categoriza-tion of the sophistication levels has been based onthis statement. More specifically, the different accesstechnologies have been categorized based on thecapabilities that can be added to ‘‘conventional’’ e-auctions. Four levels of sophistication have beenproposed:

v Level 0: refers to the Internet. The Internet is con-sidered as the foundation of modern e-auctions,since, every e-auction nowadays has a Websiteon which buyers and sellers can trade their prod-ucts and services. More specifically, in this paperonly auctions will be discussed, which have sucha website. Therefore, the Internet has beendescribed as an access technology with a sophis-tication level of 0. Consequently, the Internet isthe minimum requirement for an e-auction.

v Level 1: refers to the Internet combined with wire-less data technology. This kind of access technol-ogy has several capabilities that ‘‘normal’’e-auctions do not have. For instance, as a resultof the ‘‘wireless’’ character of the devices thatare related to this access technology, it is possiblefor buyers and sellers to access e-auctions almostanywhere and at anytime, also called ‘‘ubiquity’’.Besides, wireless data technologies could pro-vide so-called ‘‘real-time m-auctions’’, makingit possible for the stakeholders to make bidsand to communicate in real-time by using their

381


mobile devices. Although this aspect can be seenas an improvement of conventional e-auctions, itwill probably not lead to such richness, complex-ity, and completeness as can be found in tradi-tional auctions, since this technology is stillmachine-interactive like the Internet.

v Level 2: refers to the Internet combined withwired & wireless voice technology. This categori-zation allows the e-auction to support voice capa-bilities, such as interactive voice response.Besides, it could be suggested that voice technol-ogy could also allow voice recognition appli-cations in the near future. As a result, thee-auctions could become more personal (or ratherperson-interactive). Thus, this technology couldprovide a higher level of richness, complexity,and completeness. Voice technology has a higherlevel of sophistication than wireless data technol-ogy because voice technology offers more ‘‘per-sonal’’ communication between the stakeholders.

v Level 3: refers to the Internet combined withInteractive television (iTV). This combinationoffers probably more capabilities than the previ-ous two sophistication levels, because they pro-vide high quality text, image, video, and audiocapabilities. Besides, iTV allows applicationssuch as home shopping, speech, instant messag-ing, e-mail, and videophone. As a result, it couldbe argued that iTV could make e-auctions moreperson-interactive, rather than machine-interactive.

Maturity Level of Business Processes

In the literature review, the exchange processes modelby Kambil and Van Heck (2002) has been discussed.Paarlberg (2001) has used this specific model to de-velop an audit model to analyze consumer e-auc-tions. This model measures the ‘‘maturity level’’ ofthe business processes of e-auctions. A higher matu-rity level of a specific business process indicates thatthere are more abilities to perform this process. Themeasurement tool is very useful in examiningwhether multi-access technologies have an effect onthe maturity level of the business processes of e-auc-tions. Based on this construct, a positive correlation isexpected between the sophistication level of multi-access technologies, and the maturity level of thebusiness processes of e-auctions. This results in thefirst proposition (P1):

‘‘The use of more sophisticated multi-access technologiesin electronic auctions will lead to a higher maturity levelof the business processes’’.

Communication between Stakeholders

The relationships between the stakeholders are very‘‘evident’’ in traditional auctions. As a result offace-to-face communication and physical presence

382 Eur

of the stakeholders at conventional auctions, theyknow what their ‘‘role’’ is, and how they are relatedto other parties that are involved. In conventionalauctions, communication between the stakeholdersis not constrained by using ICT.

However, with the arrival of e-auctions, face-to-facecommunication has been replaced by ‘‘virtual’’ com-munication, resulting in more uncertainty about theother participants. Another negative aspect of e-auc-tions is that fraud is more likely to occur, comparedto off-line. These disadvantages have resulted in alowered level of trust of the stakeholders in e-auc-tions, compared to traditional auctions. These prob-lems could possibly be averted by enabling moreinteractive communication between the differentstakeholders.

It can be stated that there are four dimensions ofcommunication flows: communication (1) betweenbuyers and sellers, (2) sellers and the auctioneer,(3) buyers and the auctioneer, and (4) buyers and(other) buyers. Note that these dimensions are espe-cially meaningful for C2C e-auctions.

As argued above, multi-access technologies couldpossibly make the communication between the stake-holders more interactive. In this context, Wang et al.(2002) proposed that new technologies could lead toan information-pull, rather than information-push,favoring the position (or rather empowerment) ofthe consumers. This is in accordance with Kambiland Van Heck (2002), who argued that new technol-ogies must leverage customers to co-create value.

As a result, the communication roles become moreinterchangeable. More specifically, interactive com-munication usually implies more equality of the par-ticipants and a greater symmetry of communicativepower (Schultz, 2000: 210). New applications (e.g. in-stant messaging, phone helpdesk, videophone, etc),based on access technologies, could reduce the prob-lems that currently exist in e-auctions. Furthermore,interactive communication could make e-auctionsmore ‘‘rich’’ and ‘‘complete’’, compared to currente-auctions that do not use multi-access technologies.

It could be anticipated that there exists a positiverelationship between the ‘‘sophistication level ofmulti-access technologies’’, and ‘‘interactive commu-nication between the stakeholders’’. Thus, the secondproposition (P2) can be expressed as follows:

‘‘The use of more sophisticated multi-access technologiesin electronic auctions will lead to more interactive commu-nication between the stakeholders’’.

Expected Success

Based on the previous two paragraphs, it could besuggested that several advantages and disadvan-



tages for stakeholders, resulting from more maturebusiness processes and more interactive communica-tion between the stakeholders, could influence theexpected success of e-auctions. Furthermore, it couldbe stated that e-auctions could only be (more) suc-cessful when they create advantages that benefit allstakeholders that are involved. Thus, creating awin-win-win situation for buyers, sellers, and theauctioneer.

This is in accordance with Kambil and Van Heck(2002). They argued that ‘‘for an e-market to succeed,it must create value for all the participants’’. Thus, ifan online auction wants to succeed, then the ex-pected impact, resulting from more mature processesand more interactive communication, must be posi-tive for all the stakeholders that are involved. If thisis not the case, one or more of the multi-access tech-nologies, which indirectly could affect the success ofe-auctions, will probably not be successful. Imple-mentation of those multi-access technologies is there-fore not likely to occur.

Possible (dis)advantages resulting from more matureprocesses are: costs, convenience, security, trust,product presentation, personalization & customiza-tion, and early mover advantages. This results inthe third proposition (P3):

‘‘More mature business processes will lead to an increasedexpected success of electronic auctions’’.

Possible (dis)advantages resulting from more inter-active communication are: quantity and quality ofinformation exchange, frequency of communication,response time, customer bonding, fun and experi-ence, traffic on auction platform, and informationabout customer preferences. Based on this statement,the fourth and final proposition (P4) can be formu-lated as follows:

‘‘More interactive communication between the stakehold-ers will lead to an increased expected success of electronicauctions’’.

Conclusion

Gupta and Bapna (2001) argued that a positive net-work externality and a first mover advantage arenecessary and sufficient conditions for success in e-auctions. Furthermore, Klein et al. (2002) posited thatdrawing the attention of the masses, leveraging econ-omies of scale, and creating positive network exter-nalities lead to the success of e-auctions. We thinkthat reaching a critical mass is especially importantfor having success in e-auctions. Based on thesestatements, we would like to state that an e-auctionis successful, in our perspective, when consumersperform transactions with the help of the auctionplatform on such a scale that the platform will beprofitable (in the long term). This could possibly ex-


plain what success is in the context of e-auctions, butit still does not explain how such success can be real-ized. In other words, it is not clear how the condi-tions for success can be met.

In our opinion, it is not simple to give a completelysatisfying answer to this question. However, wewill try to give as comprehensive an answer aspossible.

Kambil and Van Heck (2002) argued that in order tosucceed, market makers must create rules, processes,and infrastructure. Furthermore, they argued thatmarket makers must search for more and more value.The question, of course, is how to create value for theparticipants. Amit and Zott (2001) argued that valuecan be delivered as a result of novelty, complementari-ties, lock-in, and efficiency. The next, logical question,then, is how these value-generating aspects could berealized. At this point, in our opinion, we reach the ba-sic building blocks of electronic auctions: the businessprocesses. Thus, by improving the business processes,based on new technologies, it could be possible to cre-ate value for the participating stakeholders.Wang et al.(2002) referred to this type of value-creation as ‘‘tech-nology-driven value enhancement’’. Important is tonote that, according to Kambil and Van Heck (2002),value should be created for all participants.

In this paper, we argue that value (or rather advan-tages) could be created for the stakeholders due tomore mature business processes and due to moreinteractive communication possibilities.

Data from Online Audit and Interviews

This section elaborates the research methods andtechniques that have been used. Based on thesemethods and techniques, the empirical data of fivee-auctions will be described.

Research Methods and Techniques

Logically, first of all, it is necessary to discuss howthe sophistication level of multi-access technologiescould be measured. It is mainly interesting to lookat how the sophistication levels could be observedor measured in electronic auctions. Internet formsthe foundation of modern e-auctions. Therefore, inthis paper, auctions will be discussed, which havesuch an (online) Web auction. The assumption is thatall other access technologies could be added to the al-ready existing Web auctions. Sophisticated technolo-gies could be added ‘‘on top of’’ Web-basedtechnologies, such as the Internet. It is important toanalyze which access technologies are already beingused for each Web auction. Of course, if an auction

383


has already implemented several access technolo-gies, this enables more detailed statements. The anal-ysis of the sophistication levels of the e-auctionscould be performed by observing the different Webauctions through the use of an online audit. As a re-sult, a table could be constructed, in which for eachWeb auction is shown what their sophistication levelis, varying from level 0 to level 3. As stated earlier, ahigher level of sophistication represents a higherrichness, complexity, and completeness of thee-auction.

Paarlberg (2001) has proposed the concept ‘‘maturitylevel of business processes’’ in the context of Webauctions. Since, in that paper, Web auctions are alsothe object of empirical analysis, this concept couldbe seen as valuable. Paarlberg (2001) measured the‘‘maturity level’’ of the business processes througha scorecard method. The basic trade, and trade con-text processes have all been split into five successivesteps. The auctions receive one point for each step.The first step stands for no possibility to perform aspecific process. The fifth step stands for the full ex-tent to which a business process can be performed.Each step stands for more abilities to perform a cer-tain process. Note that the auctions can only scoreon successive steps. Thus, if in an auction a certainbusiness process can be performed on step 1, 2,and 4 but not on step 3, the auction receives 2 points.If an auction scores five points for a process, then, itmeans that this specific process can be performed tothe full extent (Paarlberg, 2001: 32). Note that themeasurement tool has been changed and elaborated,which have been initially developed by Paarlberg(2001). This adaptation has been partly realized incooperation with Jarkko Vesa, who is an MBA stu-dent from the Helsinki School of Economics. SeeVesa and van Heck (2003).

The concept ‘‘interactive communication between thestakeholders’’ has already been introduced. This con-cept could be analyzed through four different varia-bles: communication (1) between buyers and sellers,(2) between sellers and the auctioneer, (3) betweenbuyers and the auctioneer, and finally, (4) betweenbuyers and (other) buyers. As a result, it can be ana-lyzed whether the communication between the stake-holders is changed due to access technologies. Notethat there are three possibilities: deterioration of theinteractive communication between the stakeholders,no change, and, finally, an improvement of the interac-tive communication between the stakeholders. Be-cause it is very difficult to measure the changes, aqualitative research method has been used. It couldbe argued that it is mainly interesting in this phaseof the research to analyze whether more sophisti-cated access technologies result in changes in theinteractive communication between the stakeholders.Based on this research method, it can be analyzed,for each combination of variable and multi-accesstechnology, whether there are (or could be) changescompared to the Internet. This is useful to answer

384 Eur

P2. Data have been gathered through interviews withmanagers of the selected e-auctions.

There are many ways to describe the success ofe-auctions. Paarlberg (2001), for instance, measuredthe level of success of online auctions by lookingat the transaction volume of these auctions. How-ever, the success will not be measured by lookingat the transaction volume, but rather it could be sug-gested that the success of e-auctions is dependent onmany different variables. In the context of this paper,it is argued that the success of e-auctions depends onthe expected (dis)advantages that multi-access tech-nologies could indirectly create for its stakeholders.More specifically, it is expected that multi-accesstechnologies result in (1) a higher maturity level ofthe business processes of e-auctions, and (2) moreinteractive communication between the stakeholdersof e-auctions. In turn, a higher maturity level of thebusiness processes and more interactive communica-tion could lead to an increased expected success of e-auctions. The expected success is dependent on(dis)advantages for the stakeholders due to more ma-ture processes, and due to more interactive commu-nication. As stated earlier, one of the main issues isthat the adoption of new technologies in e-auctionscould only be realized and sustained, when theadoption results in changes that benefit all partici-pants. Therefore, if all participants benefit from theimplementation of a multi-access technology, it couldbe expected that the auction becomes more success-ful. To measure whether the changes benefit the par-ticipants, interviews have been carried out withmanagers of the selected e-auctions.

For a more thorough explanation of the researchmethods and techniques used, we refer to De Ruiter(2003).

Selection of Electronic Auctions

Before presenting the empirical data based on five e-auctions, it will be argued how these electronic auc-tions have been selected for this paper. The selectionof the e-auctions has been based on several criteria.The first criterion is that the auctions have to be lo-cated in The Netherlands. The second criterion is thatthe e-auctions should have a Website, because, as sta-ted earlier, the Internet forms the foundation of e-auctions. Consequently, this paper will analyze ifand how other access technologies (i.e. ‘‘wirelessdata’’, ‘‘wired & wireless voice’’, and ‘‘iTV’’) couldcontribute to these e-auctions. The third criterion isthat the e-auctions, which are to be selected, are con-sumer auctions. In other words, the selected auctionsshould be B2C and/or C2C auctions. The reason forthis is that it could be considered that multi-accesstechnologies could have a vast impact on consumermarkets. As a result, it is interesting to focus purelyon consumer auctions. The fourth criterion is thatthe selected e-auctions are either independent



exchanges or private exchanges, meaning that theowner of the auctions are respectively a third party,or a ‘‘private’’ seller (or rather business). Consortiaexchanges are not part of this research.

Presentation of Selected-auctions

In this section, a presentation of the empirical data,gathered from the selected e-auctions, will be given.More specifically, the selected e-auctions are (inalphabetical order): eBay.nl, Qoop, Ricardo.nl, Start-End, and Wannabid.

eBay.nl

eBay was founded in 1995 in the US as an online auc-tion company. Since then eBay has spread over theworld. At the end of 2001 eBay took over the iBazarGroup. This resulted in the Dutch eBay (http://www.ebay.nl). Note that only eBay.nl will be dis-cussed in this paper and not other eBay sites/compa-nies. All eBay companies are owned by a neutralthird party that mediates in the trading process be-tween buyers and sellers. Furthermore, it can be ar-gued that eBay.nl is mainly a C2C online auction,and, for a small part, also a B2C online auction.

The revenue model from eBay.nl has been composedas follows: listing fees (price that has to be paid to theauctioneer for having a specific item listed on the auc-tion platform; this does not necessarily means that theproduct will be sold), transaction fees (price that hasto be paid to the auctioneer when an item is actuallysold through the auction platform), and listing up-grade fees (price that has to be paid to the auctioneerwhen a user wants to have a better location for its itemon the auction platform to attract more attention).

Qoop

Qoop (http://www.qoop.nl) is a consumer Web auc-tion in The Netherlands, originally founded in 1997.First, a Website called Verzamel.net, which is a plat-form for collectors of a wide variety of collectibles,was launched. In 1997 they wanted to provide someextra service to the users of this Website and imple-mented an auction platform to trade collectiblesamong the different collectors. Furthermore, aftersome time this auction functionality was separatedfrom Verzamel.net and was formed into an auctionthat was purely focused on trading products. Besidescollectibles other products could be sold and bought.This auction was called ViaVeiling. Subsequentlythis auction platform was turned into the currentauction site of Qoop. However, the specialty of Qoophas remained trading collectibles.

Qoop is especially focused on the C2C market. Con-sumers can sell and buy products from other con-sumers. In other words, Qoop is a Web-based


many-to-many auction. Furthermore, Qoop also pro-vides a B2C trading. Businesses can sell products toconsumers. Besides, Qoop also provide their auctionfunctionality to other businesses.

Subsequently, it can be argued that Qoop is an auc-tion that is owned and maintained by a third party.More specifically, the auction is a privatized plat-form. Qoop has a revenue model, which consists ofrevenues resulting from banner revenues and fromlisting upgrade fees. The latter refers to a price thatsellers have to pay to make their auction more ‘‘vis-ible’’ compared to others (e.g. by improving the posi-tion of their auction, by making the typeface bold,etc).

Ricardo.nl

Ricardo.nl (http://www.ricardo.nl) was begun as anart auction called ‘‘veiling.com’’, founded in 1998 inThe Netherlands. This auction platform has run forabout 1.5 years. Since this art auction needed financ-ing, it was bought by Ricardo from Germany. Notlong after this purchase, Ricardo merged with QXL,which is an online auction company from England.At this moment, QXL is the most important partyin the merger with Ricardo.nl. Thus, in other words,Ricardo.nl is owned by a ‘‘third party’’ that facilitatesonline auctions. Note that in this paper attention willonly be given to Ricardo.nl and not to other compa-nies within QXL and Ricardo.

Furthermore, it can be argued that Ricardo.nl Ricar-do’s revenue model is based on listing fees, transac-tions fees, and listing upgrade fees.

Ricardo.nl is a Web-based many-to-many auctionthat focuses primarily on the C2C auction marketin The Netherlands. However, they also enable B2Cauctions.

Start-End

Start-End (http://www.start-end.nl/market place)was founded in 2001 and is a marketplace for com-pany assets. More specifically, this Website auctionsassets from companies, because they have gonebankrupt or because they want to sell some of theirassets (due to reorganization, etc). The assets soldby Start-End vary enormously, because each bank-ruptcy and reorganization results in different prod-ucts. Furthermore, Start-End also provide servicesto companies that search a new owner, while theyhave gone bankrupt or while the current owners justwant to sell the company. Start-End’s revenue modelconsists of banners and transaction fees (10 to 20 per-cent of the price of the sold products). In otherwords, they offer a ‘‘no cure, no pay’’ solution totheir clients. Start-End is owned by a ‘‘third party’’that mediates between business and other business/

385

http://www.ebay.nl

http://www.ebay.nl

http://www.qoop.nl

http://www.ricardo.nl

http://www.start-end.nl/


consumers. In other words, Start-End is a B2B as wellas a B2C auction.

Wannabid

Wannabid (http://www.wannabid.nl) is a rathernew online auction from The Netherlands, foundedin 2003. This auction has been set up to offer usersa substitute for large online auctions, because sellersoften have to pay money to sell products on theirauction platform. Wannabid, however, is a so-called‘‘free auction’’ where people can generally tradeproducts for free. The revenue model of Wannabidconsists of listing upgrade fees and revenues fromaffiliates (by linking to other sites). Listing upgradefees refers to the costs that sellers have to make whenthey want to attract more attention to their prod-uct(s). However, these costs are optional, becausesellers do not have to use this facility.

Furthermore, Wannabid has a C2C and a B2C auc-tion format. Companies can sell overstocked prod-ucts on the site of Wannabid. However, the focusof Wannabid is on the C2C market.

Additionally, it can be argued that the auction plat-form is owned by an independent third party.

Analysis of Empirical Data

In this section, an empirical analysis of the gathereddata will be performed. First, the data resulting fromthe empirical data will be summarized. As a result, itis possible to make a preliminary comparison be-tween the different e-auctions. Next, it will be ana-lyzed how multi-access (could) affect the businessprocesses of electronic auctions, how multi-accesstechnologies (could) influence the stakeholders ofelectronic auctions, and how technologies could af-fect the success of electronic auctions.

Summarized Data

Table 2 shows which sophistication levels the differ-ent e-auctions have.

Note that the numbers between the brackets meanthat the related access technology has been removed

Table 2 Sophistication Levels of E-auctions

E-auction Sophistication level(s)

eBay.nl 0

Qoop 0 (1)

Ricardo.nl 0 (1) 2

Start-End 0 2

Wannabid 0 1

386 Eur

from the auction platform. This means that the e-auc-tion could have gathered some experience concern-ing this access technology. As a result, even if atechnology has been removed, the correlating sophis-tication level will still be placed by the e-auction.

Furthermore, it could be proposed that the higher thesophistication level of an e-auction, the more reliablethe answers from this specific e-auction probably are.The reason for this is that a higher sophistication le-vel suggests that the e-auction’s statements arebacked by actual experience and knowledge. If ane-auction does not score on a specific sophisticationlevel, this actually means that the answers from thise-auction are expectations of how multi-access tech-nologies could influence its auction platform.

Finally, it could be stated that eBay.nl and Ricardo.nlare both part of a larger multinational e-auction com-pany. As a result, they can benefit from the knowl-edge of other countries where there has alreadybeen experiments with these new technologies. So,the actual sophistication level of eBay.nl and Ricar-do.nl could be higher than presented in Table 2.

Impact of Technologies on Business Processes

Research question 1, which has been proposed as:‘‘how do multi-access technologies influence thebusiness processes of electronic auctions?’’, willnow be discussed.

Tables 3 and 4 show the average maturity levels of allbusiness processes and how much the maturity lev-els have been changed compared to the Internet.Based on the latter table, it is relatively easy to makestatements about which technology has the largestimpact of all the business processes.

iTV has realized the highest increase of the maturitylevels with an average of 31.9%. Next, UMTS with30.8%, GPRS with 27.2%, GSM with 14.7%, and, final-ly, voice with 4.9%. These outcomes are in line withthe sophistication levels described in paragraph 4.1,with the exception of voice technology. Although inthis paper it has been proposed that voice technologyhas a higher sophistication level than wireless datatechnologies and the Internet, it seems that voicetechnology actually results in the lowest increase ofthe maturity levels. As a result, it could be stated thatthe e-auctions that have provided empirical data forthis paper expect that voice technology will not beable to bring many improvements for the businessprocesses of the auction platform.

Based on the empirical research, it could be arguedthat some processes are not influenced at all (or onlya little bit) by multi-access technologies. More specif-ically, referred to here the processes are: authentica-tion, regulation, influence structures, and disputeresolution.


http://www.wannabid.nl

Table 3 Overall Scores for the Maturity Levels of all Business Processes

Internet Wireless data Wired & wireless voice Interactive TV

GSM GPRS UMTS

eBay.nl 3.5 3.9 4.0 4.1 3.5 4.2

Qoop 2.6 3.2 3.6 3.6 2.8 3.6

Ricardo.nl 3.3 3.6 4.2 4.2 3.6 4.3

Start-End 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.6 2.8 3.6

Wannabid 2.6 3.1 3.5 3.7 2.8 3.7

Average 3.0 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.1 3.9

Table 4 Changes (in %) of Scores for all Processes compared to Internet

Internet Wireless data Wired & wireless voice Interactive TV

GSM GPRS UMTS

eBay.nl 0.0 +11.4 +14.3 +17.1 0.0 +20.0

Qoop 0.0 +23.1 +38.5 +38.5 +7.7 +38.5

Ricardo.nl 0.0 +9.1 +27.3 +27.3 +9.1 +30.3

Start-End 0.0 +10.7 +21.4 +28.6 0.0 +28.6

Wannabid 0.0 +19.2 +34.6 +42.3 +7.7 +42.3

Average 0.0 +14.7 +27.2 +30.8 +4.9 +31.9


Instead, the processes of search, pricing, logisticalsettlement, payment & settlement, product represen-tation, and risk management are or could be affectedquite substantially by multi-access technologies.How these processes are influenced, varies per proc-ess and per technology. In general, it could be arguedthat, by implementing multi-access technologies,new possibilities could be created for the stakehold-ers of the auction platform. Besides, some multi-ac-cess technologies could make the processes moreefficient and cost-saving for all participants. Anexample is that auctioneers do not have to send let-ters anymore to sellers by post to verify their per-sonal information. Instead, they can use newapplications (such as SMS, etc) to verify the userinformation (based on mobile operator identifica-tion). In such a way, all participants save costs andtime. Another example is that one of the selected e-auctions formerly had special ‘‘inspection days’’ toenable potential buyers to inspect the items that wereto be sold. After having implemented an improvedproduct presentation on the auction site, such specialdays could be abolished, resulting in a cost reductionfor all parties. This product presentation processcould be improved even more with multi-accesstechnologies.

Subsequently, it could be argued that multi-accesstechnologies lead to more efficient business processes(due to higher speed, fewer costs, etc) and to morecapabilities for the stakeholders. In other words,more service could be offered and more value couldbe generated for the participants.

Besides, to realize some of these (service) enhance-ments it is probably necessary for the auctioneer tocooperate with other third parties, since some aspects


of the processes are not part of the core business ofthe e-auctions. More specifically, the auctioneercould cooperate with logistical providers, paymentproviders, mobile operators, and (i)TV broadcastingstations. These service providers could enable andstimulate advances of the business processes, basedon multi-access technologies. For instance, coopera-tion with logistical providers could result in a betterhandling of the items sold through the auction, and,furthermore, in track & trace applications (or otherlocation-based services) that could send informationto the stakeholders about the location of shippeditems to generate more trust. Another example is apartnership with mobile payment providers, suchas banks, credit card companies, etc. These providerscould allow participants of e-auctions to pay eachother with their mobile devices, resulting in a moredeveloped and secure payment & settlement process.Furthermore, the auctioneer could also cooperatewith mobile operators to make the mobile identifica-tion of users possible, resulting in a better risk man-agement process.

Concluding, it could be stated that multi-access tech-nologies influence the e-auction in such a way thatthe auctioneer not only has to focus on ‘‘simple’’processes (e.g. search and pricing), but also focuson more complex processes (e.g. payment & settle-ment, risk management, etc). So, by implementingmulti-access technologies, the auctioneer could offeran e-auction platform with more mature businessprocesses to its stakeholders.

Finally, it could be mentioned that one has notperformed a statistical analysis in this section, be-cause the number of e-auctions is too small to makestatements about the significance of the outcomes.

387


Furthermore, it is not the objective of this research tomake statements that could be generalized across allconsumer e-auctions. However, this research ismeant to provide input for further research on thismatter, which could be used for a statistical analysis.

Impact of Technologies on Stakeholders

Cherry (1977) argued that the impact of a new tech-nology depends on whether the new invention‘‘has offered people new liberties of action, whetherold constraints have been removed (. . .), and whetherpeople can act in new ways’’. In the case of interac-tive media, obviously a new liberty of action for theusers is ‘interactivity’ or ‘interactive communication’.Thus, they empower users in ways that are hardlyimaginable in traditional broadcasting and othermass media. More specifically, in the context of thisempirical analysis, it could be argued that e-auctionscan only exist due to the communication between thestakeholders. Without communication, transactionscould not be performed on the auction platform. Inother words, communication is an absolute necessityfor trading goods. Stakeholders can express theirneeds and wants by using communication. This com-munication could be influenced by new multi-accesstechnologies, as has been shown in this section. Be-fore answering research question 2, it has to be men-tioned that the impact differs per multi-accesstechnology, since each technology has different char-acteristics and capabilities. In other words, based onCherry (1977), each access technology offers other‘‘liberties of action’’ and each technology enablesusers to change the content and form of the commu-nication differently.

More specifically, multi-access technologies influ-ence the (communication of the) stakeholders slightlydifferently, compared to the impact of multi-accesstechnologies on business processes. In the case ofthe business processes, voice technology had theleast impact. However, in the case of the communica-tion between the stakeholders, it could be arguedthat GSM (and especially WAP) has the lowest ex-pected impact. Furthermore, in general, it could bestated that the more ‘‘personal’’ the access technol-ogy, the more impact the access technology has onthe (communication between the) stakeholders. Morespecifically, iTV is expected to have the greatest ef-fect on the stakeholders, followed by voice technol-ogy, UMTS, GPRS, and finally, GSM with thelowest impact. This could be explained by the factthat iTV offers the most ‘‘personal’’ communication,and GSM offers the most ‘‘impersonal’’ communica-tion of the access technologies presented in this pa-per. In other words, more interactive (electronic)communication resembles the ‘‘rich’’ and ‘‘spontane-ous’’ face-to-face communication. Furthermore, itcould be added that the more personal a technologyis, the less anonymous the participants can be. So,more personal communication could result in more

388 Eur

trust between the stakeholders, benefiting the auc-tion platform in general.

Impact of Technologies on Expected Success

In this paragraph, an answer will be given to re-search question 3, which has been proposed as:‘‘what is the impact of multi-access technologies onthe success of electronic auctions?’’.

First, it could be argued that statements can only bemade about the expected success and not the realsuccess of e-auctions. Second, in this paper it hasbeen argued that multi-access technologies resultin more mature processes and in more interactivecommunication. In turn, these ‘‘more mature proc-esses’’ and ‘‘more interactive communication’’ resultin an increased expected success of e-auctions. As aresult, it could be stated that the effects of multi-ac-cess technologies on the expected success areindirect.

Concerning the more mature processes, it is argu-able that they could lead to lowered costs, moreconvenience, more security, more trust, improvedproduct presentation, more personalization & cust-omization, and early mover advantages for most ofthe stakeholders. Furthermore, it has been sug-gested these advantages result in an increased ex-pected success of e-auctions, because they lead toa higher level of use and in more transactions per-formed on the auction platform. However, not allof the advantages apply to all stakeholders. Kambiland Van Heck (2002) suggested that the advantageshave to benefit all stakeholders. Aspects such aslowered costs and more convenience do not appearto apply to the auctioneers (on short term anyway).However, this does not have to be a problem whenthe increase of costs and lack of convenience forthe auctioneers will be compensated for a (substan-tial) increase of revenues. Since, buyers and sellerswill benefit from most of the advantages, it is ex-pected that the auction platform will be used moreintensively, resulting in more transactions. As a re-sult, it is proposed that the auctioneer will benefitfrom more revenues. One can conclude that moremature processes result in an increased expectedsuccess.

Concerning more interactive communication, it canbe stated that it could lead to a higher level of infor-mation sharing, more qualitative information, morefrequent communication, lower response times, morebonding, more fun, more traffic on auction platform,and more information gathering about customerpreferences. More specifically, it is expected thatthese advantages apply to all stakeholders. As a re-sult, there should be generated more value for allthe participants. Besides, it has been suggested thatthese advantages result in an increased expected suc-cess of e-auctions, because these advantages lead to a



higher level of use and in more transactions per-formed on the auction platform. So, based on thesefindings, it is stated that more interactive communi-cation results in an increased expected success ofthe selected e-auctions.

Lessons Learned

The first proposition has been formulated as: ‘‘Theuse of more sophisticated multi-access technologies inelectronic auctions will lead to a higher maturity levelof the business processes’’. This proposition can be an-swered, based on the outcomes of paragraph 6.2. Inparagraph 6.2, there have been noted two importantaspects that are relevant in this context. First, thatnot all business processes are (or could be) affectedby multi-access technologies, and, second, that voicetechnology is an exception to this proposition, look-ing at the sophistication level model, since it has alower overall score than the other multi-access tech-nologies. The sophistication level model suggeststhat Internet has the lowest sophistication level, fol-lowed in sequence by, wireless data, wired & wire-less voice, and finally, iTV. Based on this model, it isargued that the overall score for the maturity levelsdue to voice technology has to be higher than thecategories Internet and wireless data. Based on thesestatements, the first proposition will be rejected. Themain complication of the first proposition is that itsuggests that the higher the sophistication level ofthe multi-access technologies, the higher will bethe (overall) maturity level of the business proc-esses. However, as stated above, it is argued thatvoice technology is an exception to this statement.Possibly, this is caused by the fact that the businessprocesses could be improved due to data-oriented(or rather machine-interaction) applications ratherthan due to voice-oriented (or rather person-interac-tion) applications. Considering the fact that voicetechnology can not provide benefits for the basictrade processes, it suggests that voice technologydoes not improve how transactions are realizedand settled (or rather the actual trading of thegoods). So, voice technology could mainly be inter-esting for a ‘‘helpdesk function’’ or rather a ‘‘sup-port process’’ on the auction platform. However,this process has not been explicitly proposed inthe exchange processes model from Kambil andVan Heck (2002).

As a result, it could be argued that the business proc-esses of the selected e-auctions could be improvedmore due to data-oriented technologies than due tovoice-oriented technologies. So, by omitting the voicetechnology from this analysis, the results are valid,since Internet (3.0) has the lowest level of sophistica-tion, followed by GSM (3.4), GPRS (3.7), UMTS (3.8),and iTV (3.9) with the highest level of sophistication.Note that these overall scores, as shown between thebrackets, have been adapted from Table 3. As a re-sult, the first hypothesis (H1) could be proposed as:


H1: ‘‘The use of more sophisticated, data-oriented multi-access technologies in electronic auctions will lead to ahigher maturity level of the business processes’’.

Next, attention will be given to the second proposi-tion, which has been formulated as: ‘‘The use of moresophisticated multi-access technologies in electronic auc-tions will lead to more interactive communication betweenthe stakeholders’’. This proposition can be validated bylooking at paragraph 6.3. In paragraph 6.3, it hasbeen argued that multi-access technologies can pro-vide more interactivity between all stakeholders ofthe selected e-auctions. More specifically, moresophisticated multi-access technologies can lead tomore interactive communication between the stake-holders of the selected e-auctions. These outcomesare in accordance with the sophistication level mod-el. The reason for this is that more sophisticated mul-ti-access technologies could result in more personaland spontaneous communication between the partic-ipants. Based on these outcomes, it is suggested thatthe second proposition is accepted. In other words,there probably exists a positive relationship betweenthe sophistication level of multi-access technologiesand the level of interactive communication betweenthe stakeholders. As a result, the relationship, as pre-sented in the conceptual framework, appears to bepositive. Based on these statements, the proposal ofthe second hypothesis (H2) is as follows:

H2: ‘‘The use of more sophisticated multi-access technolo-gies in electronic auctions will lead to more interactivecommunication between the stakeholders’’.

The third proposition has been formulated as: ‘‘Moremature business processes will lead to an increased ex-pected success of electronic auctions’’. Based on para-graph 6.4, it can be stated that more matureprocesses result in a number of advantages for thestakeholders of the selected e-auctions. Besides, thereare also some disadvantages for the auctioneer (i.e.increase of expected costs, less convenience on shortterm). However, these disadvantages are expected tobe overcome by a higher level of usage of the auctionplatform and a higher generated transaction volume,which results in more income for the auctioneer.This, in turn, benefits the expected success of the se-lected e-auctions. As a result, it can be argued thatthe third proposition is accepted. So, the relationship,as presented in the conceptual framework, betweenthe maturity of the business processes and the ex-pected success of the selected e-auctions, appears tobe positive. As a result, the third hypothesis (H3) isproposed as:

H3: ‘‘More mature business processes will lead to an in-creased expected success of electronic auctions’’.

The fourth proposition has been formulated as:‘‘More interactive communication between the stakehold-ers will lead to an increased expected success of elec-tronic auctions’’. Based on paragraph 6.4, it could be

389


mentioned that more interactive communication be-tween the participants leads to advantages for allparticipants. In this paper, it has been proposed thatthese advantages, in turn, result in a higher expectedsuccess of the selected e-auctions. So, the relationshipbetween the interactivity of the communication andthe expected success of the selected e-auctions ap-pears to be positive. As a result, the fourth proposi-tion is accepted and the fourth hypothesis could beformulated as follows:

H4: ‘‘More interactive communication between the stake-holders will lead to an increased expected success of elec-tronic auctions’’.

Especially based on the outcomes of paragraph 6.2, itis argued that the maturity level of the business proc-esses is not only be increased due to more sophisti-cated multi-access technologies, but also due to thecooperation with other service providers. The reasonfor this is that certain services, enabled by multi-ac-cess technologies, are only be performed with thehelp of third parties that are specialized in providingsuch services. Consider, for example, mobile useridentification. Such a service is only performed incooperation with a mobile operator. In other words,technologies could provide the possibilities of a high-er service level, however, the execution is only possi-ble by cooperating with other parties. So, therelationship between cooperation and maturity ofthe business processes could be added to the concep-tual framework. As a result, a fifth hypothesis (H5)has been proposed:

H5: ‘‘More cooperation with external service providerswill lead to a higher maturity level of the business proc-esses of the electronic auction’’.

Conclusions

Research Problem

The research objective of this paper has been to gaininsight on the impact that multi-access technologieshave on the business processes and on the stakehold-ers of electronic auctions. This objective has been metby having provided a theoretical framework, and byhaving formulated four propositions, which, in turn,have been tested. Based on these outcomes, the re-search questions have been answered.

Taking into consideration the presented results, it isargued that the impact of multi-access technologieson the business processes and on the stakeholdersdiffers per technology. This is explained by the factthat each technology has different characteristicsand capabilities. First, attention will be given to theimpact of multi-access technologies on the businessprocesses of electronic auctions, and second, therewill be a focus on the impact of multi-access technol-

390 Eur

ogies on the stakeholders that are involved in elec-tronic auctions.

First, the impact of multi-access technologies on thebusiness processes of e-auctions is described as fol-lows. First, it should be mentioned that most ofthe access technologies offer an increase of thematurity level of the business processes. More spe-cifically, iTV offers the largest increase of the capa-bilities of the business processes, followed byUMTS, GPRS, GSM, and finally, voice technology.By using these technologies, the auctioneer can pro-vide more efficient and cost-saving processes to itsstakeholders. Furthermore, these technologies canalso result in other advantages for the stakeholders(e.g. more convenience, more trust, more personal-ized services, etc) that can lead to a higher expectedsuccess of the e-auction platform. Note that somenew technology-enabled services can only be pro-vided when the auction platform cooperates withother third parties.

Second, the impact of multi-access technologies onthe stakeholders of e-auctions will be described be-low. More sophisticated multi-access technologiescan result in more interactivity (or rather interactivecommunication) between all stakeholders. More spe-cifically, GSM offers the lowest increase of interactiv-ity, followed by GPRS, UMTS, voice technology, andfinally, iTV with the highest increase of interactivity.As a result, the stakeholders of the selected e-auc-tions should be able to communicate in other waysthan were previously possible. Furthermore, byusing new technologies, the stakeholders are increas-ingly more able to change the content and form of thecommunication. Additionally, due to more sophisti-cated technologies, the auctioneer can provideadvantages for buyers and sellers, such as more(qualitative) communication, more bonding, morefun, and more personalized and customized services.Besides, new multi-access technologies should resultin the redefinition of the role of the participants in e-auctions, since they should result in a more activerole of the participants, because new technologiesenable an information-pull rather than an informa-tion-push.

Based on these conclusions, it can be stated that mul-ti-access technologies can allow a reduction of theproblems of current e-auctions (such as reducingfraud and other risks by improving security, improv-ing trust, etc). Furthermore, these technologies notonly resolve several of the current limitations andproblems of e-auctions, but they also offer real addedvalue by providing more services for the stakehold-ers. Furthermore, by using these multi-accesstechnologies, e-auctions offer a platform to its stake-holders that resembles the richness, complexity andcompleteness of traditional auctions (Kambil andVan Heck, 2002: 3-4). As a result, we can speak of‘‘technology-driven value enhancement’’ (Wanget al., 2002).



Finally, note that the conclusions of this paper are notgeneralized over all consumer e-auctions. The reasonfor this is that too few e-auctions have been exam-ined to make statements for all C2C and B2C e-auc-tions overall. As a result, these conclusions onlyrefer to the e-auctions that have been analyzed in thispaper.

Recommendations for Further Research

Finally, there could be made several suggestions forfurther research on the impact of multi-access tech-nologies on electronic auctions.

First, in this research we have proposed five hypoth-eses. These hypotheses need to be tested. This couldbe realized by performing a large-scale research on(European) consumer e-auctions. As a result, it couldbe possible to make statements, based on statistics,about whether the proposed hypotheses are validor not. Furthermore, these statements could perhapsbe generalized over all consumer e-auctions.

Second, another important aspect that needs furtherresearch is whether consumers are willing to adoptthe multi-access technologies. Since, if consumersdo not want to adopt these new access technologies,the auction platform can not profit from the advan-tages that these technologies could offer. Perhaps,for this purpose, the following theories could beused: Consumer Perceived Value, TechnologyAcceptance Model, and network externalities theory.Besides, in the context of the adoption of new accesstechnologies, it would also be interesting to proposeand use a segmentation of different types of consum-ers (e.g. evaluators, participators, opportunists; seeBapna et al., 2003) to find out whether a specific cat-egory is more favorable for adopting new technolo-gies than other categories.

Third, the conceptual framework in paragraph 4 hasshown that this research has only analyzed the ex-pected success of electronic auctions. However, whennew access technologies have been adopted by andimplemented on the auction platform, the ‘‘real’’ suc-cess can be measured. As a result, it can be expectedthat this subject will offer interesting researchpossibilities.

References

Amit, R. and Zott, C. (2001) Value creation in e-business.Strategic Management Journal 22(6–7), 493–520.

Bakos, J.Y. (1998) Towards friction-free markets: Theemerging role of electronic marketplaces on theInternet. Communications of the ACM 41(8), 35–42.

Bapna, R., Goes, P. and Gupta, A. (2001b) Compara-tive analysis of multi-item online auctions: Evidencefrom the laboratory. Decision Support Systems 32(2),135–153.


Bapna, R., Goes, P. and Gupta, A. (2003) Analysis anddesign of business-to-consumer online auctions. Man-agement Science 49(1), 85–101.

Barwise, P., Elberse, A. and Hammond, K. (2002) Market-ing and the Internet: A research review. In Handbook ofMarketing, eds B.A. Weitz and R. Wensley, pp.527–557, Sage.

Cherry, C. (1977) The telephone system: creator of mobilityand social change. In The Social Impact of the Telephoneed. I. Pool, pp. 112–126. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Coase, R.H. (1937) The nature of the firm. Economica,386–405.

Day, G.S. (2000) Managing market relationships. Journal ofthe Academy of Market Science 28(1), 24–31.

Dowling, G.R., Staelin, R. (1994). A model of perceived riskand intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Con-sumer Research, 21, June, 119–134.

Fiore, F. (2001) E-Marketing Strategies: the Hows and Whys ofDriving Sales through e-Commerce. Que Publishers.

Fogelgren-Pedersen, A., Viborg Andersen, K. and HolmLarsen, M. (2002) Digital Auctions: Mapping the IT-PAVED Roads Towards Market Efficiency. In: Pro-ceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference onSystem Sciences.

Gupta, A. and Bapna, R. (2001) Online Auctions: A CloserLook. In: Handbook of Electronic Commerce in Businessand Society. CRC Press, 2002.

Ha, H.Y. (2002) The effects of consumer risk perception onpre-purchase information in online auctions: Brand,word-of-mouth, and customized information. Journalof Computer Mediated Communication 8(1), http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol8/issue1/ha.html.

Hoffman, D.L. and Novak, T.P. (1996) Marketing inhypermedia computer-mediated environments: Con-ceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing 60(July),50–68.

Jap, S.D. (2000) The Relationship-Technology Interface: APath to Competitive Advantage. Invited chapterforthcoming. In: Future Directions of Supply Chain andTechnology Management, http://www.bus.emory.edu/sdjap/pdf/relationship-technology.pdf.

Jap, S.D. (2001) The Impact of Online, Reverse Auctions onBuyer-Supplier Relationships, http://e-commerce.mit.edu/papers/ERF/ERF133.pdf.

Kambil, A. and Van Heck, E. (2002) Making Markets: HowFirms Can Design and Profit from Online Auctions andExchanges. Harvard Business School Press.

Kim, P. and Sawhney, H. (2002) A machine-like newmedium: Theoretical examination of interactive TV.Media, Culture and Society 24(2), 217–233.

Klein, S. and O’Keefe, R.M. (1999) The impact of the Webon auctions: Some empirical evidence and theoreticalconsiderations. International Journal of Electronic Com-merce 3(3), 7–20.

Klein, S., Randolph, M. and Selz, D. (2002) Web Impact onMarket Structures: Three Industry Examples, Telem-atica Instituut Publication, https://doc.telin.nl/dscgi/ds.py/Get/File-24134/Business_models.pdf.

Klemperer, P. (1999) Auction theory: A guide to theliterature. Journal of Economic Surveys 13(3), 227–286.

Lee, H.G. (1996) Electronic brokerage and electronic auc-tion: the impact of IT on market structure. InProceedings 29th HICSS, Vol. IV. Information Systems- Organisational Systems and Technology, eds. J. Nuna-maker, and R. Sprague, pp. 397–406. IEEE ComputerSociety Press, Los Alamitos, CA.

Lucking-Reiley, D. (2000) Auctions on the Internet: What’sbeing auctioned, and how? Journal of Industrial Eco-nomics 48(3), 227–252.

Malone, T.W., Yates, J. and Benjamin, R.I. (1987) Elec-tronic markets and electronic hierarchies: Effects ofinformation technology on market structure andcorporate strategies. Communications of the ACM30(6), 484–497.

391

http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol8/issue1/ha.html

http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol8/issue1/ha.html

http://www.bus.emory.edu/sdjap/pdf/relationship-technology.pdf

http://www.bus.emory.edu/sdjap/pdf/relationship-technology.pdf

http://e-commerce.mit.edu/papers/ERF/ERF133.pdf

http://e-commerce.mit.edu/papers/ERF/ERF133.pdf

http://https://doc.telin.nl/dscgi/ds.py/Get/File-24134/Business_models.pdf

http://https://doc.telin.nl/dscgi/ds.py/Get/File-24134/Business_models.pdf


McAfee, R.P. and McMillan, J. (1987) Auctions andbidding. Journal of Economic Literature 25(2), 699–738.

McMillan, S.J. (2002) A four-part model of cyber-interac-tivity: Some cyber-places are more interactive thanothers. New Media & Society 4(2), 271–291.

Paarlberg, J.A. (2001) Web Auctions in Europe: An Anal-ysis of 194 Consumer Web Auctions in Eight Euro-pean Countries. Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Rafaeli, S. and Noy, A. (2002) Online auctions, messaging,communication and social facilitation: A simulationand experimental evidence. European Journal of Infor-mation Systems 11(3), 196–207.

De Ruiter, S.C. (2003) The impact of multi-access technol-ogies on electronic auctions: An empirical analysis offive consumer electronic auctions in The Netherlands.Erasmus University Rotterdam (Thesis).

Schmid, B.F. and Lindemann, M.A. (1998) Elements of aReference Model for Electronic Markets. In: Proceed-ings of the 31st Hawaii International Conference on SystemSciences.

STEPHAN DE RUITER,Erasmus University,Rotterdam School of Man-agement, Department ofDecision and InformationSciences, P.O. Box 1738,3000 DR Rotterdam, TheNetherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

Stephan de Ruiter gradu-ated in 2003 in InformationManagement at Erasmus

University Rotterdam. He worked for several years as aproject and product manager at a medium-sized e-busi-ness developing company and founded his own tradingcompany. He now works at ING Group NV in opera-tions and IT.

392 Eur

Schultz, T. (2000) Mass media and the concept ofinteractivity: An exploratory study of online forumsand reader email. Media, Culture and Society 22(2), 205–221.

Strobel, M. (2000) Effects of Electronic Markets on Nego-tiation Processes. In: Proceedings of the 8th EuropeanConference on Information Systems, Vol. 1, pp. 445–452.

Timmers, P. (1998) Business models for electronic markets.Electronic Markets 8(2), 3–8.

Vesa, J. and van Heck, E. (2003) The impact of multi-accesstechnologies in five online auction markets in Finland.In ICT and Services: Combining Views from IS and ServiceResearch, TOCS General Publication 25, eds P. Walden,et al., pp. 155–173. Turku Centre for ComputerScience, June.

Wang, F., Head, M. and Archer, N. (2002) E-tailing: Ananalysis of web impacts on the retail market. Journal ofBusiness Strategies 19(1), 73–93.

Williamson, O.E. (1975) Markets and Hierarchies: Analysisand Antitrust Implications. Free Press, New York.

ERIC VAN HECK,Erasmus University, Rot-terdam School of Manage-ment, Department ofDecision and InformationSciences, P.O. Box 1738,3000 DR Rotterdam, TheNetherlands. E-mail:[email protected]

Eric van Heck is Professorof Electronic Markets atErasmus University’s

Rotterdam School of Management. His research con-centrates on electronic markets and IT-enabled businessnetworks.


The Impact of Multi-access Technologies on Consumer Electronic Auctions

Business

Transcript of The Impact of Multi-access Technologies on Consumer Electronic Auctions