In the previous section, we argued that businesses can be involved in three types of organizational
integration. As the business needs to be integrated, ICT systems need to be
integrated, too (as is discussed in contingency theory; see, e.g., Borgatti, 2001). Therefore,
as companies are confronted with three basic types of integration at organizational level
(internal, within the Extended Enterprise, and with the marketplace) we should recognize
three levels of IT-integration as well.
The first type of IT-integration companies should realize is the internal integration of the
diverse systems within company walls generally referred to as �enterprise application integration�
(EAI).
The two other types of IT-integration concern B2Bi, the topic of this chapter. First there is the
extended enterprise integration (EEi). In the context of the extended enterprise, companies
that dispose of capabilities that are useful for each other try to cooperate/collaborate. It is
important to note that partnering organizations have decided to do business with each other
for an extended period of time. They know the other company can deliver to a certain extent
what is needed. A partnership is set up to get more out of the other company than what is
already being delivered, and it is recognized that some form of coordination is necessary to
realize additional benefits. Partnering enterprises need to find out how they can be of more
value to each other. The development of customized software is part of this value adding
effort. It is clear that partner-specific IT investments can be made.
Essentially, this is not the case in the other type of B2Bi. This second form of B2Bi we call
market B2Bi. Companies that do business in the marketplace do not cooperate/collaborate.
Basically for each transaction they try to find out who can deliver what is needed. Every
time again, companies have the free choice to choose the services from a company (present
in the marketplace) that fulfills the needs. Therefore, no thorough coordination among the
companies is needed. Of course, service-providing companies try to pick up signals from the
market to deliver the services that are useful, and they try to minimize costs, but there is no
partnering. This scenario shows the IT integration alternatives. Market Web services have
mainly been developed in isolation and may be found through a market mechanism such
as the global UDDI (universal description, discovery, and integration) registries. Furthermore,
organizations may do business with many other organizations through an electronic
marketplace. Figure 3 shows the ideas presented here.
Currently, the boundary between EEi and market B2Bi is vague. These two types of B2Bi
actually cover a whole continuum of B2Bi practices (as is also clear from organization theory).
With the current state of technology, we believe that Market B2Bi primarily concerns the
indirect integration through electronic marketplaces. In the future new Web services standards
and semantic Web standards may be developed that enable organizations to dynamically
Saturday, July 3, 2010
The.Extended. Enterprise. vs.. Other.Forms. of.Doing. Business:
For a long time, two basic forms of economic organization have been recognized: markets
on the one hand and hierarchies (firms) on the other. Powell (1990) refers to
Ronald Coase as the person who first discussed the firm as a governance structure
rather than just as a black box that transforms inputs into outputs. Coase (1937)
asserts that firms and markets are alternative means for organizing similar
kinds of transactions. Only in the 1970s did ct upon Coase�s findings. One of these proponents,
Williamson (1975, 1985), argues that some transactions are more likely to take
place within hierarchically organized firms (Williamson equated firms with hierarchies)
than through a market interface. More specifically, he states that transactions that are to
be executed within hierarchically organized firms are likely to involve uncertainty about
their outcome, recur frequently and require substantial �transaction-specific investments�
(of money, time, or energy) that cannot be easily transferred. On the other hand, exchanges
that are straightforward, non-repetitive, and require no transaction-specific investments can
be expected to take place across a market interface. This dichotomous view of markets and
hierarchies�as discussed by Williamson (1975)�sees firms as separate from
markets and assumes the presence of sharp firm boundaries. These
sharp boundaries, however, do not always seem to be present. This is true especially in the
case of partnering organizations (extended enterprises, see Figure 1). Transactions between
partnering companies can be seen as a hybrid form of economic organization. That is, if
transactions are distributed as points along a continuum with discrete market transactions
located at one end and the highly centralized firm at the other end, partnering companies
fall in between these poles. The definition of Podolny and Page is very much aimed at
identifying the differences between the network form of organization on the one hand,
and markets and hierarchies on the other hand:
In pure markets companies do not aim at enduring relations, and in hierarchies there is a
clearly recognized, legitimate authority that can resolve disputes that arise among actors.
Besides these two characteristics, some scholars (e.g., Dore, 1983; Powell, 1990) have argued
that network forms of organization also posses another characteristic, namely a distinct ethic
or value-orientation on the part of exchange partners. Hirschman (1970) argues that partners
are willing to make relationship-specific investments without contractual guarantees protecting
those investments, and for Powell the norm of reciprocity is key (1990, pp. 303-304):
on the one hand and hierarchies (firms) on the other. Powell (1990) refers to
Ronald Coase as the person who first discussed the firm as a governance structure
rather than just as a black box that transforms inputs into outputs. Coase (1937)
asserts that firms and markets are alternative means for organizing similar
kinds of transactions. Only in the 1970s did ct upon Coase�s findings. One of these proponents,
Williamson (1975, 1985), argues that some transactions are more likely to take
place within hierarchically organized firms (Williamson equated firms with hierarchies)
than through a market interface. More specifically, he states that transactions that are to
be executed within hierarchically organized firms are likely to involve uncertainty about
their outcome, recur frequently and require substantial �transaction-specific investments�
(of money, time, or energy) that cannot be easily transferred. On the other hand, exchanges
that are straightforward, non-repetitive, and require no transaction-specific investments can
be expected to take place across a market interface. This dichotomous view of markets and
hierarchies�as discussed by Williamson (1975)�sees firms as separate from
markets and assumes the presence of sharp firm boundaries. These
sharp boundaries, however, do not always seem to be present. This is true especially in the
case of partnering organizations (extended enterprises, see Figure 1). Transactions between
partnering companies can be seen as a hybrid form of economic organization. That is, if
transactions are distributed as points along a continuum with discrete market transactions
located at one end and the highly centralized firm at the other end, partnering companies
fall in between these poles. The definition of Podolny and Page is very much aimed at
identifying the differences between the network form of organization on the one hand,
and markets and hierarchies on the other hand:
In pure markets companies do not aim at enduring relations, and in hierarchies there is a
clearly recognized, legitimate authority that can resolve disputes that arise among actors.
Besides these two characteristics, some scholars (e.g., Dore, 1983; Powell, 1990) have argued
that network forms of organization also posses another characteristic, namely a distinct ethic
or value-orientation on the part of exchange partners. Hirschman (1970) argues that partners
are willing to make relationship-specific investments without contractual guarantees protecting
those investments, and for Powell the norm of reciprocity is key (1990, pp. 303-304):
Approaches. to. Business.Modeling:
Business modeling is a vast area of research and practice, which is gaining increasing importance
in the rapid development of e-business and globalisation (Holsapple, 2001). The
following are some approaches used in business modeling:
1. Textual description (e.g., abstract use cases)
2. Categories and visualization
3. Simulation approaches
4. Data/workflow-description programs
5. Process notation languages (e.g., Unified Modeling Language (UML))
The common categorization of B2B models seen in the literature is divisions based on target
audience or type of products/services involved in the business processes.
In order to understand this categorization, we have first to observe the two dimensions
through which companies obtain the products and services they need (Kaplan & Sawhney,
2000). The first dimension is related to the kind of products and services purchased, and the
second relates to the frequency with which companies make their purchases. The products
and services can be classified into manufacturing inputs and operating inputs. Manufacturing
inputs are raw materials applied in the manufacturing process. Operating inputs are
normally low-value products and services, usually commodities (e.g., advertising, utilities,
electricity, office supplies), also known as maintenance, repair, and operations (MRO)
inputs. In relation to the frequency inputs are acquired, there are both systematic sourcing
and spot-market sourcing.
Another more general and easier-to-remember categorization can be attained by focusing on
the processes that these e-business models are designed to facilitate. E-businesses can support
the relationship between a company and its customers and suppliers (usually commercial
transactions) and with related partners like collaborators and contractors. Thus e-business
models can be classified according to its focus (IBM, 2003a; Weill & Vitale, 2001):
� Focus on the process of selling goods and services to other companies (e-commerce
sell-side)
� Focus on the process of e-procurement and other processes related to the supply chain
management. Various sub-models in this category are as follows:
o Buyer model (few buyers, many sellers)
o Marketplace model (many buyers and many sellers)
o Longer-term relationship model (few buyers and few sellers)
o Seller model (few sellers, many buyers)
� Focus on collaboration between businesses, partners, and contractors (i.e., e-collaboration,
in the rapid development of e-business and globalisation (Holsapple, 2001). The
following are some approaches used in business modeling:
1. Textual description (e.g., abstract use cases)
2. Categories and visualization
3. Simulation approaches
4. Data/workflow-description programs
5. Process notation languages (e.g., Unified Modeling Language (UML))
The common categorization of B2B models seen in the literature is divisions based on target
audience or type of products/services involved in the business processes.
In order to understand this categorization, we have first to observe the two dimensions
through which companies obtain the products and services they need (Kaplan & Sawhney,
2000). The first dimension is related to the kind of products and services purchased, and the
second relates to the frequency with which companies make their purchases. The products
and services can be classified into manufacturing inputs and operating inputs. Manufacturing
inputs are raw materials applied in the manufacturing process. Operating inputs are
normally low-value products and services, usually commodities (e.g., advertising, utilities,
electricity, office supplies), also known as maintenance, repair, and operations (MRO)
inputs. In relation to the frequency inputs are acquired, there are both systematic sourcing
and spot-market sourcing.
Another more general and easier-to-remember categorization can be attained by focusing on
the processes that these e-business models are designed to facilitate. E-businesses can support
the relationship between a company and its customers and suppliers (usually commercial
transactions) and with related partners like collaborators and contractors. Thus e-business
models can be classified according to its focus (IBM, 2003a; Weill & Vitale, 2001):
� Focus on the process of selling goods and services to other companies (e-commerce
sell-side)
� Focus on the process of e-procurement and other processes related to the supply chain
management. Various sub-models in this category are as follows:
o Buyer model (few buyers, many sellers)
o Marketplace model (many buyers and many sellers)
o Longer-term relationship model (few buyers and few sellers)
o Seller model (few sellers, many buyers)
� Focus on collaboration between businesses, partners, and contractors (i.e., e-collaboration,
A.Process-Based.Categorization. and.Analysis.of. Business-to-Business.Models:
The economic impact of the Internet is like the oil shock in reverse. The jump in oil prices
during the 1970s increased inflation and pushed the world into recession. However, the
Internet reduces the cost of information. This has positive economic effects, since it makes
it easier for buyers and suppliers to compare prices and eliminate the middlemen between
firms and customers, lowers transaction costs, and reduces entry barriers. Economists have
an interesting argument: the main reason why firms exist is to minimize transaction costs.
These reduced transaction and communication costs can lead to both bigger and smaller
optimal firm sizes. Smaller firms can buy services cheaply from outside, and this reduces
the barriers to entry.
The Internet can link up supply chains, make it easy to place and track orders, and display
specifications at the click of a mouse. Hence few companies are willing to miss out on
the benefits e-commerce offers. So, it is certain that the Internet reduces costs, increases
competition, and improves functioning of the pricing mechanism. The Internet moves the
economy closer to the theory of perfect competition, which assumes abundant information,
zero transaction costs and no entry barriers. Analysts feel markets should become more
efficient as the Internet increases the flow of information between buyers and sellers. This,
in turn, should ensure efficient allocation of scarce resources.
E-commerce increases competitive intensity by allowing business customers to consider
every available alternative to every offering. Suppliers no longer compete with two or three
familiar competitors but with every company in the world that has a web site and a comparable
product or service. E-commerce also undermines traditional sources of advantage based on
asymmetries of information. In the past, sellers derived some advantage by knowing more
than their buyers. Such an advantage came from knowing more about the product, the cost
availability of raw materials and components, and the efficiency of their own manufacturing
processes. Each step in the supply chain had a lock on its own information, which made
each link more defensible but the chain as a whole less efficient.
The Internet does away with much of this privileged access to information, shifting the
competitive emphasis away from secrecy and toward transparency and the absolute comparative
value of the offering. Distribution and sales channels have always conveyed a certain
amount of information back to suppliers. However, bandwidth, precision, ease, speed, and
manageability of the information flowing in both directions are orders of magnitude greater
on the Internet. The interactive exchange of information, design requirements, component
specifications, cost tracking, logistics oversight, service requests and troubleshooting advice
permits an unprecedented level of customization. Competition on this level will necessarily
become the rule.
As B2B e-commerce becomes one of the most profitable applications for the Internet, we
need to understand the implications of the many technological and market changes that will
usher in an entirely new way of doing business. The B2B e-commerce revolution includes
e-procurement, B2B exchanges, and business infrastructure relationships.
E-procurement involves firms selling supplies, equipment, materials, and services with
a streamlined online purchasing function that often eliminates traditional intermediaries,
thereby reducing costs and cycle times while offering greater flexibility and responsiveness
to changes in demand. Web-based supply chain management networks improve coordination
during the 1970s increased inflation and pushed the world into recession. However, the
Internet reduces the cost of information. This has positive economic effects, since it makes
it easier for buyers and suppliers to compare prices and eliminate the middlemen between
firms and customers, lowers transaction costs, and reduces entry barriers. Economists have
an interesting argument: the main reason why firms exist is to minimize transaction costs.
These reduced transaction and communication costs can lead to both bigger and smaller
optimal firm sizes. Smaller firms can buy services cheaply from outside, and this reduces
the barriers to entry.
The Internet can link up supply chains, make it easy to place and track orders, and display
specifications at the click of a mouse. Hence few companies are willing to miss out on
the benefits e-commerce offers. So, it is certain that the Internet reduces costs, increases
competition, and improves functioning of the pricing mechanism. The Internet moves the
economy closer to the theory of perfect competition, which assumes abundant information,
zero transaction costs and no entry barriers. Analysts feel markets should become more
efficient as the Internet increases the flow of information between buyers and sellers. This,
in turn, should ensure efficient allocation of scarce resources.
E-commerce increases competitive intensity by allowing business customers to consider
every available alternative to every offering. Suppliers no longer compete with two or three
familiar competitors but with every company in the world that has a web site and a comparable
product or service. E-commerce also undermines traditional sources of advantage based on
asymmetries of information. In the past, sellers derived some advantage by knowing more
than their buyers. Such an advantage came from knowing more about the product, the cost
availability of raw materials and components, and the efficiency of their own manufacturing
processes. Each step in the supply chain had a lock on its own information, which made
each link more defensible but the chain as a whole less efficient.
The Internet does away with much of this privileged access to information, shifting the
competitive emphasis away from secrecy and toward transparency and the absolute comparative
value of the offering. Distribution and sales channels have always conveyed a certain
amount of information back to suppliers. However, bandwidth, precision, ease, speed, and
manageability of the information flowing in both directions are orders of magnitude greater
on the Internet. The interactive exchange of information, design requirements, component
specifications, cost tracking, logistics oversight, service requests and troubleshooting advice
permits an unprecedented level of customization. Competition on this level will necessarily
become the rule.
As B2B e-commerce becomes one of the most profitable applications for the Internet, we
need to understand the implications of the many technological and market changes that will
usher in an entirely new way of doing business. The B2B e-commerce revolution includes
e-procurement, B2B exchanges, and business infrastructure relationships.
E-procurement involves firms selling supplies, equipment, materials, and services with
a streamlined online purchasing function that often eliminates traditional intermediaries,
thereby reducing costs and cycle times while offering greater flexibility and responsiveness
to changes in demand. Web-based supply chain management networks improve coordination
Achieving.the.Necessary.Coordination.in.Web.Services..Development:
The question concerning distributed vs. decentralized computing directly shows in a discussion
on standards. After all, standards play a big role in integrating systems; they resolve the need
for coordination (at the level at which the standard works). The concept of Web services is
currently receiving very much attention as a paradigm that allows B2Bi. The biggest strength
of this concept is just that it includes a set of ICT standards. Simple object access protocol
(SOAP), for example, is a standard way to communicate with Web services.
In building a business-to-business process, companies need to agree on a number of issues.
Agreement is not only needed at ICT level but also at business level. Above that, it is important
to know how to translate the business agreement into an ICT agreement, and�the
other way around�how to use ICT agreements to enable the business.
It is important to recognize the role of standards, their powers, and their threats. It can be
very useful to standardize issues�be it business issues or ICT issues�on which it does not
make any sense to compete. But of course, by standardizing some issues, competition shifts
to other issues. Companies want to make a difference somewhere. Standards such as SOAP
are very useful and lift the competition to the level of using the standard creatively.
There are different levels of compromise possible among parties (Besen & Farrell, 1994).
The levels of agreement on ICT issues are shown in Figure 5. Parties need at least bilateral
agreements. An active coordination among the parties is, however, not always necessary.
Some issues have already been standardized sufficiently at a higher level (for example at
the level of the software vendor). Clearly, companies do not have to discuss on the contents
covered by a standard anymore if they both agree to use the same existing standard.
Of course, not everything is being standardized. When it comes to technology, it is only where
interoperability is important that standards become required. Features that cause customer
dissatisfaction or hinder industry growth4 evolve into standards, while �customer-useful
differentiating features� do not tend to evolve into standards. Furthermore, the demand for
standards usually comes from the users and customers of the technology who experience
the confusion caused by the lack of standards (Cook, 1996). Employees (be it business or
ICT employees) may for example notice that there is no standard terminology for important
concepts in their company and that this creates communication problems. Companies then
consider creating a �data dictionary� with a standardized vocabulary. At the level of business-
to-business relations, companies may suffer from a non-standardized vocabulary too.
If one company uses the field �customerno� in its database, and another company uses the
field �customernumber,� both companies know the same concept but have a different name
assigned to the concept. In order to have IT systems of such companies talking to each other,
a translation will be necessary (from the standardized vocabulary of one company to the
standardized vocabulary of another company).
In choosing which level of agreement (and which standard) to use, it is important to evaluate
the opportunities that are being offered by the different levels (and standards at those levels).
As such, the presence/absence of network effects should be taken into account when deciding
when to use standards. Network effects are based on the concept of positive feedback,
that is, the situation in which success generates more success. The value of connecting to
a network depends on the number of other people already connected to it (i.e., you can
connect to). Network effects do not play in the extended
enterprise (�change partners� is a contradiction in terms), but they do play in market B2Bi
on standards. After all, standards play a big role in integrating systems; they resolve the need
for coordination (at the level at which the standard works). The concept of Web services is
currently receiving very much attention as a paradigm that allows B2Bi. The biggest strength
of this concept is just that it includes a set of ICT standards. Simple object access protocol
(SOAP), for example, is a standard way to communicate with Web services.
In building a business-to-business process, companies need to agree on a number of issues.
Agreement is not only needed at ICT level but also at business level. Above that, it is important
to know how to translate the business agreement into an ICT agreement, and�the
other way around�how to use ICT agreements to enable the business.
It is important to recognize the role of standards, their powers, and their threats. It can be
very useful to standardize issues�be it business issues or ICT issues�on which it does not
make any sense to compete. But of course, by standardizing some issues, competition shifts
to other issues. Companies want to make a difference somewhere. Standards such as SOAP
are very useful and lift the competition to the level of using the standard creatively.
There are different levels of compromise possible among parties (Besen & Farrell, 1994).
The levels of agreement on ICT issues are shown in Figure 5. Parties need at least bilateral
agreements. An active coordination among the parties is, however, not always necessary.
Some issues have already been standardized sufficiently at a higher level (for example at
the level of the software vendor). Clearly, companies do not have to discuss on the contents
covered by a standard anymore if they both agree to use the same existing standard.
Of course, not everything is being standardized. When it comes to technology, it is only where
interoperability is important that standards become required. Features that cause customer
dissatisfaction or hinder industry growth4 evolve into standards, while �customer-useful
differentiating features� do not tend to evolve into standards. Furthermore, the demand for
standards usually comes from the users and customers of the technology who experience
the confusion caused by the lack of standards (Cook, 1996). Employees (be it business or
ICT employees) may for example notice that there is no standard terminology for important
concepts in their company and that this creates communication problems. Companies then
consider creating a �data dictionary� with a standardized vocabulary. At the level of business-
to-business relations, companies may suffer from a non-standardized vocabulary too.
If one company uses the field �customerno� in its database, and another company uses the
field �customernumber,� both companies know the same concept but have a different name
assigned to the concept. In order to have IT systems of such companies talking to each other,
a translation will be necessary (from the standardized vocabulary of one company to the
standardized vocabulary of another company).
In choosing which level of agreement (and which standard) to use, it is important to evaluate
the opportunities that are being offered by the different levels (and standards at those levels).
As such, the presence/absence of network effects should be taken into account when deciding
when to use standards. Network effects are based on the concept of positive feedback,
that is, the situation in which success generates more success. The value of connecting to
a network depends on the number of other people already connected to it (i.e., you can
connect to). Network effects do not play in the extended
enterprise (�change partners� is a contradiction in terms), but they do play in market B2Bi
Scope.of.the.EDI.and.Web-EDI.Models.in.B2B:
EDI is the electronic transfer of business documents such as purchase orders or invoices
between computer systems of different enterprises based on an established norm/format
such as UN/EDIFACT or ANSI X.12 (Galileo Computing, 2003). EDI has now been used
for over 30 years for the exchange of business data (e.g., delivery notes and invoices as
mentioned above) between two application systems in a standardized and automated form
(Emmelhainz, 1993; Dressler, 2003). The benefits associated with traditional EDI include
cost reductions induced by rationalization and automation and shorter order processing
time (Deutsch, 1994).
Traditional EDI includes converters on both sides of the communication line. Data are normally
transferred between enterprises as illustrated in Figure 6. Therefore, on both sides, a
translation into formats understandable by different ERP systems such as SAP R/3 or JDEdwards
is to be guaranteed. Because of the early introduction and the market acceptance
of EDI systems in the 1980s, different standards exist for the description of EDI data (EDI
Comp., 2003).
Beck, Weitzel, and K�nig (2000) state that besides the alleged benefits, EDI is not as widespread
as many had expected. Presently only 5% of all companies that could benefit from
EDI actually use it (Segev et al., 1997) due to the considerably high costs for implementing
EDI systems (Swatman et al., 1997). New developments of innovative EDI solutions such
as Web-EDI or XML/EDI avoid the problems of traditional EDI technologies.
between computer systems of different enterprises based on an established norm/format
such as UN/EDIFACT or ANSI X.12 (Galileo Computing, 2003). EDI has now been used
for over 30 years for the exchange of business data (e.g., delivery notes and invoices as
mentioned above) between two application systems in a standardized and automated form
(Emmelhainz, 1993; Dressler, 2003). The benefits associated with traditional EDI include
cost reductions induced by rationalization and automation and shorter order processing
time (Deutsch, 1994).
Traditional EDI includes converters on both sides of the communication line. Data are normally
transferred between enterprises as illustrated in Figure 6. Therefore, on both sides, a
translation into formats understandable by different ERP systems such as SAP R/3 or JDEdwards
is to be guaranteed. Because of the early introduction and the market acceptance
of EDI systems in the 1980s, different standards exist for the description of EDI data (EDI
Comp., 2003).
Beck, Weitzel, and K�nig (2000) state that besides the alleged benefits, EDI is not as widespread
as many had expected. Presently only 5% of all companies that could benefit from
EDI actually use it (Segev et al., 1997) due to the considerably high costs for implementing
EDI systems (Swatman et al., 1997). New developments of innovative EDI solutions such
as Web-EDI or XML/EDI avoid the problems of traditional EDI technologies.
B2B.E-Procurement:
B2B e-procurement is used not only by participation in a procurement marketplace but also
as an enhancement of the existing conventional model. The goals of various e-procurement
business models are cost saving through exchanges/marketplaces, direct connection
of supply chain via electronic data interchange (EDI), Web-EDI, desktop purchasing, and
elimination/reduction of procurement department (Lee, 2001).
The above e-procurement models are normally implemented by e-procurement systems
and supplier portals. The major goals in most cases are process and marketing advantages,
such as:
� Availability: 24/7 availability is provided for a set of services 365 days a year
� Speed: Transactions are fulfilled faster, compared to non-electronic transactions
� Logistics efficiency considerations: Support for �Just in time delivery� and �Just in
sequence delivery�
� Integration.of.processes: Synergy effects of integrated processes can be achieved,
and parallelism of processes is supported. As a result, the time between the output of
one process to be recognized as an input to another process is significantly reduced.
Due to the integration of processes and systems, the complexity of the e-procurement
models increases as businesses further digitally enhance their business with e-procurement
facilities.
as an enhancement of the existing conventional model. The goals of various e-procurement
business models are cost saving through exchanges/marketplaces, direct connection
of supply chain via electronic data interchange (EDI), Web-EDI, desktop purchasing, and
elimination/reduction of procurement department (Lee, 2001).
The above e-procurement models are normally implemented by e-procurement systems
and supplier portals. The major goals in most cases are process and marketing advantages,
such as:
� Availability: 24/7 availability is provided for a set of services 365 days a year
� Speed: Transactions are fulfilled faster, compared to non-electronic transactions
� Logistics efficiency considerations: Support for �Just in time delivery� and �Just in
sequence delivery�
� Integration.of.processes: Synergy effects of integrated processes can be achieved,
and parallelism of processes is supported. As a result, the time between the output of
one process to be recognized as an input to another process is significantly reduced.
Due to the integration of processes and systems, the complexity of the e-procurement
models increases as businesses further digitally enhance their business with e-procurement
facilities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)