B2B E-Business Implementation Approaches

There are four general B2B implementation approaches in use. The first is independent B2B marketplaces, such as Commerce One, Ariba, and Freemarkets. The second approach discussed is the private B2B approach, such as the one found at Unilever and Cisco. A third commonly encountered B2B implementation approach involves consortiums, as have been formed in the auto, aviation, chemical and petroleum, building-materials, aerospace, and retailing industries. There is a fourth, transitional approach that was implemented by GE (General Electric), for example.
Independent B2B Marketplaces The first approach discussed, which involves an existing company finding an independent B2B marketplace (emarketplace), is a commonly encountered one. Many companies begin the B2B integration process by focusing on the purchasing cycle. Obtaining goods from suppliers using independent B2B marketplaces very often is the fastest and most economical way to acquire B2B capabilities.
This is done by selecting an independent B2B provider, such as Commerce One, Ariba, or Freemarkets, to come in and integrate the company’s internal systems with the selected independent market exchanges (e-marketplace).
An independent B2B marketplace or e-marketplace is an Internet destination where businesses from around the world can come together to buy and sell goods and services in an auction format. The destination and the auction are controlled and managed by the independent B2B provider.
Buyers prepare bidding-project information and post them on the site. Suppliers then download the project information and submit their bids. Buyers evaluate the suppliers’ bids and may negotiate electronically to achieve the best deal. The buyer then accepts the bid of the supplier that best meets their requirements, and the sale is finalized. Purchasers and suppliers can either pay a general fee, a per-transaction fee, or a combination of the two to the B2B provider, otherwise known as the Web host. Each one of these B2B providers has its own software applications and host Web sites.
For example, Commerce One uses its trademarked Enterprise Buyer proprietary software to link companies to all e-marketplaces of the Global Trading Web community on its Web site CommerceOne.net. Commerce One’s Global Trading Web is the world’s largest B2B trading community and provides unprecedented economies of scale for buyer organizations. This software can be purchased and installed by an existing company in order to obtain access to the Global Trading Web community that enables commercial transactions to take place between e-marketplaces.
Private B2B Exchanges The second approach discussed is private B2B exchanges.
A private B2B exchange is an e-marketplace created by a single company to provide e-business capabilities to its business units and preferred trading partners.
In 2000, in the early stages of e-business development, many companies trying to be ahead of the curve jumped into public B2B marketplaces usually run by third parties.
They soon discovered that there were many inherent problems. Although at times they were obtaining better prices, many times the diminished quality and increased rate of defects in the products were hurting their bottomline gain. There were also problems in returning defective items, receiving orders when promised, and maintaining continuity in the supply chain (Prince, 2001).
Today, more and more businesses with the necessary resources are developing their own private exchanges. The e-market focus of some companies, such as Wal-Mart, has turned away from public exchanges because finance, supply chain, purchasing, and IT managers realized that, in many cases, their systems and employees were illequipped to handle the technical and procedural requirements of large public exchanges (Krell, 2002). Wal-Mart has invested in middleware or enterprise application integration (EAI) technology to link its internal applications together and to a few (up to 12) critical suppliers in the supply-chain process. The real value of e-procurement, e-billing, and electronic supply-chain initiatives is realized through real-time, hard-coded integration (Krell).
Other companies, such as Siemens AG, have turned to private exchanges in order to limit access to procurement information (Konicki, 2001). Siemens prefers a private exchange because it does not want its competitors to have access to its production plans. Private exchanges are gaining momentum because, for those companies that have the resources to develop them, they are able to deliver the capabilities many public e-marketplaces promised but have not delivered: the ability to centrally manage procurement across many business units, the ability to enable real-time design collaboration and integration with back-end systems, and the linkage of production-, inventory-, warehouse-, and order-management systems.
Consortium
The third B2B implementation approach discussed is a consortium: a quasipublic online marketplace approach. A consortium is a group of companies within a particular industry establishing an exchange connecting each of them and their suppliers. Today, there is a consortium exchange in almost every industry. Consortium members fund most of these exchanges.
One example of a consortium is found in the auto industry. Ford, General Motors, and DaimlerChrysler together established Covisint.com as a global, independent e-business exchange. Covisint is the central hub where original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and suppliers come together to do business in a single business environment using the same tools and interface.
Covisint enables companies to compress planning cycles and enhance supply-chain planning (http://www.covisint.com/about/). In February 2002, Covisint was handling 100 million supply-chain procurement transactions per month. These transactions take place between the exchange’s members and more than 2,000 of their suppliers (Krell, 2002). In 2004, however, Covisint experienced some major problems that led to the acquisition of the company by two other firms, Compuware Corp and Freemarkets, Inc. (Sullivan & Dunn, 2004).
Transitional
The fourth approach involves an existing company moving from a private B2B exchange to an independent, external marketplace venture. A good example of this would be General Electric (http://www.gegxs.com/gxs/ about). General Electric, given its vast capital resources and diversity across many industries, decided to develop and establish its own B2B software and private B2B operations. Subsequently, it used this experience to set up its own external, independent B2B exchange (called GE Global eXchange Services) to compete with the likes of Commerce One and Ariba in the B2B provider market. This type of approach would require a large amount of resources and is therefore not practical for many smaller businesses. Even for businesses the size of GE, the resources necessary to maintain such an exchange can become cost prohibitive (Barlas, 2002).
FUTURE TRENDS
B2B e-business experienced an initial boom based on unrealistic projections and expectations, followed by a few years of gloom based on the process of a new technology outgrowing its adolescent phase of development.
Recent projections by Standard & Poor’s, however, indicate that the future of B2B e-business looks bright. The growth of B2B e-business is forecasted to reach $3.6 trillion in 2005, $4.9 trillion in 2006, and $6.4 trillion in 2007 (Kessler, 2004).
One of the more successful B2B implementation approaches for the future seems to be that of large, private exchanges, such as Ariba and Freemarkets. According to Ordanini, Micelli, and Di Maria (2004), large, private B2B exchanges especially represent a promising phenomenon and offer superior capabilities of generating higher turnovers than smaller niche exchanges.
Electronic B2B transactions, as shown earlier, are already improving the competitiveness of enterprises through sinking costs, faster information, and enhanced flexibility, among other benefits. In the future, however, B2B will be not only the application of technologies, but also a motor of change for economic processes and industry structures: B2B applications have an enormous potential for the alteration of economic processes in the direction of the knowledge society (Schedl & Sülzle, 2004).
In the B2B e-business arena, increased activity through mergers and acquisitions is expected to continue into the future, not only in the middle market among small- and medium-sized competitors, but also among the larger B2B exchanges (“M&A Outlook,” 2005).
In the near future, more and more companies, especially finance and investment firms, will be adding multilingual dimensions to their B2B e-business strategies (“IndyMac Bank,” 2004).

Future Trends

The research firm of IDC expects the ASP market to by 92% over the 5-year period 1999 to 2004 to an estimated $7.8B in 20041. However, this forecast represents a drastic reduction from the earlier estimate of Gartner Research Group, who predicted that the market would be around $22B (Mears, 2003). While there are many different estimates on ASP spending, it should be noted that all of them have revised their estimate downward from the projections made in late 1990s.
A possible reason for the downward revision of ASP spending could be due to the crash of many dot-com firms in early 2000. In late 1990s, many firms entered the ASP market with a lot of fanfare and with the expectation that the premise behind their business model of customers renting software applications over the Internet would hold true. However, the collapse of the dot-com firms in part has lead to the demise of many ASP. Those that do remain can be considered as the survivors. This second generation ASP have altered their business model and have changed their tactics to provide more and high quality offerings and superior service.

Organizational Outcomes and ASP Evaluation

It is important that periodic evaluation be made both of the organizational outcomes and services and support provided by the ASP. Given the newness of the ASP concept, there exists a dearth of studies that have as their primary focus the evaluation of services and support provided by the ASP (Ma, Pearson, & Tadisina, 2005). There is also no agreement among researchers on the ways to define and operationalize quality (Reeves & Bednar, 1994). However, a good starting point is the study of Ma et al. (2005) who identified seven dimensions (features, availability, reliability, assurance, empathy, conformance, and security)
for evaluating the service quality of ASP. Trust is also an issue that may affect ASP choice and usage (Seltsikas, Currie, & Tebbourne, 2002). The task of a small business decision maker is to ensure that the use of the ASP results in net positive outcomes. In addition to quantitative factors such as performance, productivity and usage, we argue that a small business decision maker must use nonquantifiable measures such as culture, satisfaction (with both the process and outcomes) and trust to assess the impact of the ASP.

ASP Business Models

A business model specifies how a firm will generate money to sustain its operations and to generate the desired rate of return. Business models usually specify how the firm will generate revenue and the specific tactics it will use to operate within the industry. An ASP generates a revenue stream either through monthly fees or through per user fees. Based on target markets and products, ASP may be classified into Enterprise ASP, Local/ Regional ASP, Specialist ASP, Vertical Market ASP, and Volume Business ASP (ASPnews.com). Enterprise ASP deliver high-end business applications such as enterprise resource planning software, e-commerce applications and supply chain management applications. Local/Regional ASP supply wide variety of application services for smaller businesses in a local area. Specialist ASP provides applications for a specific need, such as Web site services, human resources, customer-relationship management software. Vertical Market ASP provides support to a specific industry, such as healthcare, finance etc. Volume Business ASP supply general small and medium-sized businesses with prepackaged application services in volume.

Firm Resource Base: Why Use ASP?

Larger businesses have a greater access to capital (money, material, employees, technology, and knowledge) and have greater freedom to engage in new technology adoption.
Larger firms can easily overcome their technical expertise limitations by hiring additional staff, using consultants, or using third-party vendors. Small businesses are different from large businesses in many areas such as capital availability, access to capital markets, technical capabilities and availability of professionals. In small businesses, very few people or possibly an individual may function as the IT staff. Premkumar and Roberts (1999) asserted that firms without the required employee skills may not be aware of new technological innovations or may fear the risk associated with adoption of such technology within their organization.
Lack of access to education and training within small business may affect their willingness to adopt new technology (Fariselli, Oughton, Picory, & Sugden, 1999). Hiring suitably qualified personnel or motivating them to work within a small business setting may be a daunting task for a small business decision maker. For developing a home page or for other less knowledge and/or capitalintensive task, a small business may make use of off the shelf books, software, and tutorials. Small businesses with restricted technical expertise may require the use of external expertise or personnel in the form of consultants, vendor support, outsourcing, or the use of ASP.

Drivers Present in the Business Environment

Rapid developments in the global marketplace, including technological advances, mushrooming consumer demands, new products, escalating globalization, and the implications of corporate reengineering and the restructuring, have fundamentally transformed the contemporary business climate. To compete in this changing business and technology environment, small businesses are constantly revising strategies to better manage their businesses.
ASP are seen as a way for a small business to overcome its technology, knowledge, and monetary limitations and compete with much larger firms.

Issues In The Use Of Asp By Small Business

In Figure 1, we present our framework. We use this framework to identify issues of concern to both academics and small business managers. The noteworthy features of our framework are: (a) drivers within the business environment that precipitate the need for the use of ASP, (b) firm resource base, (c) ASP value proposition, (d) ASP business model, (e) ASP selection, and (f) Organizational outcomes and ASP evaluation. Next, we discuss each of these issues in detail.