ادغام بنگاه به بنگاه: عملیات، منافع و موانع در صنعت ارتباطات از راه دور

This paper statistically analyzes applicability of business-to-business integration (B2Bi), benefits from and barriers to electronic data interchange (EDI) and RosettaNet between major original equipment manufacturers and European operators in the telecommunications industry. Based on coordination costs and nine business processes, frequency of the business process and timeliness required in the business process have clearer positive influences on applicability of B2Bi than does accuracy required in the business process. Complexity of the business process does not have such a positive relation to this applicability. Comparison of 12 benefits and eight barriers between EDI and RosettaNet shows no considerable differences. RosettaNet yields only slightly higher direct benefits than EDI, whereas all indirect benefits from RosettaNet are significantly higher than indirect benefits from EDI. Surprisingly, barriers to RosettaNet are not lower than barriers to EDI although only a lack of knowledge on EDI or RosettaNet is a significantly higher barrier to RosettaNet.

For over three decades companies have used Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) that is the interorganizational exchange of business documents in a structured machine-processable format [14]. There is empirical evidence that EDI can save money and time [24], [32], [33], [40] and [45]. EDI is an important part of electronic business (e-business) that covers the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in all kinds of business activities. However, EDI focuses on business documents. Business-to-business (B2B) integration refers to all business activities that have to do with the electronic exchange of business documents between the companies [5]. B2B integration (B2Bi) extends EDI by emphasizing that these business documents are exchanged as electronic messages following public business processes, i.e. business processes between the companies [5]. Respectively, business processes within the company are private business processes. Standards play a key role in B2Bi [5], [30], [37] and [44]. A data format defines the data structures and data elements in general. Accredited Standards Committee X12 (ASC X12), EDI for Administration, Commerce, and Transportation (EDIFACT), and Extensible Markup Language (XML) are data formats. An e-business framework uses a data format to specify the data structures, data elements, and their purposes in the business context [36]. ASC X12 and EDIFACT are also EDI-based e-business frameworks, whereas RosettaNet is an XML-based e-business framework. The number of empirical studies on XML-based e-business frameworks is modest compared to EDI-based e-business frameworks [13]. Now, a few empirical studies [2], [3], [6], [8], [18], [26] and [28] deal with RosettaNet. Transaction costs provide an approach that has been utilized in some studies on B2Bi [13]. These studies have focused on business relationships and motivation costs in terms of asset specificity or uncertainty, while business processes and coordination costs in terms of timeliness or accuracy have received very little attention. There are findings that higher frequency of transactions or complexity of products works for B2Bi [8]. Moreover, benefits from and barriers to B2Bi have been compared much more often between different kinds of companies than between EDI-based and XML-based e-business frameworks. According to some studies, RosettaNet is superior to EDI-based e-business frameworks [18] and [28]. This paper strives to be the first study that analyzes statistically the effects of frequency, complexity, timeliness, and accuracy on B2Bi at the level of business processes, and benefits and barriers between older EDI-based and newer XML-based e-business frameworks. The telecommunications industry offers the possibility to study B2Bi in a context outside the typically studied automotive and retail industries [10], [20], [21], [24], [27], [33] and [45]. In fact, only few studies have delved B2Bi in the telecommunications industry [39]. Given the growing demand for e-business in the telecommunications industry [25] and [39], it is important to understand factors that significantly facilitate or inhibit B2Bi and especially newer XML-based e-business frameworks when original equipment manufacturers (OEM) are suppliers and operators are customers. Since B2Bi can demand considerable investments, decisions about B2Bi, i.e. which business process are supported by which e-business frameworks, should be made carefully. Three research questions arise over B2Bi. How frequency or complexity of the business process or timeliness or accuracy required in the business process affects applicability of B2Bi? Are benefits from RosettaNet higher than benefits from EDI? Are barriers to RosettaNet lower than barriers to EDI? In this paper, EDI refers to certain EDI-based e-business frameworks, i.e. ASC X12, EDIFACT, EDI Forum for Companies with Interests in Computing, Electronics, and Telecommunication (EDIFICE), and Electronics Industry Data Interchange (EIDX), which have been used in the telecommunications industry. B2Bi covers both EDI and RosettaNet. The paper proceeds by introducing B2Bi, coordination costs, EDI and RosettaNet, the telecommunications industry, business processes, and benefits and barriers. Next, the paper presents the research approach which is based on the survey data of perceptions and the statistical analysis of sample means. Then, the paper studies one factor measuring and four factors explaining applicability of B2Bi in nine business processes, and 12 benefits from and eight barriers to EDI and RosettaNet. The factors explaining applicability are based on coordination costs [29], [31], [50] and [51]. The benefits and barriers partly follow some empirical studies [4], [12], [20] and [34]. Finally, the paper discusses contributions, limitations, and further research, and presents conclusions

After statistically analyzing applicability of B2Bi in nine business processes between major OEMs and European operators, and 12 benefits from and eight barriers to EDI, i.e. ASC X12, EDIFACT, EDIFICE, and EIDX, and RosettaNet in the telecommunications industry, this paper provides three findings. Firstly, B2Bi is more/less applicable in more/less frequent business processes requiring higher/lower timeliness and accuracy. However, accuracy required in the business process does not influence applicability as strongly as frequency of the business process and timeliness required in the business process. Like higher frequency of transactions [8], higher frequency of the business process facilitate B2Bi. For a part of timeliness and accuracy required in the business process, this paper presents completely new findings. We anticipated that complexity of the business process has a positive effect on applicability but we did not observe evidence for this. Unlike higher complexity of products [8], higher complexity of the business process does not facilitate B2Bi. In the telecommunications industry, B2Bi is most applicable in order creation and payment but least applicable in collaborative design. In addition, shipment and ticketing are more applicable business processes, while product configuration, collaborative forecasting, inventory reporting, and product information are not. As there exists a multi-criteria method for selection of an e-business framework [7], an approach to evaluation of B2Bi in different business processes seems to have been missing. The paper provides such an approach to the telecommunications industry. We suggest that the analysis of frequency, timeliness, and accuracy in business processes is also useful in other industries when business partners plan B2Bi. Secondly, benefits from RosettaNet are higher than benefits from EDI as we expected. Improved speed, reduced errors, and reduced manual workload were regarded as the main benefits from B2Bi. Thirdly, we were surprised that barriers to RosettaNet are not lower than barriers to EDI. A lack of EAI and a lack of e-business expertise were perceived as the major barriers to B2Bi. The benefits from RosettaNet have to be much higher than the barriers to RosettaNet. Otherwise, RosettaNet would not have gained a footing in the telecommunications industry. We did not find statistically significant differences in benefits and barriers between EDI and RosettaNet, except for all indirect benefits such as enabling new business models and supporting BPR, and a lack of knowledge on EDI or RosettaNet. This reflects that RosettaNet might not be that superior to EDI as proposed in the literature [18] and [28]. Therefore, it should be no surprise that EDI is still alive and well [2].