Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

The Screening Role of Design Parameters for Service Procurement Auctions in Online Service Outsourcing Platforms

Published: 01 December 2022 Publication History

Abstract

This paper provides a novel theoretical angle and robust empirical evidence demonstrating that the auction duration and the item description length are two essential auction design parameters that can function as screening mechanisms for bidder quality on online service outsourcing platforms. These outsourcing platforms use buyer-determined reverse auctions to find service providers. Using data from a major online outsourcing platform, we examine the effects of the auction duration and the item description length on both bidder entry (i.e., the number of bids and bidder quality) and contract outcomes (i.e., whether a project is contracted and the buyer’s expected utility from the winning bid) based upon the project- and bidder-level analyses. We find that auctions with longer durations and item descriptions attract more bids, but they also attract disproportionately more low-quality bidders, creating a double whammy of higher evaluation costs and adverse selection for buyers. This, in turn, leads to less successful contracting as well as lower buyer utility. Our research highlights the screening role of the auction duration and item description length for buyers on online service outsourcing platforms: by shortening auction durations and item descriptions, buyers can expect higher quality bidders, increase contracting probability, and enhance utility.

Abstract

This paper provides a novel theoretical angle and robust empirical evidence demonstrating that the auction duration and item description length are two essential auction design parameters that can function as a screening mechanism for bidder quality on online service outsourcing platforms. These outsourcing platforms use buyer-determined reverse auctions to find providers of services (primarily IT services). Using data from a major online outsourcing platform that connects buyers with bidders, we examine the effects of the auction duration and the item description length on both bidder entry (i.e., the number of bids and bidder quality) and contract outcomes (i.e., whether a project is contracted and the buyer’s expected utility from the winning bid) based upon not only project-level, but also bidder-level analyses. Our results show that auctions with longer durations and item descriptions attract more bids (i.e., higher quantity of bidders), and they also attract disproportionately more bidders with lower completion rates (i.e., lower quality of bidders), creating a double whammy of higher evaluation costs and adverse selection for buyers. This, in turn, leads to contracting inefficiency in terms of less successful contracting as well as lower buyer utility. Our research shows strong support for the screening role of the auction duration and the item description length for buyers on online outsourcing platforms for service procurement: by shortening auction durations and item descriptions, buyers can expect higher quality bidders, increase contracting probability, and enhance utility.
History: Ravi Bapna, Martin Bichler, Bob Day, and Wolfgang Ketter, Senior Editors; Benjamin Lubin, Associate Editor. This paper has been accepted for the Information Systems Research Special Section on Market Design and Analytics.
Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2022.1168.

References

[1]
Abadie A, Diamond A, Hainmueller J (2015) Comparative politics and the synthetic control method. Amer. J. Political Sci. 59(2):495–510.
[2]
Abaluck J, Gruber J (2011) Choice inconsistencies among the elderly: Evidence from plan choice in the Medicare Part D program. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(4):1180–1210.
[3]
Adomavicius G, Gupta A, Sanyal P (2012) Effect of information feedback on the outcomes and dynamics of multisourcing multiattribute procurement auctions. J. Management Inform. Systems 28(4):199–230.
[4]
Albano GL, Dini F, Zampino R (2009) Bidding for complex projects: Evidence from Italian government’s acquisitions of IT services. Internat. Conf. Electronic Government (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg), 353–363).
[5]
Angelov D (2020) Top2Vec: Distributed representations of topics. Preprint, submitted August 19, https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.09470.
[6]
Ariely D, Simonson I (2003) Buying, bidding, playing, or competing? Value assessment and decision dynamics in online auctions. J. Consumer Psych. 13(1–2):113–123.
[7]
Asker J, Cantillon E (2006) Procurement when both price and quality matter. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 6082, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington, DC.
[8]
Banker RD, Hwang I (2008) Importance of measures of past performance: Empirical evidence on quality of e-service providers. Contemporary Accounting Res. 25(2):293–306.
[9]
Bapna R, Jank W, Shmueli G (2008) Price formation and its dynamics in online auctions. Decision Support Systems 44(3):641–656.
[10]
Bapna R, Chang SA, Goes P, Gupta A (2009) Overlapping online auctions: Empirical characterization of bidder strategies and auction prices. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 33(4):763–783.
[11]
Bapna R, Goes P, Wei KK, Zhang Z (2011) A finite mixture logit model to segment and predict electronic payments system adoption. Inform. Systems Res. 22(1):118–133.
[12]
Beach BH (1975) Expert judgment about uncertainty: Bayesian decision making in realistic settings. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 14(1):10–59.
[13]
Benson A, Sojourner A, Umyarov A (2020) Can reputation discipline the gig economy? Experimental evidence from an online labor market. Management Sci. 66(5):1802–1825.
[14]
Branco F (1997) The design of multidimensional auctions. RAND J. Econom. 28(1):63–81.
[15]
Brocas I, Carrillo JD, Castro M (2017) Second-price common value auctions with uncertainty, private and public information: Experimental evidence. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 100(67):28–40.
[16]
Burtch G, Carnahan S, Greenwood BN (2018) Can you gig it? An empirical examination of the gig economy and entrepreneurial activity. Management Sci. 64(12):5497–5520.
[17]
Carr SM (2003) Note on online auctions with costly bid evaluation. Management Sci. 49(11):1521–1528.
[18]
Che YK (1993) Design competition through multidimensional auctions. RAND J. Econom. 24(4):668–680.
[19]
Chen PY, Pavlou P, Wu S, Yang Y (2021) Attracting high-quality contestants to contest in the context of crowdsourcing contest platform. Production Oper. Management 30(6):1751–1771.
[20]
Choudhury V, Hartzel KS, Konsynski BR (1998) Uses and consequences of electronic markets: An empirical investigation in the aircraft parts industry. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 22(4):471–507.
[21]
Cox RG (2005) Optimal reservation prices and superior information in auctions with common-value elements: Evidence from field data. Ekonomia 8(2):142–167.
[22]
Einav L, Farronato C, Levin JD, Sundaresan N (2013) Sales mechanisms in online markets: What happened to internet auctions? NBER Working Paper No. w19021, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
[23]
Einav L, Kuchler T, Levin J, Sundaresan N (2015) Assessing sale strategies in online markets using matched listings. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconomics 7(2):215–247.
[24]
Einhorn HJ, Hogarth RM (1981) Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgement and choice. Annual Rev. Psych. 32(1):53–88.
[25]
Fu Y, Li N, Feng J, Ye Q (2021) Incongruent skills and experiences in online labor market. Electronic Commerce Res. Appl. 45:101025.
[26]
Garrett DG, Ohrn E, Suárez Serrato JC (2020) Tax policy and local labor market behavior. Amer. Econom. Rev. Insights 2(1):83–100.
[27]
Guo X, Gong J, Pavlou P (2017) Call for bids to improve matching efficiency: Evidence from online labor markets. Proc. 38th Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (Association for Information Systems, Seoul, South Korea).
[28]
Haruvy E, Leszczyc PTP (2010) The impact of online auction duration. Decision Anal. 7(1):99–106.
[29]
Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA (2007) Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Anal. 15(3):199–236.
[30]
Hong Y, Pavlou PA (2017) On buyer selection of service providers in online outsourcing platforms for IT services. Inform. Systems Res. 28(3):547–562.
[31]
Hong Y, Wang C, Pavlou PA (2016) Comparing open and sealed bid auctions: Evidence from online labor market. Inform. Systems Res. 27(1):49–69.
[32]
Hong Z, Wu R, Sun Y, Dong K (2020) Buyer preferences for auction pricing rules in online outsourcing markets: Fixed price vs. open price. Electronic Marketing 30(1):163–179.
[33]
Horton JJ (2019) Buyer uncertainty about seller capacity: Causes, consequences, and a partial solution. Management Sci. 65(8):3518–3540.
[34]
Huang N, Burtch G, He Y, Hong Y (2022) Managing congestion in a matching market via demand information disclosure. Inform. Systems Res., ePub ahead of print June 29, https://doi/10.1287/isre.2022.1148.
[35]
Iacus SM, King G, Porro G (2012) Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Anal. 20(1):1–24.
[36]
Iyengar S, Lepper M (2000) When choice is demotivating. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 79(6):995–1006.
[37]
Kannan KN (2012) Effects of information revelation policies under cost uncertainty. Inform. Systems Res. 23(1):75–92.
[38]
Kreye ME (2011) Uncertainty analysis in competitive bidding for service contracts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bath, UK.
[39]
Kwasnica AM, Katok E (2007) The effect of timing on jump bidding in ascending auctions. Production Oper. Management 16(4):483–494.
[40]
Ladenburg J, Bonnichsen O, Meyerhoff J (2020) Trading off positive and negative service changes in childcare: A choice experiment using a latent class modelling approach. Appl. Econom. 52(13):1427–1445.
[41]
Liu Y, Feng J, Wei KK (2012) Negative price premium effect in online market—The impact of competition and buyer informativeness on the pricing strategies of sellers with different reputation levels. Decision Support Systems 54(1):681–690.
[42]
Lucking-Reiley D (2000) Auctions on the internet: What’s being auctioned, and how? J. Indust. Econom. 48(3):227–252.
[43]
McDonald CG, Slawson VC Jr (2002) Reputation in an internet auction market. Econom. Inquiry 40(4):633–650.
[44]
McFadden D (1979) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka P, ed. Frontiers in Econometrics (Academic Press, New York), 105–142.
[45]
Milgrom P (1979) A convergence theorem for competitive bidding with differential information. Econometrica 47(3):679–688.
[46]
Mithas S, Jones JL (2007) Do auction parameters affect buyer surplus in e‐auctions for procurement? Production Oper. Management 16(4):455–470.
[47]
Mithas S, Jones JL, Mitchell W (2008) Buyer intention to use internet-enabled reverse auctions: The role of asset specificity, product specialization, and non-contractibility. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 32(4):705–724.
[48]
Moreno A, Terwiesch C (2014) Doing business with strangers: Reputation in online service marketplaces. Inform. Systems Res. 25(4):865–886.
[49]
Pallais A (2014) Inefficient hiring in entry-level labor markets. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(11):3565–3599.
[50]
Park YH, Bradlow E (2005) An integrated model for whether, who, when, and how much in internet auctions. J. Marketing Res. 42(4):470–482.
[51]
Pendleton L, Mendelsohn R (2000) Estimating recreation preferences using hedonic travel cost and random utility models. Environ. Resources Econom. 17(1):89–108.
[52]
Roth AE, Ockenfels A (2002) Last-minute bidding and the rules for ending second-price auctions: Evidence from eBay and Amazon auctions on the internet. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(4):1093–1103.
[53]
Subramanian H, Overby E (2017) Electronic commerce, spatial arbitrage, and market efficiency. Inform. Systems Res. 28(1):97–116.
[54]
Schwartz B (2009) The Paradox of Choice (Harper Perennial, New York).
[55]
Schwartz ES, Moon M (2000) Rational pricing of internet companies. Financial Anal. J. 56(3):62–75.
[56]
Simonsohn U (2010) eBay’s crowded evenings: Competition neglect in market entry decisions. Management Sci. 56(7):1060–1073.
[57]
Snir EM, Hitt LM (2003) Costly bidding in online markets for IT services. Management Sci. 49(11):1504–1520.
[58]
Stoll S, Zöttl G (2017) Transparency in buyer‐determined auctions: Should quality be private or public? Production Oper. Management 26(11):2006–2032.
[59]
Train KE (2008) EM algorithms for nonparametric estimation of mixing distributions. J. Choice Model. 1(1):40–69.
[60]
Train KE (2009) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (Cambridge University Press, New York).
[61]
Turban DB, Cable DM (2003) Firm reputation and applicant pool characteristics. J. Organ. Behav. 24(6):733–751.
[62]
Wang C, Zhang X, Hann IH (2018) Socially nudged: A quasi-experimental study of friends’ social influence in online product ratings. Inform. Systems Res. 29(3):641–655.
[63]
Whitaker J, Mithas S, Krishnan MS (2010) Organizational learning and capabilities for onshore and offshore business process outsourcing. J. Management Inform. Systems 27(3):11–42.
[64]
Wilson R (1967) Bidding with asymmetric information. Management Sci. 13(11):816–820.
[65]
Wilson R (1977) A bidding model of perfect competition. Rev. Econom. Stud. 44(3):511–518.

Index Terms

  1. The Screening Role of Design Parameters for Service Procurement Auctions in Online Service Outsourcing Platforms
    Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image Information Systems Research
    Information Systems Research  Volume 33, Issue 4
    December 2022
    404 pages
    ISSN:1526-5536
    DOI:10.1287/isre.2022.33.issue-4
    Issue’s Table of Contents

    Publisher

    INFORMS

    Linthicum, MD, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 01 December 2022
    Accepted: 28 June 2022
    Received: 08 January 2020

    Author Tags

    1. auction design
    2. auction duration
    3. item description
    4. bidder entry
    5. screening
    6. outsourcing

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 0
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 22 Nov 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    View options

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media