17.01.2013 Views

[8] 2002 e-business-strategies-for-virtual-organizations

[8] 2002 e-business-strategies-for-virtual-organizations

[8] 2002 e-business-strategies-for-virtual-organizations

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.

e-Business Strategies <strong>for</strong> Virtual Organizations<br />

36<br />

paperwork and time seem pedestrian, even though they<br />

have clearly led to big savings in procurement time and<br />

cost.<br />

� Next came third-party exchanges, independent firms that<br />

bring together many buyers and sellers to create a genuine<br />

market. The potential is bigger, but gaining critical mass is<br />

harder. There are still plenty of companies who fail to see<br />

why they should go out of their way to cut their profits by<br />

taking part in an open trading system.<br />

� Now comes the third phase: when the giants of an industry<br />

get together in a consortium. On 25 February 2000 General<br />

Motors, Ford and Daimler Chrysler abandoned their standalone<br />

ef<strong>for</strong>ts and joined <strong>for</strong>ces to create the world’s largest<br />

<strong>virtual</strong> market, which will buy $240 billion worth of parts<br />

from tens of thousands of suppliers. Within days Toyota,<br />

Renault and its Japanese affiliate, Nissan, had all expressed<br />

interest in joining; others will follow. On 28 February 2000<br />

America’s Sears, Roebuck and France’s Carrefour announced<br />

a retail consortium, called GlobalNetXchange, that will<br />

handle US$80 billion worth of purchases annually. And on 1<br />

March Cargill, DuPont and Cenex Harvest, an American<br />

farm cooperative, set up Rooster.com, which will both<br />

supply farmers and sell their crops. These consortia are an<br />

improvement on previous independent online ef<strong>for</strong>ts.<br />

How will other markets evolve? The answer depends on the<br />

structure of their industries. Compare the following two<br />

extremes. Pyramid-shaped industries are exemplified in car<br />

manufacturing, the PC industry and chemical markets. These<br />

are ones in which there are few big buyers and an enormous<br />

and fragmented mass of small suppliers. In PCs, Ingram Micro<br />

aggregates big manufacturers and sells to thousands of small<br />

resellers. FOB.com aggregates small chemical suppliers <strong>for</strong><br />

DuPont, Dow and a few other big buyers. Because of the<br />

asymmetry in these industries, such exchanges tend to be<br />

‘biased markets’: they naturally favour one side of the deal<br />

flow.<br />

Exchanges have several advantages. Because of the power they<br />

consolidate, they easily reach critical mass and so avoid the<br />

Catch-22 of having to persuade sellers to join when buyers are<br />

scarce. They can also be financed, or owned, by market<br />

participants (as in the car and retail exchanges) without<br />

compromising themselves, since small firms are used to the<br />

idea of working with big ones.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!