13.07.2015 Views

E-business in New Zealand, 2000-2002 by Delwyn Clark, Stephen ...

E-business in New Zealand, 2000-2002 by Delwyn Clark, Stephen ...

E-business in New Zealand, 2000-2002 by Delwyn Clark, Stephen ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

From a policy perspective, it is very important tounderstand the factors that may act to constra<strong>in</strong> or<strong>in</strong>hibit the uptake and implementation of e-<strong>bus<strong>in</strong>ess</strong>activities <strong>in</strong> 2001 and <strong>2002</strong>. The top 10 factors wereessentially the same <strong>in</strong> both surveys. The meanimportance rat<strong>in</strong>g of “remov<strong>in</strong>g geographicbarriers”, however, decreased markedly <strong>in</strong> <strong>2002</strong>.Significant <strong>in</strong>creases were found <strong>in</strong> <strong>2002</strong> for otherefficiency measures (decreas<strong>in</strong>g order-process<strong>in</strong>gcosts, reduc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>ternal operat<strong>in</strong>g costs), customerservices (improv<strong>in</strong>g delivery of services) andrelationship build<strong>in</strong>g (improv<strong>in</strong>g relationships withsuppliers).The impact of e-commerce on export<strong>in</strong>g activitieswas explored <strong>in</strong> the BRC Market<strong>in</strong>g and SocialResearch <strong>2002</strong> survey. Twenty-seven per cent ofexporters reported that “e-commerce was essential”for their export <strong>bus<strong>in</strong>ess</strong> and another 26 per cent<strong>in</strong>dicated “considerable assistance frome-commerce”. However, one <strong>in</strong> three exportersreported receiv<strong>in</strong>g “little assistance frome-commerce”. The impact of e-commerce onopportunities to develop and expand the customerbase was also <strong>in</strong>vestigated <strong>in</strong> this BRC survey; 63per cent of the companies rated this “important” or“very important”. In comparison, only 34 per centof <strong>bus<strong>in</strong>ess</strong>es rated grow<strong>in</strong>g export<strong>in</strong>g opportunitiesas “important” or “very important” (BRC, <strong>2002</strong>).5 Inhibitors of e-<strong>bus<strong>in</strong>ess</strong>The effective implementation of e-<strong>bus<strong>in</strong>ess</strong><strong>in</strong>itiatives is <strong>in</strong>fluenced <strong>by</strong> many organisational andenvironmental factors. From a policy perspective,it is very important to understand the factors thatmay act to constra<strong>in</strong> or <strong>in</strong>hibit the uptake andimplementation of e-<strong>bus<strong>in</strong>ess</strong>. A series of 30potential <strong>in</strong>hibit<strong>in</strong>g factors was evaluated <strong>in</strong> theE-<strong>bus<strong>in</strong>ess</strong> Adoption and Implementation surveys<strong>in</strong> 2001 and <strong>2002</strong>. Table 3 lists the mean importancevalues of the top 12 factors for two major subgroups:(1) companies with websites, and (2)companies without websites (<strong>Clark</strong> et al., <strong>2002</strong>).Although most of the top 12 factors were thesame for the website and non-website companies <strong>in</strong>2001, the rank<strong>in</strong>gs of these factors varied betweenthese two groups. The same pattern was found <strong>in</strong>the <strong>2002</strong> results. Mean importance values werehigher for many of these <strong>in</strong>hibit<strong>in</strong>g factors for thenon-website companies and the differences werefound to be statistically significant. Overall, the mostimportant difficulties for the website companieswere low customer usage, technological issues andsecurity concerns. The top <strong>in</strong>hibit<strong>in</strong>g factors for thecompanies without websites were, however,TABLE 2Impacts of e-<strong>bus<strong>in</strong>ess</strong>: mean importance values*FACTOR 2001 <strong>2002</strong>MEANIMPORTANCERANKINGMEANIMPORTANCEEnhanc<strong>in</strong>g company image 3.93 1 3.98 1Improv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formation exchange with customers 3.77 2 3.76 2Faster response to customers 3.64 3 3.49 5Improv<strong>in</strong>g competitive position 3.56 4 3.44 8Creat<strong>in</strong>g new <strong>bus<strong>in</strong>ess</strong> opportunities 3.56 5 3.37 9Provid<strong>in</strong>g access to new customers 3.55 6 3.50 4Improv<strong>in</strong>g customer service 3.53 7 3.61 3Increas<strong>in</strong>g efficiency of <strong>bus<strong>in</strong>ess</strong> processes 3.48 8 3.47 6Remov<strong>in</strong>g geographic barriers 3.48 9 2.44 –Build<strong>in</strong>g customer relationships 3.43 10 3.45 7Note: *<strong>Clark</strong> et al. (<strong>2002</strong>). Companies with websites provided importance rat<strong>in</strong>gs forfactors on a scale of 1-5, where 1 is very low, 3 is moderate and 5 is very high.RANKING7

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!