Failure and Success of B-to-B Exchange Business Models:: A Contingent Analysis of Their Performance

European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 281–289, 2004 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Pergamon

Printed in Great Britain0263-2373 $30.00doi:10.1016/j.emj.2004.04.013

Failure and Success ofB-to-B Exchange BusinessModels:A Contingent Analysis ofTheir PerformanceANDREA ORDANINI, Bocconi University, MilanSTEFANO MICELLI, Venice International UniversityELEONORA DI MARIA, Venice International University

The new economy presents extraordinary opport-unities for growth and profit of electronic manage-ment of business-to-business relationships. E-mar-ketplaces, or digital exchanges, represent one of themost promising phenomena in this environmentbut, despite the promises, many of these B-to-Bexchanges have failed in the last few years, whilea few ‘survivors’ remained in the market.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate businessmodels of active e-marketplaces, to understandwhich features make the difference between suc-cessful initiatives and failures. The paper is basedon a survey of a sample of European exchangeslocated in Italy. Alternative business models aredescribed through a cluster analysis along withthree dimensions: content, structure, and govern-ance. By comparing performances of the alternativebusiness models, the analysis is able to show keyfeatures of successful business models for B-to-Be-marketplaces.

The findings show that private large exchangeshave a superior capability to generate turnover com-pared to vertical niche operators, due to specificchoices of content, structure, and governance.Managerial implications and suggestions for futureresearch are proposed. 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: B-to-B Exchange business models, E-marketplaces, Digital exchanges, Italy

European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 281–289, June 2004 281

Preface

The new economy presents extraordinary opport-unities for growth and profit for firms related to theelectronic management of business-to-businessrelationships through renovated IT-based businessmodels, or so-called electronic marketplaces (orexchanges) (Bakos, 1998). Despite promises, many ofthe B-to-B exchanges have failed in the last few years.For example, in Italy at the end of 2000, more than120 operators were active, while three years later thisnumber fell to approximately 40, and less than halfof these survivors are able to reach the break-evenpoint. The same trends seem to occur in other Euro-pean countries (Brunn et al., 2002), and also in theUS (Kalakota et al.,1999; Day and Kauffmann, 2002),showing that:

❖ A large share of these exchanges was based onmodels which were not rooted in ‘real’ business,but often artificially pushed by ex-ante theoreticalconsiderations;

❖ A few operators are able to exhibit growth andprofit capabilities, suggesting the existence ofsome ‘successful traits’ of these business models.

This paper deals with these issues and, in particular,proposes to identify the conditions that, at present,seem to foster competitiveness and superior perform-ance at some B-to-B exchanges. The paper is struc-tured as follows.

BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS EXCHANGE BUSINESS MODELS

In the next section, the evolution path of B-to-B elec-tronic marketplaces is detailed, suggesting theemergence of two big trends: neutral pure intermedi-aries and private captive operators. In the third sec-tion, a theoretical framework with the essentialdimensions of an e-business model (structure, con-tent, and governance) is proposed, in order to deter-mine the discriminating features of successful mod-els. The fourth section contains the methodology ofa survey of 32 B-to-B European exchanges located inItaly, used to investigate the performance of businessmodels. Outcomes are provided in the fifth section,confirming the existence of the two big categories ofexchanges, qualifying their organizations and stra-tegies, and pointing out how alternative structure,content, and governance approaches can either leadto profit or to failure. Superior performance of thegroup of ‘private’ marketplaces, with their dis-tinguishing features, leads to some theoretical andmanagerial implications, discussed in the final sec-tion of the paper.

B-to-B Exchanges: A Dual Picture

Neutral Hubs

New intermediaries developed during the growth ofthe new economy focused attention on ICT poten-tialities in terms of electronic management of trans-actions, specifically among firms (B-to-B). At the endof the 1990s, many middlemen arose, offering firmsinnovative electronic platforms: electronic market-places. With respect to dis-intermediation scenarios(Chircu and Kauffman, 2000), those players exploitedthe tools to promise new sources of competitiveadvantage, assuring firms that their presence wouldadd value to economic relationships due to infor-mation technology potential (Sarkar et al., 1998;Wimmer et al., 2000).

As opposed to the previous organization of B-to-Bexchanges — essentially firm-centric and based onEDI proprietary systems — a new phase of electroniccommerce arose from the Internet as an open world-wide network based on public standards and lowcosts of access.

In the early stages, B-to-B exchanges grew under thetypical form of neutral market makers (hubs). Thesewere third-party intermediaries that exploited theInternet infrastructure to provide buyer–seller match-ing within a specific industry (vertical) or a specificbusiness function (horizontal) in a public marketplace(Kaplan and Sawhney, 2000). In short, these hubsshould have become the primary arenas for business-to-business exchanges, by electronic management ofmost of the value of B-to-B. Specifically, these hubsprovided a many-to-many infrastructure able to sus-tain B-to-B relationships either within the boundariesof closed and private networks such as EDI, or in

European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 281–289, June 2004282

public environments such as those of open onlinemarkets. However, the main characteristic of hubs istheir neutrality: as intermediaries; they are third par-ties that occupy a central position between supplyand demand, aggregating both buyers and sellers ina neutral exchange environment. Market makers pro-posed benefits to firms in terms of efficiency, on pay-ment of fees generally based on the transaction valueelectronically managed. This business model wasbuilt on the idea of a progressive process of costdecreases in transactions (efficiency) — that is, anincreasing value of online exchanges through themarketplace (Sawhney and Di Maria, 2003). As anindependent third party between buyers and sup-pliers, the hub must develop critical mass in order tosustain its market model, increase match opport-unities, and thereby attract members to support itsgrowth. And this is even more important when con-sidering the network of partnerships promoted bythe intermediary, through whom firms could accesstransaction-related services such as logistics,insurance, or financial support, and the intermediarycould achieve additional revenues (Ordanini andPol, 2001).

These pure players proposed their market infrastruc-tures as the source of new value in terms of efficiencyand effectiveness of B-to-B transactions, on the basisof their neutral position between the two sides of themarket. However, they did not seem to perceive theirmarginal roles in the B-to-B connections largely con-trolled by large firms, and many of these hubs startedto modify their value propositions by focusing on aninnovative management of specialized information(industry content management) or on technology sol-utions and services. On the one hand, by exploitingtheir industry specialization, independent hubsdeveloped new services for firms to access and tocustomize valuable online content (such as dynamicsof the market, technology innovations, and competi-tors’ behaviours) through the hubs’ electronic plat-forms. Those services were considered to be of parti-cular importance to small firms, which could enrichtheir traditional informative sources (such as face-to-face interaction in local contexts) (Micelli et al., 2002).On the other hand, these electronic markets haverecently developed more sophisticated technologicalsolutions to support complex business relationships,such as supply chain management solutions, logisticand settlement services, and consultancies. Theseinnovative services should be at the core of the newhub strategy, where intermediaries offer their com-petencies to solve firms’ problems by using innov-ative solutions and promoting consultant supportservices.

Private Exchanges

As the case of Covisint in the automotive industryshowed, big companies became particularly inter-ested in increasing supply chain efficiency and so

%recently, already-

established firms decided to

invest in digital exchanges, in

order to improve the efficiency

of their value-chain

activities


they were eager to become key players in electroniccommerce processes. From the beginning of 2000,new strategies brought competitors together, rapidlymodifying market-makers’ frameworks.

Industry Sponsored Exchanges (ISE) developed as anew category of B-to-B marketplaces, coming directlyfrom the decisions of leaders on one side of the mar-ket. Those ISEs were consortia of big companies,often with the support of technology vendors, whereleaders provided specified resources and assumedengagements based on equity investments. In a fewmonths, the B-to-B e-commerce scenario was com-pletely transformed. While on the one hand, the entryof large companies into the marketplaces seemed tosolve their problems of liquidity, thanks to the trans-action volume managed through the hubs, it also cre-ated new issues for the neutrality of such electronicmarkets and their governance. In fact, leaders of theconsortia stressed the advantages of value creationrelated to electronic transactions only for one side ofthe market (generally the big buyers). From the per-spective of open e-commerce, those ISEs shifted thefocus toward closed (captive) marketplaces and priv-ate supply chains. In addition, the catalogue was nolonger the main market mechanism used to supportexchanges. Rather, the emphasis went to dynamicpricing solutions (such as online auctions), whichwere able to increase cost-based competition andsqueeze suppliers. Whenever big sponsors controlthe liquidity source, market-places generally transform into‘private arenas,’ where fewplayers obtain transaction auto-mation and the Web becomestheir main relationship man-agement channel (Schmitz,2000). On the one hand, thesesponsored exchanges highlightthe positive impacts of B-to-Bexchanges from a private per-spective (from efficiency to col-laborative commerce). On theother hand, a gap still exists between such platformsand firms’ interests in managing strategic ties elec-tronically, using innovative online solutions con-trolled by third parties. In addition, many of themwere unable to persuade large buyers to abandontheir existing strategic relationships, which are thebasis of firms’ innovation and competitive advantage,and transact in open online marketplaces (Zaheerand Zaheer, 2001).

The ‘Dual’ Environment

Previous discussion and empirical evidence wouldtend to support the existence of two big categories ofexchanges: neutral operators and private operators.Neutral market makers demonstrated a great abilityto quickly build an electronic hub from scratch. Butthen they had to suffer through the liquidity problemand face competition from other neutral intermedi-


aries developed in the first wave of B-to-B e-com-merce solutions, as well as from sponsored hubs.Rather than liquidity, for ISEs the real challenge wasto transform competition into collaboration(collaborative commerce). The governance problemalso influences market mechanisms, which can sufferfrom the potential influence and constraint of indus-try market owners. The existence of common inter-ests is the critical element of aggregation and thedriver for supporting the innovation process, infor-mation diffusion, and knowledge sharing throughcost savings and economies of scale, generally con-sidered as fundamental and direct outcomes of con-sortia. The remainder of the paper is dedicated toqualifying these alternative marketplace businessmodels, and looking at their capabilities to generatesales and profits for operators. In particular, the focuswill be on discovering the fundamental elements ofbusiness models in B-to-B transactions that definesuccessful paths of marketplace development.

Marketplace Business Models: SomeTheoretical Considerations

The digital marketplace has become one of the fewfields where researchers exercise their creativity toidentify new business models (Mahadevan, 2000;

Wise and Morrison, 2000; Dayand Kauffmann, 2002).

Given the novelty and the rapidpace of the phenomenon, thesecontributions provideimportant guidelines for analy-sis and classification of digitalmarketplaces. This approachhas been primarily inductive:business models are designedusing a short set of qualitativevariables and primary data,

which describe the salient features of the businessmodels. Following this approach, business model cat-egories have been created ‘ex-ante’, sometimes takinga successful initiative as a reference point for the cate-gory.

A snapshot of the market and a retrospective reviewreveal how many operators have failed in recentyears, while a few exchanges survived the hype andreached the break-even point, often with a change intheir business model. The relevant changes occurredin this environment during the last few years, mak-ing those business model definitions largely inad-equate.

In this paper, we try to identify business modelsusing a grounded approach, analyzing the concretearena of existing operators according to ‘ex-post’logic, and adopting a theoretical framework rooted


in the strategic management field (Hedman and Kal-ling, 2001). In this view, an e-business model canessentially be represented by three layers (Amit andZott, 2001):

❖ The content, namely the market positioning of theplayer, in terms of what is being exchanged and,above all, who are the target customers;

❖ The structure of the market, namely the mech-anisms and services enabling its functioning; and

❖ The governance, in terms of rules and incentivesprovided by the different shareholders.

In each of these three layers, it should be expectedthat marketplaces exhibit distinguishing features,which discriminate between more and less success-ful initiatives.

For B-to-B exchanges, the first variable in the contentdimension of the business model is the choice of cus-tomer target. The previous analysis revealed howdigital exchanges initially promised to act as neutralintermediaries, with the purpose of reducing trans-action costs for the weak side of the transaction in afragmented market. This weak side was often popu-lated by small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs),which rapidly become the elected target for theseoperators. As mentioned earlier, the obstacles in reach-ing critical mass and liquidity when SMEs wereinvolved in the exchange pushed some operators tofocus on large firms as their customer targets, creatingprivate or consortia marketplaces. Another element ofthe content refers to the vertical or horizontal nature ofthe exchange, that is, whether the exchange intermedi-ates general spending goods for many industries, orspecific inputs strategic to single sectors.

Both customer target and the nature of the exchangeappear to be binary choices; in this sense, whetherthe exchanges had a specific orientation to small andmedium enterprises, and their vertical or horizontalfocus, may well represent the key elements of thebusiness model’s content dimension.

Regarding the structure, the main decisions concernthe portfolio of services provided by the exchangeand the revenue model.

For the service portfolio, two basic choices identifythe structure of the exchange: (1) the use of static ordynamic exchange mechanisms; and (2) the presenceor absence of value-added services along with thesupply chain.

The first argument is a well-known strategy dis-cussed by Kaplan and Sawhney (2000), which separ-ated platforms enabling interactions and negotiations(matching) from those providing static electroniccatalogues (aggregation). The electronic auction hastraditionally been considered as the most representa-tive dynamic mechanism for matching.

The second element, the presence of value-added ser-vices, is relevant for ‘integration’ issues. Some


exchanges decided to offer ‘business integration’ ser-vices in order to ease the adoption of digital techno-logies to make transactions. Since exchanges are larg-ely focused on the buyer side, supply chainmanagement services (SCM) represented the typicalform of integration activities for an exchange.

In this way, the structure dimension of marketplaceswill be investigated according to the presence ofdynamic or static exchange mechanisms, and thepresence of SCM activities in the service portfolioof operators.

The other structure decision refers to the revenuemodel choice, namely the specific modes in which abusiness model enables revenue generation. The rev-enue model obviously depends on the service offer-ing, but knowing which source contributes the mostto revenue generation qualifies the ‘nature’ of thebusiness model, in particular, if it is based on trans-action intermediation or other services and appli-cations. Accordingly, this structure dimension ofmarketplaces will be investigated through the shareof revenues coming from transaction fees.

Within the governance dimension, the key element hasbeen the articulation of shareholder control. The vastmajority of exchanges started from capital providedby venture capitalists or financial institutions butrecently, already-established firms decided to investin digital exchanges, in order to improve theefficiency of their value-chain activities. Thus, thegovernance dimension of the business model will beinvestigated through the share of capital possessedby already-established firms; this variable providesinformation as to whether the exchange is controlledby established firms (captive operators) or by finan-cial operators and/or managers. According to theproposed theoretical framework, successful businessmodels of digital exchanges can be analysed throughdifferent dimensions: content, structure, and govern-ance (see Figure 1). Each of these dimensions will berepresented in our analysis by:

❖ The presence of a specific focus on SMEs, and thehorizontal or vertical nature of the marketplace(content);

❖ the share of revenues coming from transactions,together with the existence of auctions and SCMservices (structure); and

❖ the share of capital owned by established firms(governance).

The Analysis: Method and Variables

Following the previous framework, we ran anempirical analysis on a sample of Europeanexchanges located in Italy, in order to determine howmany profiles populate the market, and which fea-tures these profiles exhibit. Italy represents a goodfield of analysis, since its features of SME dominance


Figure 1 Successful Business Model: The Theoreti-cal Framework

and fragmented industry specialization (such asfood, textiles and apparel, and furniture), enhancedthe development and evolution of many exchangesduring the last few years.

The analysis was undertaken at the I-LAB, the Centrefor Research on Digital Economy at Bocconi Univer-sity, Milan, Italy, during the first 6 months of 2003.The list of B-to-B exchanges was drawn from the cen-sus of the European digital marketplace by the ItalianMinister of Industry and Trade.

During the months of April and May 2003, we sur-veyed 32 digital exchanges, which represent almostthe entire population of active operators located inItaly, and, through a questionnaire, we collected thefollowing information:

❖ The target of the exchange (focus on SMEs);❖ Its horizontal or vertical nature;❖ The share of revenues coming from transactions;❖ The presence of electronic auctions;❖ The provision of SCM services;❖ The percentage of capital possessed by estab-

lished corporations;❖ The total turnover at the end of 2002.

The first six variables were used to identify profilesof exchanges, while the turnover rate controlledwhether different business models exhibited differ-ent performances.

Regarding the dependent variable, we decided to usethe turnover rate as a proxy of the marketplace’s per-formance for two reasons. First of all, few market-places today are able to reach the break-even point,and this discourages the use of profit measures. Inaddition, the turnover rate is less sensitive than pro-fit, and managers were more inclined to provide suchinformation to an external interviewer.

The identification of profiles was realized usingmultivariate statistics techniques, in particular cluster


analysis. The cluster analysis is a well-established,powerful method used to describe market segmen-tation processes, and several articles have outlinedthe most recent applications in the field of strategicmanagement (Punj and Stewart, 1983; Ketchen andShook, 1996).

Initial variables were selected following a cognitiveapproach, starting with background literaturesuggestions, and gradually adjusted by informationobtained during the testing phase of the question-naire; in this way, it was possible to make the selec-tion of clustering variables in a less subjective way,and thus make the sample more descriptive (Regerand Huff, 1993).

As for the clustering algorithm, we adopted a newprocedure called ‘Two-Step Cluster,’ provided by theSPSS statistical package. The Two-Step ClusterAnalysis procedure is an exploratory tool designedto reveal natural groupings (or clusters) within a dataset that would otherwise not be apparent. The algor-ithm employed by this procedure has several desir-able features that differentiate it from traditionalclustering techniques:

❖ Handling of categorical and continuous variables.By assuming variables to be independent, a jointmultinomial-normal distribution can be placed oncategorical and continuous variables.

❖ Automatic selection of number of clusters. By com-paring the values of a model-choice criterion acrossdifferent clustering solutions, the procedure can auto-matically determine the optimal number of clusters.

The first feature is important since we adopt bothcontinuous (share of turnover from transaction fees,percentage of share possessed by established firms)and categorical variables (the remaining ones) todescribe the business models. The second feature isrelevant since it avoids the problem of choosing theoptimal set of clusters before running the analysis.

The Performance of Exchange BusinessModels

Figure 2 shows the outcome of the cluster analysis,where data largely confirm the existence of the twobasic business models in the B-to-B exchangeenvironment. In fact, the sample is divided into two

Figure 2 Cluster Membership: Number of Exchangesand Percentage


clusters with the following membership: 59.4 per cent(19 operators) in the first profile, and the remaining40.6 per cent (13 operators) in the second one.

The analysis reveals how the two profiles representbusiness models that are quite different in terms ofcontent, structure, and governance choices.

In the first profile are exchanges whose relevant share-holder is financial, with a marginal share of revenuescoming from transactions, a sporadic presence of auc-tions, and a moderate presence of SCM services. Theseexchanges are completely focused on vertical marketsand devoted to SMEs as target customers.

This first business model is typical of neutral oper-ators, which have become niche service operators,whose exchanges deal only marginally with puretransactions. They basically act as technology out-sourcers and consultants for supply chain activitieswithin specific vertical industries (Figure 3).

Conversely, the second cluster is populated byexchanges where industrial shareholders play amajor role, and revenues coming from transactionsaccount for one half of the total turnover, on average.In addition, these operators do not consider SMEs asa main target, and prefer to provide auctions andnegotiation tools rather than integration services.They are focused on horizontal markets.

The so-called private operators belong to this secondmodel, which applies to large exchange platforms. Theyprovide transaction-based services for general pur-poses, and focus on large firms as targets (and as rel-evant shareholders).

But how do these business models perform in termsof turnover?

Figure 3 Alternative Business Models: Output of the Cluster Analysis


Figure 4 contains the mean comparison between thecluster membership and the level of turnover at theend of 2002.

According to the average turnover of the clusters, weobserve a considerable gap between the two, wherecluster one, that of neutral niche operators, exhibitsmarginal average levels of turnover compared to theother cluster. In other words, our survey demon-strates the superior capability of private exchanges togenerate turnover and profit, while neutral operators,forced into niches, face several obstacles in their pathto success. Our analysis reveals that this basicallyhappens because large platforms count on a hugeflow of transaction fees based on dynamic pricemechanisms as their main revenue sources, whileneutral operators find it difficult to exploit valuefrom complex services and consultancies other thantransaction support. Further, having large firms asthe main target also facilitates an asymmetric inter-mediation for large platforms, while vertical indus-

Figure 4 Alternative Business Models: Mean Compari-son of Turnover∗ (mn Euro, 2002)(∗ Statistically sig-nificant at 95%)


tries dominated by SMEs do not represent favourabletargets for complex offerings, especially after the neweconomy ‘bubble’, which put neutral operators undersevere liquidity constrains. In addition, successfulprivate exchanges seem to leverage on a more stablegovernance structure, since their main target firmsare also their relevant shareholders. On the oppositeside, neutral niche operators exhibit a more fragilefinancial structure, which is largely based on fundsby venture capitalists and the management itself.

Implications of Alternative BusinessModels

Cluster analysis, based on the three-layer (content,structure, and governance) framework, as well as themean comparison of turnovers, suggests some rel-evant implications about the success of marketplacebusiness models.

First, our analysis reveals interesting elements thatconfirm the success of sponsored marketplaces com-pared to neutral hubs. According to the three layersthat characterize competitive business models in theB-to-B scenario, our data shows the higher perform-ance of ISEs in terms of turnover over time. Largeexchange platforms seem to be more competitivethan niche service operators focused on SMEs.

Second, the focus on transaction governance allowsexchanges with specific business models to createand to achieve more value, where niche intermedi-aries suffer from developing critical mass because oftheir target on SMEs.

Proposition 1: Sponsored marketplaces achieve higher perform-ances as closed marketplaces than neutral hubs.

Proposition 2: Neutral marketplaces have greater problemsdeveloping critical mass (transaction volume) than sponsoredones.

Moreover, consistent with the previous evidence, thegovernance structure of the marketplace stresses itsrole in determining the success of B-to-B exchangesin two directions.

On the one hand, the more the marketplace is con-trolled by large players, the higher its performance.Big players influence their suppliers and customers -established business relationships within their sup-ply chains – to use online exchanges as transactionalplatforms, where the transaction process is stronglyfocused on industry specialization and on dynamicprice definition.

On the other hand, as opposed to niche operators,large platform exchanges also show a more solidgovernance structure, with less change in the struc-


ture of shareholders and a less important role forfinancial partners.

Proposition 3: The alternative governance structures positivelyinfluence the performance of sponsored marketplaces and negativelyinfluence the performance of neutral hubs.

Proposition 4: The value achieved through B-to-B e-commerce ishigher when carried out within established business relation-ships.

This paper also proposes a different perspective ofbusiness models, where their use is closer to that ofstrategic groups, rather than representing a simpleway to provide taxonomies and classifications.

This analysis obviously has some limitations, whichmight be addressed in future research. First, theanalysis is based on the Italian environment, even if,as explained above, many of these exchanges face aEuropean target market. It would be interesting toextend the investigation to other EU countries, tocontrol for similar or different situations.

Second, the successful conditions founded in thisanalysis should be seen as temporary. Futureresearch might investigate upcoming scenarios, inorder to anticipate different perspectives and win-ning features for the B-to-B online environment.

Appendix: Basic Statistics for Two-StepCluster Analysis

Centroids

% of capital by % of turnoverestablished firms coming from

transaction fees

Mean SD Mean SD

Cluster 1 15.2083 31.30601 3.33 8.876Cluster 2 39.1650 44.53322 41.95 38.801Combined 30.1812 41.25690 27.47 36.214

SMEs as Target

No Yes

Frequency Per Frequency Percent cent

Cluster 1 0 0.0 12 63.2Cluster 2 13 100.0 7 36.8Combined 13 100.0 19 100.0


Nature of the Business

Horizontal Vertical

Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent


Presence of Electronic Auctions

No Yes



Presence of SCM Services

No Yes



ReferencesAmit, R. and Zott, C. (2001) Value creation in e-business. Stra-

tegic Management Journal 22, 493–520.Bakos, Y. (1998) The emerging role of electronic marketplaces

on the internet. Communications of the ACM 41(8), 35–42.Brunn, P., Jensen, P. and Skovgaard, J. (2002) E-marketplaces:

crafting a winning strategy. European Management Journal20(3), 286–298.

Chircu, A.M. and Kauffman, R.J. (2000) Reintermediation stra-tegies in business-to-business electronic commerce. Inter-national Journal of Electronic Commerce 4(4), 7.


Day, Q. and Kauffmann, R.J. (2002) Business models for inter-net-based B-to-B electronic markets. International Journalof Electronic Commerce 6(4), 41–72.

Hedman, J. and Kalling, T. (2001) The business model: ameans to understand the business context of informationand communication technology. Working Paper Series9/2001, School of Economics and Management, LundUniversity.

Kalakota, R., Oliva, R.A. and Donath, B. (1999) Emerging mar-ketplaces promise the next wave of business competition.Marketing Management Fall, 23–32.

Kaplan, S. and Sawhney, M. (2000) B-to-B e-commerce hubs:towards a taxonomy of business models. Harvard Busi-ness Review 79(3), 97–100.

Ketchen, D.J. and Shook, C.L. (1996) The application of clusteranalysis in strategic management research: an analysisand critique. Strategic Management Journal 17, 441–458.

Mahadevan, B. (2000) Business models for internet-based e-commerce: an anatomy. California Management Review42(4), 55–69.

Micelli, S., Chiarvesio, M. and Di Maria, E. (2002) From localnetworks of SMEs to virtual districts? Evidence fromrecent trends in Italy. Unpublished paper.

Ordanini, A. and Pol, A. (2001) Infomediation and competi-tive advantage in B-to-B digital marketplaces. EuropeanManagement Journal 19(3), 276–285.

Punj, G. and Stewart, D.W. (1983) Cluster analysis in market-ing research: review and suggestions for application.Journal of Marketing Research 20, 134–148.

Reger, R.K. and Huff, A.S. (1993) Strategic groups: a cognitiveperspective. Strategic Management Journal 14, 103–124.

Sarkar, M., Butler, B. and Steinfield, C. (1998) Cybermediariesin electronic market space: towards theory building. Jour-nal of Business Research 41(3), 215–221.

Sawhney, M. and Di Maria, E. (2003) The real value of B-to-B: from commerce towards interaction and knowledgesharing. Paper presented to the CIBER/CMIE Confer-ence ‘Managing in the Global Information Economy’, Sep-tember 12–13, 2003, The Anderson School at UCLA(USA).

Schmitz, S.W. (2000) The effects of electronic commerce on thestructure of intermediation. Journal of Computer-Mediated-Communication 5(3), 105–127.

Wimmer, B.S., Townsend, A.M. and Chezum, B.E. (2000)Information technologies and the role of middlemen: thechanging role of information intermediaries in an infor-mation-rich economy. Journal of Labor Research 21(3),393–406.

Wise, R. and Morrison, D. (2000) Beyond the exchange. Thefuture of B-to-B. Harvard Business Review 78(6), 86–96.

Zaheer, S. and Zaheer, A. (2001) Market microstructure in aglobal B-to-B network. Strategic Management Journal 22,859–873.


ANDREA ORDANINI, I- STEFANO MICELLI,Lab, Research Centre on TEDIS, Centre for the Stud-Digital Technology, Bocconi ies of Technologies in Dis-University, Viale Filippetti tributed Intelligence Sys-9, 20122, Milan, Italy. E- tems, Venice Internationalmail: andrea.ordanini@u- University, Isola di San Ser-nibocconi.it volo, 30100 Venice, Italy. E-

mail: [email protected] Ordanini is Assist-ant Professor of Business Stefano Micelli is AssociateManagement at Bocconi Professor of Business Man-University and Co-director agement at the Ca’Foscari

of I-lab. His research centres on the analysis of B-to-B University of Venice and Director of TEDIS. Hisdigital exchanges. research includes the impact of ICT on firms and local

manufacturing systems of SMEs.

ELEONORA DI MARIA,TEDIS, Centre for the Stud-ies of Technologies in Dis-tributed Intelligence Sys-tems, Venice InternationalUniversity, Isola di San Ser-volo, 30100 Venice, Italy.

Eleonora Di Maria is SeniorResearcher at TEDIS, Ven-ice International University,collaborating with the

Ca’Foscari University, Venice and the University ofPadua. Her research focuses on the evolution of busi-ness models and local systems related to ICT.


Documents

Failure and Success of B-to-B Exchange Business Models:: A Contingent Analysis of Their Performance