资源描述
Making Sense of Emerging Market Structures in B2B E-Commerce B. MahadevanClassification of B2B Market Structures For the most part, earlier studies on alternative market structures focused on what the market structures are and the benefits that they offer，to，organizations. Our study, on the other hand, shifts the，discussion to when alternative market structures are appropriate. Hence, our choice of factors to classify,the market structures was mainly based on: linking the operational features and key value propositions of B2B sites with the governing economic principles; relating them to issues of dealing with products and markets in B2B domain and corroborating with evidences , from earlier studies.Based on,these considerations we identified fragmentation, asset specificity complexity of product assessment and complexity of value assessment as the factors for classification. Dramatically,increased reach provides new alternatives for addressing fragmented supply chains in B2B markets. Reduction in the transaction costs introduces corresponding changes in asset specificity 21 Furthermore, asset specificity can be a useful attribute to differentiate market structures 22 Deep customization capabilities help organizations mitigate problems arising out of complexities in product description and value assessment. Degree of Fragmentation The degree of fragmentation in a market is defined by the number of players and the geographical spread. The key motivation behind this definition of degree of fragmentation is the degree of control or influence the buyers or the suppliers can exert on the marketplace. Fragmentation may exist either in the buyer side or in the seller side or both. We identify four sub-classifications of fragmentation of market participants . The degree of fragmentation points to a few behavioral patterns in the market.When there is less fragmentation, there When the degree of fragmentation is high on both the,supplier and the buyer side, the market tends to be open and,competitive is an opportunity for control-oriented mechanisms to char the market.However,when the degree of fragmentation is very low, organizations tend to benefit from collaborative practices as opposed to control. Asset Specificity Asset specificity is a function of the costs of setting up a relationship between two market participants in order to manage business transactions in a cost-effective manner. The costs arise because of specific resources,that the two market participants have to deploy a in order to transact business. These investments can be in machine tools dies information systems or investment in people with special skills. Clearly, all these investments are specific to the relationship between the two market participants and are irreversible. For instance, in the case of an aircraft manufacturer, the asset,specificity will be very high in the case of procurement of engines from a supplier. On the other hand, the aircraft manufacturer needs no relationship-specific investments to procure office stationery. This has important implications to the behavior of the market participants. When the asset specificity is high the market participants are better off by engaging in collaborative practices and superior coordination mechanisms. On the other hand, when the asset specificity is very low, competitive market practices and relationships based on price benefit both the buyers and the suppliers. In the medium,asset specific situations quasi-market mechanisms that blend both collaboration and competition are a viable alternative for the market participants.Figure 3 shows a classification of the market structures on the basis of degree of fragmentation and asset specificity. Asset specificity and degree of fragmentation have a direct relationship, especially in the extreme cases. When the asset specificity is very low, the market is likely to be highly fragmented.Hence, the two diagonal grid locations in the figure are not relevant. Our classification of the twelve market structures falls into this two dimensional framework. The framework suggests that when the fragmentation of market,participants is high neutral market structures are appropriate.Consequently,neutral market structures are grouped together into two grid positions in Figure 3. While it is generally the case, the framework still lacks clarity and does not indicate when organizations should use these neutral markets.Other factors influence the choice of one neutral market structure over the other.Classification of Neutral Markets Neutral markets suffer from poor market liquidity because of several factors. Prominent among them are complexity of product description and complexity of value assessment. Clearly, electronic markets add substantial value in situations involving complex product characteristics. Complexity of Product Description Complexity of product description relates to the amount of information a buyer needs to understand the functional and technical specifications of the product or service 24 For instance, an automobile is highly complex in description. Similarly, an airline ticket is another example of product-description complexity.There are numerous alternatives for routing and several conditions are attached to each category of fare structure. Electronic components bearings and valves and many catalogue items can also introduce medium to high complexity because of the large variety in their offerings and the detailed technical and commercial specifications pertaining to each variety.Further such a large menu of offerings induces additional costs related to maintaining price lists and repeated communication of changes in price lists . Complexity of Value Assessment Complexity of value assessment refers to the amount of information needed to estimate accurately the worth of an item and to either arrive at a price or select items offered at a price. It is easier to assess the value of a new item than to assess the value of second-hand items and unique products.Furthermore, products with no complexity in product description can pose complexity in value assessment as in the case of commodities.The complexity arises because of several factors. First, the price-setting mechanism can be dynamic through a set of bids and offers. The benefits of operating in such markets are directly a function of the size of the market participants. Second is the amount of information and pre-assessment required before making a choice as in the case of auctions and exchanges. Finally, the complexity of value assessment is also due to information asymmetry problems. Electronic markets substantially eliminate these problems and help reduce the complexity of value assessment. Figure 4 shows the classification of the neutral markets on this basis.Catalogue aggregation seeks to address the problems arising out of complexity in product description. On the other hand, exchanges address.value-assessment problems arising out of dynamic price setting.Exchanges,bring together a vast set of buyers and sellers and facilitate the trade. Auction sites address the problems of medium complexity in product description as well as value assessment.By bringing together a community of bidders and auctioneers and enabling electronic communications among them, they improve market liquidity. Managerial Implications The framework provides alternative perspectives on how organizations could benefit from these market structures. Consider some of the problems involving high fragmentation and complexities in product description and value assessment. How does a cardiologist highly specialized in treating heart ailments through surgery identify cutting-edge developments in the field. Including new technology pertaining to diagnostics, medication and surgery?How do software developers writing business applications for organizations worldwide get to solve the problems that they face in coding and debugging their software?How do manufacturers of high-tech special-purpose equipment market their state-of-the-art research and technology and product-development initiatives to potential users? In a traditional market, these people suffered because of complex product characteristics and value assessment problems and found it almost impossible to network with other experts in their field due to,high,fragmentation. The framework suggests that online communities can play an important role in improving the market liquidity in situations involving very complex product-description and value-assessment characteristics. The framework also suggests that consortia marketplaces are relevant only in the case of items with low asset specificity. Typically, a consortia marketplace focuses on capturing a majority of the trading volume in the industry. It reduces opportunities for negotiations and squeezes margins. Hence, market participants can be reluctant to substantially invest in relation-specific assets. It follows that a consortia marketplace organized for medium to high asset specificity items is less likely to succeed. There are several situations that warrant a combination of click-and-mortar strategies. The framework suggests that these include situations in which product characteristics are fairly complex and value assessment is difficult. Consider for instance, procurement of capital equipments and services for MRO situations. Typically, in a traditional market, several intermediary channels work both with the suppliers of equipment and services and the buyers to improve the liquidity. However, electronic communication and electronic brokerage effects can help organizations devise novel click-and-mortar strategies. Electronic markets can eventually cause disintermediation of these channel partners by careful deployment of click-and-mortar strategies. The framework dispels the notion that every organization can ind only one or two market structures useful. In order to do this, managers have to begin by categorizing,the products and services that they procure from B2B markets into high, medium and low levels of asset specificity. For products and services falling under high asset specificity, they need to build tighter integration through electronic market structures.specificity, they need to build tighter integration through electronic market structures. For instance, key suppliers and dealers should be encouraged to participate in a TPN. Enlisting trading partners in the TPN is a challenging task. Managers need to build incentives for participation in such markets. These may include sharing vital commercial and technical information primarily through the network sharing cost benefits accruing out of reduced transaction costs and hosting private auctions of excess and obsolete items in such marketplaces even before tapping other traditional channels. In the case of medium asset specificity, managers can discover,more value in engaging in more competitive mechanisms with existing trading partners with whom they have developed close relationships. For instance, a supplier of custom components with low or transferable tooling may be asked to participate,in a reverse auction where it will compete with a handful of other suppliers carefully pre-selected through a robust RFQ process 26 In the case,of low asset specificity items, managers will examine the fragmentation of the supply chain and make appropriate changes in their approach. Lower fragmentation on one side of the supply chain coupled with higher fragmentation on the other side will motivate them to build a consortia marketplace. They will see immediate value arising out of sourcing from competitive neutral markets. B2B电子商务在新兴市场结构方面的决策意识B2B市场结构分类:大体来说，早期关于代替性市场结构的研究是关于产品结构和他们能够提供给组织什么好处。另一方面，我们的研究是,当替代的市场结构适当的时候转移讨论，所以分类市场结构的可选择因素，将运行特点和关键价值主张与B2B 网站的经济原则相联系;有关他们在B2B领域里处理产品和市场方面的问题，并从早先的研究中得到确凿证据。基于这些考虑，作为分类的因素，我们确定了分散资产的特殊性，产品评估的复杂性，价值评估的复杂性。在B2B市场，为解决分散的供应链，范围大幅增加提供了新的替代品。在减少交易成本方面，介绍了相应的资产特异性变化。此外，资产专用性，可以成为一个有用的属性来区分市场结构。深度定制能力能帮助企业减轻复杂性，解决在产品说明和价值评估方面出现的问题。碎片程度:市场中的碎片程度是由市场参与者的数量和地理分布来决定的。碎片程度的这一定义的主要动机是买家或供应商在市场上可以发挥的控制或影响的程度。碎片可能存在于买卖双方中的任何一方，或两者兼而有之。我们确定了四个子市场参与者的碎片分类。在市场中，破碎化程度分为几个行为模式，当供应商和买家方面都出现较高的碎片程度时，市场趋向于以开放和竞争为导向的控制机制的机会市场。然而，当破碎化程度很低时，企业往往从协作而不是控制的做法中受益。资产专用性:资产专用性是在两个市场的参与者之间建立关系成本函数，以便用成本效益的方式管理商业交易。成本因特定资源 （资产） 的出现而产生，两个市场的参与者必须事先部署，以办理业务。这些投资可以是用在机床，模具，信息系统方面，或投资给那些具有特殊技能的人。显然，这些所有的投资都是特定于两个市场参与者之间不可逆的关系。例如，对一个飞机制造商来说，在引擎从供应商采购的情况下，飞机制造商的资产专用性将会很高。另一方面，飞机制造商不需要特定的投资购买办公文具。这对市场参与者的行为具有重要影响。当资产专用性高时，市场参与者会有更好地参与协作的做法和优越的协调机制。另一方面，当资产专用性非常低时，市场竞争力的做法和关系基础上的价格使买家和供应商双方受益。考虑到中期资产的具体情况，合作和竞争混合的准市场机制对市场参与者来说是可行的替代方案。图中显示了在市场结构的基础上的分类碎片和资产专用程度。资产特异性和破碎化程度有直接的关系，尤其是在极端的情况下，当资产专用性非常低的情况下，市场很可能是高度分散的。故而，两个对角线网格位置是不相关的，我们的12个市场结构分类属于这两个三维框架。该框架表明，当市场参与者的碎片程度高时，中立的市场结构是适当的。虽然这是在一般的情况下，框架仍然不够明确，但是并不表明当时组织应使用这些中性的市场。在现实中，其他因素对一个中立市场结构的影响，比其他的选择的影响更高。中立市场的分类:受几个因素的影响，中性市场对于市场流动性的承受能力较差。其中最为突出的是产品描述的复杂性和价值评估的复杂性。显然，在涉及复杂产品特性的情况下，电子市场拥有更大的价值。产品描述的复杂性：产品描述的复杂性与信息的数量相关。买方需要去了解产品或服务的功能和技术规范。例如，对汽车的描述是非常复杂的。同样，机票是产品描述复杂性的另一个案例。有众多替代路由和几个条件都连接到每一类票价结构的替代品。电子元件，轴承和阀门，以及许多目录项，也可以将中级复杂性引入到高级复杂性，因为他们的产品种类繁多，涉及到每个品种的详细技术和商业规格也可以引进。此外，这么大一个菜单上的产品所引起的额外费用与保持价格单和反复沟通价格变化表（通常称为菜单成本）。价值评估的复杂性：价值评估的复杂性是指信息的数量需要准确地估计项目的价值可以到达的价格，或选择项目提供一个价格。评估一个新产品的价值比评估二手物品和独特产品的价值更容易一些。此外，就商品而论没有产品复杂性描述的产品会造成价值评估的复杂性。有几个因素导致了这种复杂性的出现：第一，通过买卖双方的出价和要价，价格制定机制可以是动态的。这些市场经营的好处是市场参与者可以直接体会到不同大小的市场的功能。二是在拍卖和交流的情况下才作出选择所需的信息和预评估金额。最后，信息不对称问题也导致了价值评估的复杂性。电子市场将会很大程度上减少这些问题，并有助于减少价值评估的复杂性。图中所显示的中立市场的分类就是以这个为基础的。目录聚集旨在解决在产品描述方面所产生的复杂性问题。另一方面，交换价值评估解决了由此产生的动态定价的问题。交流带来了大量的买家和卖家并促进了贸易。拍卖网站解决了中等复杂产品描述以及价值评估，通过汇集社区的竞买人与拍卖人，使电子通信提高市场的流动性。管理启示:该框架提出了替代的观点如何组织才能够从这些市场结构中获益的问题。考虑到，在产品描述和价值评估方面涉及到高分散性和复杂性的问题。一个心脏病专家如何通过一个高度专业化的心脏疾病手术来确定该领域的发展前沿，包括新技术的有关诊断，药物治疗和外科手术。软件开发商如何为世界范围内的组织编写商务程序，以解决他们在编码和调试他们的软件面临的问题？做高科技专用设备的制造商如何运用国家最先进的研发技术和所开发的产品去吸引潜在用户进行购买？在传统的市场中，这些人由于受到产品特色的复杂性和价值评估问题的影响，并由于较高的碎片度，他们发现与那些在各自领域的专家进行网络联系几乎是不可能的。该框架表明，在涉及到产品复杂性描述和价值评估的特性的情况，在线社区下对提高市场的流动性能够期待很大的作用。该框架还表明，只有在有关案件项目资产专用性非常低时，联盟市场才会产生作用。通常情况下，一个联盟市场的重点收入集中在那些大交易量所存在的行业。这就减少了谈判和挤压利润的机会。因此，市场参与者不愿意在关系专用资产上大幅投资。因此，联盟市场组织中高资产专用性的项目是不太可能成功的。在很多情况下，需要结合虚实结合的策略。该框架表明，这些情况包括产品特性相当复杂和价值评估困难的情况，例如，考虑到资本设备和维修的情况下的服务的采购。通常情况下，在传统市场中，几个中介渠道通过与提供设备和服务的供应商和买家合作以提高流动性，然而，电子通讯和电子经纪效果可以帮助组织制订一套新型的虚实相结合的策略。电子市场，最终可能导致非中介化的这些渠道伙伴去精心调配虚实结合策略。对于该框架的驱散概念，每一个组织发现只有一个或两个市场结构很有用。为此，管理人员必须开始对他们在资产专用性不同的高、 中、 低级别的B2B市场所采购得商品和服务进行分类。为了那些属于高资产特性的产品和服务，他们需要在电子市场结构的基础上建立更紧密的集成。融合到中组织有战略上画一个蓝图，他们将如何利用所有这些市场结构派生价值。例如，主要供应商和经纪人应被鼓励去参与主题方案网络。争取贸易伙伴的主题方案网络是一个具有挑战性的任务。管理人员需要构建参与这种市场的参与者的激励机制。这些可能包括共享重要的商业和技术信息，主要是通过网络共享收益，共享由降低成本所带来的收益，甚至在放出其它传统渠道之前，并在这种市场举办私人拍卖的过剩和过时的项目。在中等资产专用性的情况下，管理者能够从所从事的更具竞争力的机制中和与其建立密切贸易关系的贸易伙伴中发现更多价值。例如，供应商定制有着低等或可转让工具的组件可能被要求参加一个反向拍卖，并将与其他一些精心选定的供应商通过一场强有力的询价过程。在资产专属性非常低的情况下，项目经理将检查供应链的碎片，并对他们的方法进行相应的更改。将供应链的一方面上的更低碎裂与另一边的更高碎裂连在一起，将驱使他们在原有的基础上建立一个社团市场，在涉及中立电子市场时，一些供应商可能会采用更具竞争力的采购决定。 作者：mahadevan，B 1 mahadeviimb.emet.in 来源：加州管理评论; Fall2003，第卷第1期，P86-100
展开阅读全文