Research paper

Understanding e-auction use by procurement

professionals: motivation, attitudes and
perceptions
Rana Tassabehji
University of Bradford School of Management, Bradford, UK

Abstract
Purpose – E-auctions have had a big impact on procurement over the past decade. Despite the benefits, there has been well documented resistance to
this procurement medium. There is a need to understand factors which influence motivation to use and attitude towards e-auctions, in order to facilitate
practitioners’ ability to develop and adapt e-auctions into an effective procurement tool. This paper seeks to address this issue.
Design/methodology/approach – A model of the inter-relationships between e-auction drivers is derived from an analysis of the literature. Data
from a sample of senior procurement professionals across several industry sectors were collected by online questionnaire and a structural equation
model was fitted using PLS.
Findings – The study reveals that e-auction use for procurement is motivated by building relationships with suppliers and not solely as a means of
optimising prices of goods and services. Where attitude towards e-auction use is negative, this is mainly driven by a strategic approach to procurement.
Originality/value – Nowhere in the extant literature has there been a study on the impact of how the organisational role of procurement by the
organisation impacts e-auctions use and attitudes. Furthermore, by distinguishing between motivations for using e-auctions and attitudes towards
them, procurement professionals are found to have a negative attitude to e-auctions, but at the same time their motivations for using them are
significantly linked to building relationships with their suppliers. This suggests that the potential of e-auctions as a powerful procurement tool is being
realised, but as yet has not been fully developed and implemented. The implications are that procurement managers should focus on developing the use
of e-auctions in a more strategic way to maximise both their effectiveness and the investment in them for the longer term.

Keywords Auctions, Procurement, Prices, Supplier relations

Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Much has been written about reverse electronic auctions
(e-auctions), and although reverse auctions are themselves not
a new concept, they have increased in prominence for
business-to-business users as a direct result of being made
more accessible, easy to use, easy to implement, and cost
effective by internet technology (Hannon, 2003). However,
the study of e-auctions is still in the early stages and there
remains a dearth of substantial empirical research and much
more to uncover. The introduction of e-auctions has presented
organisations with a need to review their purchasing processes
and relationships with their buyers/suppliers. Technology is
fast moving and as a consequence, there is a lag in terms of
organisations learning to implement and assimilate any new
technology into organisational processes and culture
(Tassabehji, 2003). Interestingly, recent research has found
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-8546.htm
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
15/6 (2010) 425– 437
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1359-8546]
[DOI 10.1108/13598541011080419]
that there is no real distinction between early and late adopters
of e-auctions in terms of benefits achieved (Schoenherr,
2008), and that past success influences favourable opinions of
them (Caniëls and van Raaij, 2009).
However, there is opposition as well as support for e-auctions
by business users. In direct response to the divergent attitudes
to e-auctions, an emerging stream of operations research
explores in more detail the computational issues and evolving
e-auctions forms (Rothkopf and Whinston, 2007). For
example, bidding practices in the field of e-sourcing
(Elmaghraby, 2007); advanced auction formats, such as
combinatorial auctions, and their application in
transportation (Caplice, 2007), machine scheduling
(Heydenreich et al., 2007), and pay-per-click advertising
(Feng et al., 2007); the effect of auction design parameters on
buyer surplus (Mithas and Jones, 2007); the impact of
collusion on sealed bid auctions (Sosic, 2007); and
transaction costs (bidder’s time) in completing the auction
(Kwasnica and Katok, 2007). This stream of research is
underpinned by a fundamental belief that the e-procurement
technology in general and e-auctions in particular, are here to
stay for the long term.
Despite this, tensions seem to remain between buyers who
are perceived to be enjoying the benefits of reduced costs and
increased competition, and suppliers where there is
resentment at the perceived destruction of long-term co-

425
 Understanding e-auction use by procurement professionals
Rana Tassabehji
operative relationships and a feeling of being coerced to
participate in e-auctions (Tassabehji et al., 2006; Giampietro
and Emiliani, 2007). These tensions however are not new and
have been previously recognised in business-to-business
buyer-supplier relationships as being inevitable and a result
of differences in expectation or performance related to
pricing, which seems to have been heightened with the use of
e-auctions (Emiliani, 2003). Despite the acknowledged
importance of reverse e-auctions, few studies have examined
the determinants of their usage (Mithas et al., 2008). The
major objective of this paper is to address this gap.
The next section of this paper presents the major issues
impacting e-auction usage, distilled from a detailed review of
the literature specifically related to it. In addition to the type
of goods and services, motivation and attitude, all of which
are present in the e-auction literature, we introduce an
additional factor, the role of purchasing within the
organisation. This has been shown, in other contexts, to
impact the development and ability of procurement
professionals to do their jobs effectively (Tassabehji and
Moorhouse, 2008). A model based on these factors is
introduced and the related hypotheses are developed. This is
followed by a presentation of the methodology and data
analysis using PLS where the data collected from experienced
procurement practitioners are then fitted to a model, to
validate the hypotheses. The last section concludes with a
discussion of the results and their implications and a reflection
on the study’s limitations and suggestions for future research.
Reverse e-auctions: the major issues
This section highlights and consolidates the major themes
emerging from the literature review on the implementation
and use of e-auctions in a business-to-business context. Some
of these views, from both practitioners and academics, are
variously in support of and against the implementation and
use of e-auctions. Mithas et al. (2008) see reverse e-auctions
as an “intriguing practice” where on the one hand they are
acknowledged to help gain efficiencies; while on the other
hand, they may endanger relationships between buyers and
suppliers and appear inconsistent with the trend of developing
strong relationships with fewer suppliers. These divergent
views have been attributed to the relative newness of
e-auctions and limited experience of their use, as well as
conflicting reports which prevail in the literature (Schoenherr
and Mabert, 2007). In a more recent study, Caniëls and van
Raaij (2009) found that the strongest predictor of a supplier’s
opinion of e-auctions is the supplier’s country of origin. Those
from developing countries had a more positive attitude to
e-auctions than those from developed countries, mainly
because the former were specialised in price competition and
the latter were aiming to compete on quality and innovation
capabilities. Country of origin notwithstanding, the same
study found price competition a fundamental motivation for
e-auction use (Caniëls and van Raaij, 2009). The major issues
that impact the use of e-auctions from the literature are
extracted and broadly categorised into four major factors,
summarised as:
1 Motivation for e-auction use by purchasing professionals.
Whether they are driven to use e-auctions in order to
achieve price optimisation and the lowest price (i.e. price-
driven) or whether e-auctions are used as an integral part
of the purchasing process which includes selecting the
426
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2010 · 425 –437
most appropriate supplier regardless of price and building
relationships with them (i.e. relationship-driven).
2 Types of goods and services. The importance of e-auctions
for purchasing strategic or commodity type goods and
services. The former are high value, customised and
complex, requiring detailed specifications, the latter are
low value impact, non-critical and commodity-like.
3 Role of procurement in organisations (strategic/
administrative), has been shown to impact the
effectiveness of purchasing professionals. We introduce
this factor to evaluate its impact on the motivation to use
and attitude towards e-auctions.
4 Attitudes to e-auctions are categorised as either negative
(anti-e-auctions) or positive (pro-e-auctions). The belief
that face-to-face negotiations are the most important
means of conducting procurement activities and that
e-auctions, cannot be used for building collaborative long
term relationships constitute an anti-e-auction attitude.
The belief that e-auctions yield greater benefits, increase
supplier value and are not damaging to relationships
constitute a pro-e-auction attitude.
These four factors will form the main constructs in this study.
The justification of these constructs and the inter-
relationships within and between them are developed further
from the literature in the following sections.
Motivation for e-auction use: price-driven
Economic theory has suggested that e-auctions have the
potential to improve value for money, allocate resources more
efficiently and provide transparency in terms of how contracts
are awarded (Soudry, 2004). Empirical studies and reports
from industry users have confirmed that some organisations
have achieved savings of between 10-40 per cent either
directly through product price reduction or transaction costs
(CIPS Update, 2003; Hartley et al., 2004; Tassabehji et al.,
2006). In a study of e-auction use by local government, 40 per
cent of savings were achieved as a result of better (lower)
prices, with 60 per cent of the savings realised by freeing staff
for more productive roles (Vowler, 2004).
Some argue that although gross savings might appear
beneficial, net savings are substantially less and that the
benefits of reverse e-auctions have been greatly overstated by
market makers and buyers (Emiliani and Stec, 2002a, 2004,
2005a). Nevertheless, the consensus of opinion from the
literature is that one of the major motivations for using
e-auctions is to optimise prices. More recently, Caniëls and
van Raaij (2009) found that when procurement professionals
were specialised in price competition, they tended to have a
more positive attitude to e-auctions. We therefore hypothesise
that:
H3a. Price driven e-auction use has a positive relationship
with pro-e-auction attitudes.
Motivation for e-auction use: relationship-driven
Despite the benefits, there is much criticism of the reverse
e-auction process, especially from the suppliers’ perspecitve.
Emiliani and Stec have published widely and report the
negative impact of e-auctions such as margin erosion, loss of
sales volume, lack of consideration for other factors such as
quality, service, and total costs (Emiliani, 2000, 2003, 2004;
Emiliani and Stec, 2001, 2002a, b, 2004, 2005a, b).
Underpinning these concerns is the pressure suppliers are
 Understanding e-auction use by procurement professionals
Rana Tassabehji
being put under and the consequent damage being done to
relationships with buyers. E-auctions have been found to be
divisive (Emiliani and Stec, 2004, 2005; Tassabehji et al.,
2006), where distrust is created as a result of e-auctions being
perceived as being unfair and an abuse of buyers’ power:
Use of online auctions has led to suppliers realising there is a misalignment
of interests. This destroys relationships where suppliers view customers as
adversaries (Emiliani, 2003, p. 112).
Where e-auctions are seen as a destructive “power based
bargaining tool”, measures such as voluntary codes of
conduct do not seem to have had an impact on buyer
regulation; increasing trust; or expanding the use of
e-auctions (Emiliani, 2006) and suppliers remain largely
opposed to their use. This is compounded when suppliers
suspect unscrupulous buyer practice to manipulate the prices
further downwards during the auction through: “phantom
bidding” (Kwak, 2002); the introduction of unqualified
suppliers (Kisiel, 2002; Hannon, 2003); or even supplier
collusion (Hannon, 2003). Although such supplier
perceptions of buyer behaviour are unsubstantiated they
seem to persist and even increase after participation in
e-auctions (Jap, 2003; Tassabehji et al., 2006). This negative
attitude towards e-auctions often results in a reluctance on the
part of suppliers to share cost savings and innovations with
buyers and a reduced willingness to help the buyer in any
potential future crises (Emiliani et al., 2004; Presutti, 2003;
Tassabehji et al., 2006) and a fear of being driven out of
business because of prices being too low (Hannon, 2003;
Tassabehji et al., 2006).
However, viewing e-marketplaces and e-auctions as purely
economic entities is an over-simplification of their purpose
(Standing et al., 2006). Schoenherr and Mabert (2007) found
that as e-auctions have become more widespread, they are no
longer seen as detrimental to buyer-supplier relationships. In
some instances, they are even seen to build relationships with
suppliers, as buyers work closely with their suppliers to ensure
they can use the e-auctions effectively. In their study,
Standing et al. (2007) found that e-auctions have been used
to help suppliers become more competitive by exposing their
process inefficiencies and then, with the support of the
buyers, enabling them to access global markets through the
wider participation in, and use of, e-auctions in a way that is
sustainable and beneficial to both parties in the longer term.
Other practitioners are reportedly using e-auctions to develop
closer collaborative relationships and a dynamic approach to
business and securing orders (Graham et al., 2001; Hirsch,
2005). Although the strategic intent of market making buyers
is primarily economic, secondary motives, including
relationship and community building, have been found to
be complementary to this (Standing et al., 2006). As
the majority of the literature highlighting the problems with
e-auctions emanates from the perspective of suppliers, in this
study, negative attitudes to e-auctions from a buyer
perspective are focussed largely on a preference for face-to-
face negotiations with suppliers and a belief that e-auctions do
destroy relationships with suppliers. We expect that rather
than being mutually exclusive, there is a synergy between
price and relationship driven e-auction use, where as well as
being used to optimise prices, e-auctions can also be used
to build relationships with suppliers. In this instance, where
e-auction usage incorporates relationship building with
427
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2010 · 425 –437
suppliers, we expect buyers to have pro-e-auction attitudes.
We therefore hypothesise that:
H3b. Relationship driven e-auction use has a positive
relationship with price driven use of e-auctions.
H3c. Relationship driven e-auction use has a positive
relationship with pro-e-auction attitudes
Impact of types of goods and services on e-auction use
The discussion of type of goods and services in the e-auction
literature, has tended to focus on the two extremes of Kraljic’s
classification matrix of strategic and non-critical (commodity)
items. In this case we have also identified strategic items and
non-critical items as the two extremes of Kraljic’s purchasing
portfolio classification of goods and services. Much of the
reverse e-auction literature highlights the appropriateness of
e-auctions as a tool for purchasing commodity goods in
particular (Tassabehji et al., 2006). However, Schoenherr and
Mabert (2007) provide prescriptive evidence and direction for
supply managers to combat what they describe this common
“myth”. Purchasing practitioners have also demonstrated
that rather than being limited to commodity type goods,
e-auctions can also be used for complex services (Hatton and
Young, 2004). For instance, Hewlett Packard (HP) have used
reverse auctions as a negotiation tool where HP run some 20-
30 auctions in a day for non-tangible services (Prema, 2006).
Delta Airlines also have leveraged e-auctions for both direct
and indirect spend. In both cases the buyers prepare their
specifications carefully for the more complex items inviting
suppliers to presentations where the specifications and quality
of work required is made clear and suppliers are assessed
accordingly (Prema, 2006). Thus, e-auctions are not always
about the lowest price, and although mostly used for
commodity products and services, with support, e-auctions
could also be used for purchasing more complex and strategic
commodities (Schoenherr and Mabert, 2007). In a study by
Standing et al. (2006), they found that different types and
structures of e-marketplaces required different strategies,
technical features and are perceived differently by perspective
stakeholders. This means that e-auction adoption and use can
be motivated by relational, service and community strategies
in addition to economic benefits.
Having presented examples of the development and use of
e-auctions for purchasing more strategic goods and services,
one of the main drivers remains price optimisation. We
therefore expect a positive relationship between the type of
goods and services being purchased (whether strategic or
commodity) and the use of e-auctions to reduce the price of
these goods and services:
H1a. Strategic goods and services have a positive
relationship with price-driven e-auctions use.
H1b. Commodity goods and services have a positive
relationship with price-driven e-auction use.
There is also emerging evidence that there is some
development in the use of e-auctions for maintaining and
building relationships with suppliers, but this seems to be
mainly for commodity goods and services (Schoenherr
and Mabert, 2007). Based on the literature and knowledge
of e-auctions, we intuitively believe that e-auctions and user
capabilities are not yet sufficiently developed to be able to
procure strategic goods and services in a way that can build
 Understanding e-auction use by procurement professionals
Rana Tassabehji
and develop relationships with supply chain partners. Here,
we will test this premise and therefore hypothesise that:
H1c. Commodity type goods and services have a positive
relationship with relationship-driven e-auction use.
Past success with e-auctions has been shown to impact
favourable opinions of them by procurement professionals
(Caniëls and van Raaij, 2009). Furthermore, for non-critical
items, the recommended purchasing strategy for this
particular quadrant of Kraljic’s portfolio is to ensure
efficient process (Caniëls and Gelderman, 2005). Since the
introduction of e-auctions improves the efficiency of the
purchasing process, already mentioned above, we expect that
purchasing non-critical items or commodity goods in this way
will impact positive buyer attitudes towards e-auctions:
H2a. Purchasing commodity goods and services has a
positive relationship with pro-e-auction attitudes.
Because the use of e-auctions for purchasing highly complex
and difficult to specify strategic items requires meticulous
preparation, training, dedication and attention to research
(Schoenherr and Mabert, 2007, 2008), at this stage, the
transaction costs still outweigh the benefits. We therefore
expect that there will be a negative attitude towards e-auctions
use for purchasing strategic items:
H2b. Purchasing strategic goods and services has a positive
relationship with anti-e-auction attitudes.
The role of procurement
The perception of the role of procurement in an organisation
has been shown to impact the development of procurement
professionals. The schism between whether the role of
procurement in an organisation is perceived to be
administrative/transactional or strategic, was found to be a
major factor in the effectiveness and proficiency of
professionals to do their jobs (Tassabehji and Moorhouse,
2008). Where the procurement role is considered to be
administrative, procurement professionals are seen mainly
operating as a non-value adding support function with no
input or involvement in the decision-making stages (Carter
et al., 2004; Cox et al., 2005). In this instance, we would
expect that when the role of procurement is perceived to be
administrative, there would be no impact on either positive or
negative attitudes to e-auctions, as the professionals would
only be involved when the e-auction had been finalised.
We therefore do not expect any relationships between
the administrative role of procurement and the attitudes to
e-auctions or motivations for its use.
The perception of the procurement role as strategic, means
that it is a core function with major strategic importance
(Humphreys, 2001; Paulraj et al., 2006) involving
management of strategic partnerships, alliances and supply
networks (Lamming et al., 2000; Handfield and Nichols,
2002; Knudsen, 2003). As such, procurement professionals
must develop a whole range of skills and capabilities,
including effective e-procurement process management, to
be able to add value as strategic purchasers (Tassabehji and
Moorhouse, 2008). When e-auctions are price-driven,
strategic procurement professionals perceive e-auctions to be
deskilling the purchasing process, as they are excluded from
the final decision which could potentially prove very
damaging (Hatton and Young, 2004). This ultimately leads
428
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2010 · 425 –437
to a “degradation of current capabilities and discouraging
developing new competencies” (Emiliani and Stec, 2002a,
p. 21). This is in direct opposition to the strategic role of
the procurement professional. However, the adoption of
e-auctions is considered a highly strategic venture (Standing
et al., 2007). We therefore expect that when the role of
procurement is perceived by the organisation to be a core
strategic function, purchasing professionals will tend to have a
negative attitude towards e-auctions. We therefore
hypothesise that:
H4a. When the role of procurement is perceived to be
strategic it has a positive relationship with pro-
e-auction attitudes.
H4b. When the role of procurement is perceived to be
strategic, it has no relationship with anti-e-auction
attitudes.
H4c. When the role of procurement is perceived to be
administrative it has no relationship with pro-e-auction
attitudes.
In a Delphi study of future supply chain management
strategies, sophisticated e-procurement systems, including
e-auctions, were predicted to be a critical part of future
developments. The use of this technology is expected not only
to eliminate transactions and reduce transaction costs, but
also to facilitate information sharing and promote
collaboration and integration between supply chain partners
(Croom, 2005; Ogden et al., 2005).
Thus price, is not the sole criterion for supplier selection by
strategic procurement professionals. Other trade-offs include
strategic, operational, tangible and intangible factors (Cebi
and Bayraktar, 2003; Kannan and Tan, 2003) such as
relationships between supplier selection and assessment,
which have a greater impact on a buying firm’s performance
(Kannan and Tan, 2003). In particular the ability to assess the
capability of suppliers has an impact on product quality and
competitive positioning. It is this assessment that must be
made by strategic purchasing professionals (Tassabehji and
Moorhouse, 2008). According to Kraljic (1983) the type of
goods and services being purchased requires a distinctive
purchasing approach. Caniëls and Gelderman (2005) have
modified the Kraljic matrix and formulated strategic
recommendations with an overall purchasing strategy for
each portfolio quadrant. In the case of non-critical items the
strategy is to ensure efficient processing and for strategic
items, it is to form partnerships with suppliers.
We posit that when the role of purchasing is perceived to be
strategic, then purchasing professionals use e-auctions to
develop and maintain relationships with suppliers and not
purely for price optimisation. Thus:
H5a. When the role of procurement is perceived to be
strategic it has no relationship with price driven
e-auction use.
H5b. When the role of procurement is perceived to be
strategic it has a positive relationship with relationship
driven e-auction use.
H5c. When the role of procurement is perceived to be
administrative it has no relationship with price-driven
e-auction use.
From these distinct points-of-view, we have developed
constructs for types of goods and services, motivation for
 Understanding e-auction use by procurement professionals
Rana Tassabehji
e-auction use, organisational role of procurement and attitude
to e-auctions and have modelled the relationships accordingly.
The model
The conceptual model developed is presented in Figure 1.
This illustrates the fundamental aims of this paper that are to
investigate the impact of the type of goods and services (H1-
H2), motivations for e-auction use (price driven or
relationship driven) (H3) and the perceived organisational
role of procurement (strategic or administrative) (H4-H5) on
attitudes to e-auctions (anti or pro).
Methodology
An online questionnaire based on the emergent issues collated
from the literature review above was developed and piloted
with two senior academics and a leading procurement
practitioner. The final version incorporated proposed
changes and is presented in the appendix. The survey
instrument contained questions measured by a five-point
Likert scale with the anchors “strongly disagree” (1) and
“strongly agree” (5) with a neutral point (3) to reduce non-
responses and artificially force extreme answers. Two leading
business oriented global networking sites, for professional
networking, were used to contact procurement professionals
who were at senior management or director level and thus had
the knowledge and expertise to answer the questions posed.
The overall population contained 324 procurement
professionals that fitted this profile and each practitioner
was sent a personalised email with a request for their
contribution to this study and an offer of a summary once it
had been completed. Moreover, the respondents were
promised anonymity and non-attribution of responses.
The pre-qualification process based upon experience in
purchasing at a senior management level and organisational
strategic decision making, ensured the individuals
Figure 1 Conceptual model for drivers of attitudes to e-auctions
429
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2010 · 425 –437
participating had the appropriate knowledge and
information to provide useful ideas and insights and is
invaluable in ensuring a “good” final questionnaire (Remenyi
et al., 1998). It was felt that these potential respondents were
appropriate because such networks have been found to attract
individuals with a high provision of collective knowledge in an
area of interest to them (Contractor and Monge, 2002) – in
this case procurement. Although the respondents in the study
might not be representative of the wider procurement
professional and that non-random factors associated with
the sample’s composition could introduce factors inconsistent
with easy generalisability, this method facilitated the
attainment of a sample of sufficient size and diversity for
the study’s purposes (Geringer et al., 2002), which was to
understand attitudes towards reverse e-auctions. This data
collection strategy led to 109 usable responses and a response
rate of 34 per cent but caution has been taken when
interpreting these results. Two of the respondents were from
the public sector, and were subsequently discarded for the
sake of sample validity and consistency. Not only was this
response from the public sector disproportionately small, but
also because Murray (2001, 2009) identified a fundamental
difference in purchasing objectives and strategies pursued by
the public and private sector, where the latter are considered
to be “inappropriate and inadequate for local government
purchasing” (Murray, 2001, p. 99). Thus the focus of this
particular study is on procurement in the private sector. The
profile of our respondents was procurement professionals at
the senior management/director level who had an insight
into the strategic decision-making for purchasing including
e-auction adoption and would thus be well placed to make a
relatively well-informed assessment of the organisation’s
purchasing approach – whether strategic or administrative.
The respondents were qualified to answer questions about
decision-making leading to the adoption of e-auctions which
would include motivation, attitude and organisational
strategy. Although the sample used in this study was limited
 Understanding e-auction use by procurement professionals Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Rana Tassabehji Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2010 · 425 –437

to procurement professionals, it provides useful information Table II Composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) for
to establish important determinants of e-auction use from a latent constructs
buyer perspective, enabling future research to build
comparative models with suppliers and other stakeholders to AVE Composite reliability R2
examine the issues from a number of different perspectives. Organisational role of procurement
However a major limitation is that it is based solely on Administrative 1 1
procurement managers’ responses and may not represent the Strategic 0.6008 0.8169
views of other key decision makers within the organisation
(Murray, 2009). Type of goods and services
The organisational profiles of the respondents are
Commodity 0.5980 0.8520
summarised in Table I. The majority of respondents are
Strategic 0.6108 0.8241
large or very large multi-national organisations which tended
to be in heavy industry sectors, such as mining/oil/chemicals
Motivation for e-auction use
and manufacturing, but also consulting services.
A partial least squares (PLS) structural equation model was Price driven 0.7488 0.8562 0.387
fitted to the data to test the hypotheses represented in the Relationship driven 0.6575 0.8519 0.272
model (Figure 1) using SmartPLS2.03M (Ringle et al., 2005).
PLS was used because it is robust to non-Normality data, and Attitude to e-auctions
is especially suitable for small sample sizes, as in this case, and Anti-e-auction attitudes 0.7395 0.8502 0.164
when the sample size is at least 10 times greater than the Pro-e-auction attitudes 0.7007 0.8216 0.322
number of items impacting the most substantial construct in
the model (Barclay et al., 1995; Chin, 1998; Wilcox, 1998).
The hypotheses were tested using the significance of reliability (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In our case, from
corresponding path coefficients and all the tests for path Table II, composite reliability of constructs range from 0.8169
coefficients were based on t-values calculated using the for to 0.8662. Convergent validity assessedpby examining the
bootstrap facility where a total of 1,000 bootstrap re-samples average variance extracted measures ( AVE) for each
were used. construct was greater than 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Furthermore, the indicator variables loaded onto their
Results and discussion predicted latent constructs more highly than the other
constructs in all cases (Table III). From Table III, we can
The model developed was analysed and interpreted in two see that the indicator loadings ranged from 0.6982 to 0.9369
stages, the assessment of the validity and reliability of the which is considered good through to very good (Hair et al.,
measurement model, and the assessment of the structural 2007).
model (Chin, 1998; Hulland, 1999). Discriminant validity is evidenced by the square root of the
Average Variance Extracted (as in Table IV caption AVE) for
Measurement model each construct being greater than its correlation with any of
Internal item reliability is demonstrated by the composite the other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). For
reliabilities where loadings of indicators on latent constructs adequate discriminant validity, the diagonal figures should
greater than 0.7 are considered sufficient to establish be significantly greater than the off-diagonal figures in the
corresponding rows and columns (Fornell and Larcker, 1981;
Hulland, 1999), as in this case presented in the matrix in
Table I Respondent profiles based on organisational sector and size Table IV. The constructs are therefore validated and shown to
% provide a good fit to these data.

Sector of respondent’s organisation The structural model

Manufacturing 22 The fitted structural equation model is exhibited in Figure 2
Mining/oil/chemicals 20 and the results of the hypotheses tests are presented in Table V.
Professional services/consulting 19 The research hypotheses are tested by assessing the direction,
Information technology/telecommunications 13 strength and level of significance of the path coefficients (b)
Pharmaceuticals and healthcare 11 estimated by PLS, as shown in Figure 2 and Table V.
Other (logistics; broadcasting, travel etc.) 8 As expected, the hypotheses that types of goods and
Retail and leisure 4 services being purchased influence motivation for e-auction
Utilities 2 usage are supported in this study. The purchase of strategic
Banking and financial services 1 and commodity type goods and services influence the use of
e-auctions to drive down prices (H1a and H1b respectively)
Size of respondent’s organisation corporate turnover (£) are supported by the significant path coefficients (b ¼ 0.471
> 1 billion 53 and b ¼ 0:198). However, the use of e-auctions to purchase
> 249-500 million 15 commodity type goods and services were also found to be
> 49 -249 million 11 motivated by the objective of maintaining and building
24-49 million 7 relationships with suppliers (H1c, b ¼ 0:372).
Less than 24 million 14 The types of goods and services being purchased using e-
auctions were also found to influence purchasing

430
 Understanding e-auction use by procurement professionals Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Rana Tassabehji Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2010 · 425 –437

Table III Loadings of indicator variables onto latent constructs

Organisational role of Type of goods and
procurement Attitude to e-auctions services Motivation for e-auction use
Indicator variable Admin Strategic Pro Anti Commodity Strategic Price driven Relationship driven
Admin 1 0.0474 20.0569 0.0696 20.093 0.1763 0.0403 20.0567
Strat 1 0.0364 0.8889 20.1136 0.3519 20.0471 20.1356 0.1584 0.345
Strat 2 0.1786 0.6982 20.1486 0.151 0.0186 20.0214 0.1584 0.2165
Strat 3 2 0.0763 0.7245 20.0138 0.2647 0.033 20.1012 20.0227 0.2659
Pro1 2 0.06 20.1199 0.9369 2 0.2992 0.4683 0.4259 0.4165 0.1029
Pro2 2 0.028 20.062 0.7235 2 0.1086 0.2188 0.203 0.1533 20.0535
Anti1 0.0563 0.3132 20.1027 0.8346 20.1519 20.1333 0.0543 0.043
Anti2 0.063 0.2879 20.3455 0.8846 20.2868 20.2833 20.1307 0.1841
ComG1 2 0.3416 0.1135 0.249 2 0.1932 0.6982 0.0422 0.0491 0.3231
ComG2 2 0.0167 20.0176 0.3087 2 0.162 0.7962 0.4518 0.2032 0.2184
ComG3 0.0732 20.1208 0.3122 2 0.0657 0.7345 0.5639 0.2253 0.1796
ComG4 0.0135 20.0489 0.3959 2 0.2051 0.8138 0.5723 0.2992 0.1645
StratG1 0.0929 0.0552 0.2903 2 0.0553 0.5689 0.7345 0.2147 0.1324
StratG2 0.1881 20.2058 0.3084 2 0.2088 0.253 0.7484 0.3723 0.0653
StratG3 0.1137 20.0631 0.3464 2 0.2535 0.5692 0.856 0.3557 0.0209
Price1 0.0178 0.1969 0.2462 2 0.0744 0.3132 0.2606 0.8387 0.4965
Price2 0.0493 0.0429 0.3977 2 0.0227 0.2284 0.4564 0.8912 0.3405
Rel1 2 0.0948 0.3312 0.0827 0.1172 0.3582 20.053 0.3445 0.811
Rel2 0.0641 0.246 20.0348 0.0726 0.2114 0.0482 0.2931 0.7749
Rel 3 2 0.0748 0.3005 0.0696 0.1358 0.3082 0.1785 0.4873 0.8451

p
Table IV Cross correlation between latent variables and square root of average variance extracted ( AVE)
Organisational role of Motivation for e-auction
procurement Type of goods and services use Attitude to e-auctions
5. Price 6. Relationship 7. Pro- 8. Anti-
1. Admin 2. Strategic 3. Commodity 4. Strategic driven driven e-auction e-auction
1. Admin 1
2. Strategic 0.0474 0.7751
3. Commodity 20.0930 20.0077 0.7733
4. Strategic 0.1763 20.1220 0.5620 0.7815
5. Price driven 0.0403 0.1301 0.3078 0.4236 0.8653
6. Relationship driven 20.0567 0.3649 0.3695 0.0768 0.4743 0.8109
7. Pro-e-auction 20.0569 20.1160 0.4443 0.4057 0.3792 0.0582 0.8371
8. Anti-e-auction 0.0696 0.3476 20.2611 20.2490 20.0533 0.1386 20.2718 0.8599
p
Notes: Cross correlation between latent variables (off diagonal); Square root of average variance extracted ( AVE) are shown in italics

professionals’ attitudes to e-auctions. Here, the hypothesis
that purchasing commodity goods and services by e-auctions
influences positive attitudes to e-auctions (H2a) and
purchasing strategic goods and services influences negative
attitudes to e-auctions (H2b) are also confirmed. This is a
common finding in the literature which is also confirmed in
this study.
Motivations for e-auction use by purchasing professionals
were found to influence attitudes to e-auctions. When e-
auctions are used to reduce price this impacts positive
attitudes to e-auctions (H3a, b ¼ 0:383) and when e-auctions
are used to maintain and build relationships with suppliers
this also impacts positive attitudes to e-auctions (H3c,
b ¼ 0:253). The positive relationship between e-auction use
for building and maintaining relationships with suppliers and
minimising prices (H3b) was found to be significant
( b ¼ 0:482, p , 0.01), demonstrating that purchasing
professionals are not purely motivated by e-auction use as a
blunt instrument for reducing prices, but purchasing
professionals are also motivated to use e-auctions to build
relationships with their suppliers.
When respondents perceived the role of procurement
within their organisations to be strategic, this was found to
influence negative attitudes towards e-auctions (H4a,
b ¼ 0:320) and no influence on positive attitudes (H4b,
b ¼ 0:072; p , 0.001). Although this seems counter intuitive,
it could be that as e-auction use is still in the early stages, the
benefits of price reduction and building relationships with
suppliers can be realised but are not yet considered by senior
management to be a “superior” mode of procurement or a
substitute for traditional means of procurement (face-to-face)
or for long term collaboration with suppliers. As expected,

431
 Understanding e-auction use by procurement professionals Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Rana Tassabehji Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2010 · 425 –437

Figure 2 Final fitted model for attitudes to e-auctions

Table V Standardised path coefficients, bootstrap standard error and bootstrap t-values
b Path Standard Accept/reject
Hypotheses coefficient error t-value hypothesis
H1a. Strategic goods and services - > price driven 0.4710 0.0739 6.3602 * * Accept
H1b. Commodity goods and services - > price driven 0.198 0.0836 1.973 * Accept
H1c. Commodity goods and services - > relationship driven 0.372 0.0625 5.96 * * Accept
H2a. Commodity goods and services - > pro-e-auction attitude 0.416 0.0872 4.8919 * * Accept
H2b. Strategic goods and services - > anti-e-auction attitude 0.211 0.0933 2.2479 Accept
H3a. Price driven - > pro-e-auction attitude 0.383 0.0724 5.3166 Accept
H3b. Relationship driven - > price driven 0.482 0.075 6.4429 Accept
H3c. Relationship driven - > pro-e-auction attitude 0.253 0.089 3.2004 Accept
H4a. Strategic procurement no relationship with anti-e-auction attitude 0.320 0.0531 6.0695 Reject
H4b. Strategic procurement - > pro-e-auction attitude 0.072 0.0508 1.4212 Reject
H4c. Administrative procurement no relationship with pro-e-auction attitude 0.044 0.0458 1.0684 n.s. Accept
H5a. Strategic procurement - > price driven 0.011 0.0356 0.3212 n.s. Reject
H5b. Strategic procurement - > relationship driven 0.367 0.0706 5.2077 Accept
H5c. Administrative procurement no relationship with price driven 0.029 0.0464 0.614 n.s. Accept
Notes: *Significant at p , 0.01; * *Significant at p , 0.001; n.s. ¼ non significant

when the role of procurement within the organisation is
perceived by respondents to be purely administrative, it has
no significant impact on motivation or attitudes towards e-
auction use, as this is purely a role where the purchasing
process is administered exclusive of any decision making.
Interestingly, when the role of procurement is perceived to
be strategic within the organisation, motivations for using e-
auctions to build relationships with suppliers was more
significant (b ¼ 0:367; p , 0.001) than price reduction
(b ¼ 0:011; p , 0.01). Standing et al. (2007) found that the
adoption of e-auctions in a very large multi-national
Australian mining company with a history of innovative
procurement strategies, led to the development of hybrid
buyer-supplier models improving and harnessing relations
with local suppliers and not solely driven by prices. Thus in a
climate of technological advances, globalisation and mass

432
 Understanding e-auction use by procurement professionals
Rana Tassabehji
customisation, there are other criteria for supplier selection
commensurate with a strategic role of procurement. This
tends further to support the explanation that e-auctions have
not yet developed the degree of sophistication required to
enable them to be extensively used for building relationships.
However, the findings suggest that procurement professionals
are more motivated to use e-auctions to build relationships
rather than purely reduce prices.
As shown in Table II, types of goods and services
(commodity and strategic), the strategic role of procurement
and motivation for using e-auctions for building relationships
with suppliers explain a significant amount of variance in the
price driven motivation for using e-auctions (R2 ¼ 38:7 per
cent). The motivation for using e-auctions to build
relationships with suppliers is explained mainly by the
commodity type goods and services and the perception of
the procurement role as being a strategic (R2 ¼ 27:2 per
cent). Positive attitudes towards e-auctions are explained by
commodity type goods and services, motivation for e-auction
use (both price and relationship driven) which explains over
30 per cent of variation.
Negative attitudes towards e-auctions are explained by
fewer factors, namely the organisational perception of the
strategic role of procurement and also the strategic type of
goods and services (R2 ¼ 16:4 per cent).
Taken together, these results confirm the view in this study
that e-auctions are developing and emerging from the
perception of being purely a blunt instrument to reduce
prices of commodity goods. E-auctions are increasingly
perceived to be a tool that can be used to build relationship.
Although current attitudes to e-auctions from a strategic
perspective are negative, the fact that procurement
professionals, who see their role as being strategic, are
motivated to use e-auctions to build relationships, gives an
insight into the future potential and use of e-auctions as one
of the many tools in the e-procurement portfolio.
Conclusions, implications and limitations
By conducting an analytical review of the extant literature and
empirical studies, the main issues relating to e-auctions have
been deconstructed and modelled to gain a more in-depth
understanding of the complexities of e-auctions. The major
themes distilled from the literature form the constructs of our
model which are motivations for using e-auctions, attitudes
towards e-auctions, the type of goods and services being
purchased, and the organisational role of procurement, all
from the perspective of procurement professionals. The
model incorporates developed hypotheses to understand the
inter-relationships between the different factors identified.
Nowhere in the extant literature has there been a study on
the impact of how the role of procurement by the organisation
impacts e-auctions use and attitudes. This study found that
when the role of procurement in the organisation was
perceived to be purely administrative, this had no impact
whatsoever on decisions related to e-auctions and supports
the view in the literature that administrative procurement is
non-value adding and is purely a supportive organisational
function. However, when the organisational role of
procurement is perceived to be strategic, this was found to
influence motivation for e-auction use not only to optimise
price but more significantly, to build relationships with
suppliers. Despite this, overall, a strategic procurement role
433
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2010 · 425 –437
was found to influence negative attitudes to e-auctions which
suggests that e-auctions have not yet been assimilated or
accepted by senior procurement managers as making a
positive enough contribution in terms of strategic integration
and collaborative relationships with suppliers. It is the
contention here that this is a short to medium
term situation, which will change in the long term as
e-procurement in general and e-auctions in particular become
more widespread.
Consistent with Kraljic’s (1983) seminal work advocating
different procurement strategies for product portfolios, the
findings from this research show that buyers’ motivation for
using e-auctions differ according to the types of goods and
services being procured. Buyers who used e-auctions
motivated purely by price reduction, procured strategic as
well as commodity goods and services. This study also found
that buyers were motivated to use e-auctions for maintaining
and building relationships with suppliers and not exclusively
for reducing price. This was particularly prevalent when
purchasing commodity goods and services. These findings
are summarised in the matrix (Figure 3) which illustrates
e-auctions use for procuring goods and services, when the role
of procurement within the organisation is perceived by
procurement professionals to be strategic. Each of the axes
indicates the motivation of procurement managers for
purchasing the types of goods and services based on the
degree of importance of price reduction and developing
relationships with suppliers, respectively.
Overall, commodity type goods and services, price
reduction and use of e-auctions for building relationships
with suppliers all directly influence positive buyer attitudes to
e-auctions. Strategic goods and services to be procured and
organisational perception of procurement as strategic,
influence negative buyer attitudes to e-auctions.
One of the major implications for managers emerging from
this study is that those organisations perceiving procurement
as a purely administrative function, might not be capitalising
on the benefits of new procurement technologies with the
potential to improve efficiency, save costs and build
relationships with supply chain partners. What has emerged
from this study is that although there are still some
doubts about the use of e-auctions from a strategic
perspective, e-auctions are being used to procure a broader
and more complex range of goods and services, not purely
Figure 3 Use of e-auctions when the organisational role of procurement
is perceived to be strategic
 Understanding e-auction use by procurement professionals
Rana Tassabehji
commodities, a finding consistent with more recent studies. In
order to make the implications of this study more accessible to
practitioners, the findings about e-auction use already
summarised in Figure 3, have been applied to Krajlic’s
portfolio approach (Figure 4) which is arguably the best
established prescriptive tool in the field of purchasing and
supply management (Gelderman and Van Weele, 2003). In
their investigation of how procurement professionals apply the
portfolio approach, Gelderman and Van Weele (2003) modify
Krajlic’s matrix to reflect practitioners’ dynamic use of it.
Rather than presenting a simple standardised blue print for a
strategy, they identify movement within the matrix with
reflects the complexities, critical thinking and sophistication
of purchasing strategies and management. As purchasers
make a distinction between several possible purchasing
strategies with each of the matrix quadrants, so the decision
to use e-auctions can also be applied to achieve different
purchasing strategies. In Figure 4, when the role of
procurement is perceived to be strategic within the
organisation, then e-auctions can be used to either improve
purchasing process efficiency, or pool requirements to ensure
that supplier relationships are maintained and prices are
optimised, when the items being purchased are in the
broad category of non-critical/commodity items. For the
purchasing of strategic items, e-auctions are not deemed
appropriate. Although a specific distinction was not made
between leverage items, the findings have demonstrated that
e-auctions can be used to develop partnerships with suppliers
and exploit purchasing power to reduce price thus we expect
that there is potential for e-auctions to be used to purchase
leverage items. In the case of strategic and bottleneck items
where the purchasing strategy indicates a movement to the left
side of the matrix and finding alternative suppliers and solutions,
then e-auctions might be used to achieve these objectives. Future
research could investigate the effectiveness of e-auctions for
purchasing these other types of goods and services.
Overall, the implications for practitioners are that there is
much potential to experiment further with the development
and adaptation of e-auctions into the procurement process in
a more constructive way motivated by relationship building
with suppliers and not solely to reduce prices. By applying
Gartner’s Hype Cycle (Fenn et al., 2009), e-auctions seem to
be emerging from the “Slough of Disillusionment” into the
Figure 4 Applying e-auction use to the Krajlic purchasing portfolio
matrix
434
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2010 · 425 –437
next phase of experimentation to understand the benefits and
practical application of the technology, in a way that will be
beneficial to the organisation and compatible with its
objectives. Senior procurement professionals must ensure
that new technology is evaluated, developed and adapted to
maximise its potential benefits.
The most obvious limitation of this study is the nature and
size of the sample. Although it is the intention of this study to
seek the views of enthusiastic and e-literate senior
procurement professionals, these findings are only
generalisable to this context. Another major limitation is
that the study is based solely on procurement managers
responses and may not represent the views of other key
decision makers within the organisation which might be
different (Murray, 2009). It is also limited to procurement
managers in the private sector and Murray (2001, 2009) has
already identified a difference between procurement strategies
and objectives in the public and private sector.
Here, buyer power was not included in the model as it is
implicit and explicit in the literature that the use of e-auctions
tend to be imposed by buyers who have power and
leverage over their suppliers encapsulated in the description
of e-auctions as a “power-based bargaining tool” (Emiliani,
2005; Tassabehji et al., 2006). The focus was to understand
and examine what the determinants for using e-auctions were
from the perspective of the buyers themselves, where buyer
power is implicit. However, Cox (1999) identifies a gap in the
supply chain literature where discussion of buyer-supplier
power and the different configurations and structures within
and between supply and value chains are limited. This is
considered critical in order that buyers can manage business
relationships appropriately in different circumstances of
transactional exchange (Cox, 2004). Future research could
use the power and relationship linkages identified by Cox
(2004) which range from buyer/supplier dominant arms
length relationships to supplier/buyer dominant collaborative
relationships in order to understand both suppliers and buyers
attitudes to e-auction usage and how effective a tool it is in
managing relationships between them in different sectors.
This study can be extended to include a wider range of
procurement professionals that might not be involved in
online business networking sites, to evaluate any differences in
attitudes or motivation for e-auction use. For instance,
examining the perceptions and motivations of the wider
organisational decision making unit and not only
procurement managers; exploring multiple perspectives
within public sector organisations including suppliers,
purchasers and politicians. Future research may also explore
in more detail the strategic implications of e-auctions and
evaluate their impact on an organisation’s key strategic
performance indicators as a longitudinal study.
References
Barclay, D., Higgins, C. and Thompson, R. (1995),
“The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal
modeling: personal computer adoption and use as an
illustration”, Technology Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 285-309.
Caniëls, M.C.J. and van Raaij, E.M. (2009), “Do all suppliers
dislike electronic reverse auctions”, Journal of Purchasing
and Supply Management, Vol. 15, pp. 12-23.
Caniëls, M.C.J. and Gelderman, C.J. (2005), “Purchasing
strategies in the Kraljic matrix: a power and dependence
 Understanding e-auction use by procurement professionals
Rana Tassabehji
perspective”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,
Vol. 11 Nos 2/3, pp. 141-55.
Caplice, C. (2007), “Electronic markets for truckload
transportation”, Production and Operations Management,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 423-36.
Carter, C.R., Kaufmann, L., Beall, S., Carter, P.L.,
Hendrick, T.E. and Petersen, K.J. (2004), “Reverse
auctions – grounded theory from the buyer and supplier
perspective”, Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 40,
pp. 229-54.
Cebi, F. and Bayraktar, D. (2003), “An integrated approach
for supplier selection”, Logistics Information Management,
Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 395-400.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “Issues and opinion on structural
equation modeling”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 7-16.
CIPS Update (2003), “E-auctions are only a tool, branch
told”, Supply Management, Vol. 8 No. 7, p. 41.
Contractor, N.S. and Monge, P.R. (2002), “Managing
knowledge networks”, Management Communication
Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 249-58.
Cox, A. (1999), “Power, value and supply chain
management”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 167-75.
Cox, A. (2004), “The art of the possible: relationship
management in power regimes and supply chains”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 5,
pp. 346-56.
Cox, A., Chicksand, D., Ireland, P. and Davies, T. (2005),
“Sourcing indirect spend: a survey of current internal and
external strategies for non-revenue-generating goods and
services”, The Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 41,
pp. 39-57.
Croom, S.R. (2005), “The impact of e-business on supply
chain management: an empirical study of key
developments”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 55-73.
Elmaghraby, W. (2007), “Auctions within e-sourcing events”,
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 409-22.
Emiliani, M.L. (2000), “Business-to-business online
auctions: key issues for purchasing process improvement”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5
No. 4, pp. 176-86.
Emiliani, M.L. (2003), “The inevitability of conflict between
buyers and sellers”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 107-15.
Emiliani, M.L. (2004), “Sourcing in the global aerospace
supply chain using online reverse auctions”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 33, pp. 65-72.
Emiliani, M.L. (2005), “Regulating B2B online reverse
auctions codes of conduct”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 34, pp. 526-34.
Emiliani, M.L. (2006), “Executive decision-making traps and
B2B online reverse auctions”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 6-9.
Emiliani, M.L. and Stec, D.J. (2001), “Online reverse auction
purchasing contracts”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 101-5.
Emiliani, M.L. and Stec, D.J. (2002a), “Realizing savings
from online reverse auctions”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 12-23.
Emiliani, M.L. and Stec, D.J. (2002b), “Squaring online
reverse auctions with the round table principles for
435
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2010 · 425 –437
business”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 92-100.
Emiliani, M.L. and Stec, D.J. (2004), “Aerospace parts
suppliers’ reaction to online reverse auctions”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 139-53.
Emiliani, M.L. and Stec, D.J. (2005a), “Wood pallet
suppliers’ reaction to online reverse auctions”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 278-87.
Emiliani, M.L. and Stec, D.J. (2005b), “Commentary on
reverse auctions for relationship marketers by Daly and
Nath”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 167-71.
Emiliani, M.L., Stec, D.J. and Grasso, L.P. (2004),
“Improving purchasing performance: an alternative to the
purchase price variance metric”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 150-6.
Feng, J., Shen, Z.M. and Zhan, R.L. (2007), “Ranked items
auctions and online advertisement”, Production and
Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 510-22.
Fenn, J., Raskino, M. and Gammage, B. (2009), “Gartner’s
hype cycle special report for 2009”, available at: www.
gartner.com/resources/169700/169747/gartners_hype_
cycle_special_169747.pdf (accessed August, 2009).
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 18, pp. 39-50.
Gelderman, C.J. and Van Weele, A.J. (2003), “Handling
measurement issues and strategic directions in Kraljic’s
purchasing portfolio model”, Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, Vol. 9 Nos 5/6, pp. 207-16.
Geringer, J.M., Frayne, C.A. and Milliman, J.F. (2002),
“In search of ‘best practices’ in international human
resource management: research design and methodology”,
Human Resource Management, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 5-30.
Giampietro, C. and Emiliani, M.L. (2007), “Coercion and
reverse auctions”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 75-84.
Graham, G., Hardaker, G. and Sharp, J. (2001),
“International collaboration and bidding through the high
technology defence industry: a technical note”, Logistics
Information Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 250-5.
Hair, J.F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R.E. and
Tatham, R.L. (2007), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.,
Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Handfield, R.B. and Nichols, E.L. Jr (2002), Supply Chain
Redesign: Converting Your Supply Chain into an Integrated
Value System, Financial Times Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Hannon, D. (2003), “CAPS research study defines staying
power of e-auctions”, Purchasing, Vol. 132 No. 12, pp. 48-9.
Hartley, J.L., Lane, M. and Hong, Y. (2004), “An exploration
of the adoption of e-auctions in supply management”, IEEE
Transactions On Engineering Management, Vol. 51 No. 2,
pp. 153-61.
Hatton, J. and Young, B. (2004), “Are e-auctions a good way
to buy services?”, Supply Management, Vol. 9 No. 12,
pp. 20-8.
Heydenreich, B., Muller, R. and Uets, M. (2007), “Games
and mechanism design in machine scheduling –
 Understanding e-auction use by procurement professionals
Rana Tassabehji
an introduction”, Production and Operations Management,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 437-54.
Hirsch, S. (2005), “Reverse auctions sharpen competition”,
International Trade Forum, 3/3005/14-15.
Hulland, J. (1999), “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in
strategic management research: a review of four recent
studies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 195-204.
Humphreys, P. (2001), “Designing a management
development programme for procurement executives”,
The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 20 No. 7,
pp. 604-26.
Jap, S. (2003), “An exploratory study of the introduction of
online reverse auctions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 3,
pp. 96-107.
Kannan, V.R. and Tan, K.C. (2003), “Attitudes of US and
European managers to supplier selection and assessment
and implications for business performance”, Benchmarking,
Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 472-89.
Kisiel, R. (2002), “Supplier group seeks conduct code for
auctions”, Automotive News, Vol. 67, p. 16F.
Knudsen, D. (2003), “Aligning corporate strategy and e-
procurement tools”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 33 No. 8,
pp. 720-34.
Kraljic, P. (1983), “Purchasing must become supply
management”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61 No. 5,
pp. 109-17.
Kwak, M. (2002), “Potential pitfalls of e-auctions”,
MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 43 No. 2, p. 18.
Kwasnica, A.M. and Katok, E. (2007), “The effect of timing
on bid increments in ascending auctions”, Production and
Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 483-94.
Lamming, R., Johnsen, T., Zheng, J. and Harland, C. (2000),
“An initial classification of supply networks”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20
No. 6, pp. 675-91.
Mithas, S. and Jones, J.L. (2007), “Do auction parameters
affect buyer surplus in e-auctions for procurement?”,
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 455-70.
Mithas, S., Jones, J.L. and Mitchell, W. (2008), “Buyer
intention to use internet-enabled reverse auctions: the role
of asset specificiaty, product specialization and non-
contractibility”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 705-24.
Murray, J.G. (2001), “Local government and private sector
purchasing: a comparative study”, European Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 91-100.
Murray, J.G. (2009), “Improving the validity of public
procurement research”, International Journal of Public Sector
Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 91-103.
Ogden, J.A., Petersen, K.J., Carter, J.R. and Monczka, R.M.
(2005), “Supply management strategies for the future:
a Delphi study”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 29-48.
Paulraj, A., Chen, I.J. and Flynn, J. (2006), “Levels of
strategic purchasing: impact on supply integration and
performance”, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management,
Vol. 12, pp. 107-22.
Prema, K. (2006), “SRM and e-auctions: tools in a toolbox”,
Purchasing, Vol. 135 No. 5, pp. 46-7.
436
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2010 · 425 –437
Presutti, W.D. Jr (2003), “Supply management and
e-procurement: creating value added in the supply chain”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 219-26.
Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A. and Swartz, E. (1998),
Doing Research In Business Management: An Introduction to
Process and Method, SAGE Publications, London.
Ringle, C., Wende, M. and Alexander, S.W. (2005),
SmartPLS (2.03) University of Hamburg, available at:
www.smartpls.de
Rothkopf, M.H. and Whinston, A.B. (2007), “On e-auctions
for procurement operations”, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 404-8.
Schoenherr, T. (2008), “Diffusion of online reverse auctions
for B2B procurement: an exploratory study”, International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 28
No. 3, pp. 259-78.
Schoenherr, T. and Mabert, V.A. (2007), “Online reverse
auctions: common myths versus evolving reality”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 373-84.
Schoenherr, T. and Mabert, V. (2008), “The use of bundling
in B2B online reverse auctions”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 81-95.
Sosic, G. (2007), “Collusion in second-price auctions under
minimax regret criterion”, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 471-82.
Soudry, O. (2004), “Promoting economy: electronic reverse
actions under the EC directives on public procurement”,
Journal for Public Procurement, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 340-7.
Standing, C., Stockdale, R. and Love, P.E. (2007), “Hybrid
buyer-supplier relationships in global electronic markets”,
Information and Organization, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 89-109.
Standing, C., Love, P.E.D., Stockdale, R. and
Gengatharen, D. (2006), “Examining the relationship
between electronic marketplace strategy and structure”,
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 53 No. 2,
pp. 297-311.
Tassabehji, R. (2003), Understanding E-commerce for Business,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Tassabehji, R. and Moorhouse, A. (2008), “The changing
role of procurement: developing professional effectiveness”,
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 55-68.
Tassabehji, R., Taylor, A. and Beach, R. (2006), “Reverse
e-auctions and supplier-buyer relationships: an exploratory
study”, International Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 166-84.
Vowler, J. (2004), “Buy smarter”, Computer Weekly, May 11.
Wilcox, R.R. (1998), “The goals and strategies of robust
methods”, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical
Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1-39.
Further reading
Hannon, D. (2004), “Aerospace firm uses ‘start slow, grow
quickly’ approach”, Purchasing, Vol. 133 No. 3, pp. 36-7.
Hur, D., Hartley, J.L. and Mabert, V.A. (2006),
“Implementing reverse e-auctions: a learning process”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 49, pp. 21-9.
Tassabehji, R., Wallace, J. and Tsoularis, A. (2007),
“Realigining reverse e-auctions for organisational agility”,
International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, Vol. 1
No. 4, pp. 346-59.
 Understanding e-auction use by procurement professionals Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Rana Tassabehji Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2010 · 425 –437

Appendix

Table AI Questionnaire

How important are e-auctions for procuring the following goods and services:
Commodity goods and services Facilities management, e.g. building maintenance, security, cleaning contracts etc.)
Group travel
Temporary staffing solutions (Interim contracts)
General IT hardware
Strategic goods and services Core strategic items
Strategic consulting/professional services

Motivation for e-auction use

Price driven Reverse auctions are used mainly to achieve lower prices even with “important partners”
With reverse auctions, the cheapest price is always the deciding factor
Relationship driven We consider that reverse e-auctions are the first stage of negotiations where the seller offers us the maximum
price discount then we discuss the specifications in detail
An integral part of the reverse e-auction process is supplier engagement and assessment pre auction
An integral part of the e-auction process is weighting different supplier competencies pre auction to enable us to
choose the best supplier during the auction and not just the cheapest

Organisational perception of the role of procurement

Administrative role of procurement
Strategic role of procurement
The procurement role in our organisation is perceived as an administrative function that negotiates contracts
and raises purchase orders
The procurement role involves rationalising and forging stronger relationships with suppliers
The procurement role involves cross-cultural communication with suppliers
The procurement role is a strategic role within the organisation

Attitude towards e-auctions

Negative attitudes (anti)
Positive attitudes (pro)
Face to face negotiation is the most important means of conducting procurement activities
Reverse e-auctions are not used within collaborative partnership when building long term relationships
We achieve greater benefits with e-auction technology (e-auctions) than traditional negotiations
We achieve increases in supplier value which does not damage our trading relationship when using reverse e-
auctions

About the author
Rana Tassabehji is a Senior Lecturer at the University of
Bradford School of Management. She worked for several years
as a Consultant in the UK IT sector and as an International
Business Consultant, before returning to university.
She currently specialises in e-Business and IT at the
University of Bradford. Her research interests are in e-supply
chains, e-auctions, internet security and e-government where
she has published her research in international journals and
presented at international conferences. She is also a subject
referee for several international journals. Rana Tassabehji can
be contacted at: r.tassabehji@bradford.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

437
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.